Talk:Xombrero/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contested deletion

This article should not be speedily deleted for A7 as it is out of the scope: it is about software, not real person, individual animal(s), organization, real person, or web content.

Please don't abuse the rules, route through AfD process instead, if You really want this out. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:37, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Sufficient consensus to move into mainspace, where article will have to stand on its merits. Mike Cline (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

---

User:Czarkoff/drafts/Xxxterm → xxxterm – This page used to be userfied as an outcome of AfD‎ due to lack of notability. Since then I've added a reliable source, which (in combination with other sources per WP:NSOFT) legitimates this article's existence in the article namespace. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

By 'added a reliable source', you mean the article you wrote and posted on OSNews? Can you detail what kind of fact checking and/or editorial review that went through? - MrOllie (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

OSNews is widely considered a reliable source. As described in the respective Wikipedia article their submission policy requires the material by external editors to be approved by the editors (notice, that I'm not listed there). My submission was fact-checked by Thom Holwerda, and subsequently published nearly 6 hours after his response to my submission. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:17, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your information. This sounds very similar to slashdot's model. Other people who run across this discussion may be interested in this Thread about a very similar situation - MrOllie (talk) 16:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually the discussion You've linked criticise Slashdot for lack of editorial oversight, which is the opposite of the OSNews policy. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Although I'd consider OSNews a reliable source with some measure of independent editorial review, I still want to see a little more coverage (by third parties or in additional publications) before mainspacing this. Needs time. Dcoetzee 21:33, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Added some more refs with one of them being a news item on Czech news site Root.cz. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

• Move back I think that the current references are adequate for notability purposes. Alessandra Napolitano (talk) 02:05, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
• Move back (as initiator of request). The article of ~2200 characters has 16 refs with OSNews, Root.cz, Undeadly and OpenBSD FAQ among them. That's more then needed to satisfy WP:NSOFT. Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
• No move, the new references simply aren't reliable: the OSNews is selfpublished and the root.cz as can see here is also unreliable + very short. I still don't see any notability because of the lack of third party (and reliable) references. If you want to discuss if the sources are reliable, then please go to WP:RS/N. mabdul 15:23, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
  • OSNews isn't self-published. I just submitted the article, it could be rejected if editors thought it wasn't worth. Instead it was corrected — it is slightly different from what I sent. And why do You consider Root.cz unreliable? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 16:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
    • As I already said: I won't discuss if the OSNews article can be considered as reliable. The root.cz contains usergenerated content. (as you can see if you click on the authors link of that "blog" message: there are no information about the author nor is the entry really long. I also don't want to discuss if root.cz (or better saying this link) is reliable. Please again: go to WP:RS/N and start a new discussion if these links can be considered as reliable since I don't speak cz and thus I have never heard of that page before. mabdul 17:44, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
      • About Root.cz: this situation is supposed to covered by WP:NEWSBLOG, isn't it? I see no author link at all. May be this is because I open it with lynx? Anyway, the author is one of OpenBSD developers with commit access (jirib@), so he should pass per WP:SPS... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
        • XXXTerm: new browser based on WebKit 25th Second 2010 10:16 George Bělka Tags: webkit with a link on his name to http://www.root.cz/uzivatel/132119/ containing defacto 0 information. mabdul 20:42, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
          • OK. And what does it tell us about Root.cz editorial overview and reliability? I used to be an editor (with right to overview and accept material) on two sites considered WP:RS on Russian Wikipedia, but in one case I had no profile and in other case it was similar to this one. It's a matter of personal preferences. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
      • I've started the thread on WP:RS/N, nobody came to call any of those sources unreliable. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Relisted Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:57, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

• Comment: Now with LWN.net ref, which no way depends on me. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

  How much does the article say? I don't have access to it. – Pnm (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

  It will be publicly available on December 22. I would propose to wait these 3 days. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

• Restore, per inclusion with major distros and coverage in rs.Smallman12q (talk) 18:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
• Restore per the OSnews and LWN sources, provided the LWN source provides significant coverage as well. In the future I urge Czarkoff to disclose that he's published the source himself instead of just saying "I've added a reliable source." – Pnm (talk) 23:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
  • I announced this fact in the AfD‎ (and called for the participants, You can see they came first), [[requested comments in WP:RS/N and in citation I stated my name as it is shown on Wikipedia (as opposed to my OSNews nickname ddc_ as attributed on the site). I do really believe I properly disclosed my authorship. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 23:41, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Reliability of self-published blog

Czarkoff, in this edit, you removed the "unreliable source" tag I had placed on a reference to this blog post.

You wrote, "see WP:NSOFT for reliability of WP:SPS in software articles." WP:NSOFT says, "while primary/self-published citations may be used to verify information in an article, they do not establish notability." That is true, but it doesn't override the policy for the use of self-published sources, and it's not a license to use blog posts as sources in software articles. Unless the blogger is a published expert in the field, or the fact is about him/herself, that site isn't usable as a reference.

Whereas a WP:ESSAY has no official status, WP:V is a WP:POLICY which normally should be followed. – Pnm (talk) 20:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I read the word normally as "unless common sense dictates otherwise". This reference was brought to prove that "browser is sometimes considered as a good choice for old and low-end hardware" The blog is an adequate source for the claim, specifically taken relatively to the topic coverage. Please also note, that most software-related articles (including several GAs) heavily rely on blogs. P.S.: I'm not sure that Wikipedia-wide policies should enjoy precedence over topic-wide long-standing essays. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I checked the policy text. The hatnote implies my reading by linking word normally to WP:COMMON. Please also note, that per WP:NOESSAY and WP:NSOFT's editing history one can conclude, that WP:NSOFT details policy, not contradicts it. This reading can be further proved by the fact that WP:SPS attributes self-published sources as usually unreliable. Thus WP:NSOFT explains, what the word usually means in context of software. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

My common sense tells me not that not everything on the Internet is true and personal blogs are bad sources for encyclopedias. WP:SPS doesn't stop at "usually"; it goes on, and I even listed the cases here: (1) Blogger is a published expert in the field (2) The cited fact is about the blogger. It even says "if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." Using sub-par sources to substantiate trivial points isn't what encyclopedias should be about.

The essay we're talking about has nothing to do with identifying reliable sources: it's about notability. The lead explains its scope: it's about WP:N; it doesn't seek to expound upon WP:V. Nothing in content-area guidelines, essays, or style manuals should undermine the core: neutral point of view, no original research, and verifiability. If facts in software GA's rely on personal blogs, they need better referencing. – Pnm (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

What are You trying to prove? The matter in question is covered to some degree by all sources (lightwieght = demands less performance). The best source about what sometimes is said is someone saying that. I thought it's pretty evident. Just as evident as that the section called Reliability and significance of sources tells about reliability. And the same way evident as the fact that WP:SPS explicitly prohibits only using self-published sources in BLP. If You don't like something, it isn't a sufficient reason to blank it. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

And a note about "not everything on the Internet is true". The WP:V reads: "[t]he threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". This way blogs are no way worse then other sources, including those presumed to check facts. When the software is in question, the reliable sources cite anonymous persons connected with company X, the blogs, the tweets [sic!]... That's exactly why every policy has a link to WP:COMMON in the hatnote: none of the policies isn't prone to damaging articles if applied the way You force it here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I am arguing that this blog post is an unreliable source, and should not be used to cite any facts in this article. – Pnm (talk) 03:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

As You might have noticed, I consider this blog an adequate reference fir what it references. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:10, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Would you like to try to resolve this with a third opinion? – Pnm (talk) 19:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

This source is unreliable based on wikipedia policy. However, based on what appears to be a history of using SPS to verify information in software articles, some clarity on the issue is lost. In my mind, there's a clear policy in place: this source is unreliable. If either of you would like to take the issue beyond implementing wikipedia's current policy, I think there's a case to be made. Johnathlon (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Xxxtermicon.png Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Xxxtermicon.png, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 03:24, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

This seems an obvious copyright infringement of this image and I don't see how it helps a reader to identify the software. The project's website doesn't even use this image, so inclusion in the repository is dubious evidence of it being such. In whatever case, it seems more confusing than helpful. – Pnm (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Actually I don't see a copyright infringement. It's a reference to the file with no direct copying. Please also note that it survived the process. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Was there a discussion somewhere? Wasn't it only deleted because it needed to move to Commons? It's a cropped version of this product image. Unless the owner of that image had licensed the image under a BSD-compatible license, or which I highly doubt the studio would have allowed them to do, I don't see how this could be considered fair use of either that photo or of the design from the film. In general I take a software distributor's word on their ownership and license of what they publish, but it couldn't possibly be the case here. I nominated it for deletion – Pnm (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

We can simply ignore the fact that the image might be copyrighted usinge the {{PD-text}} license! (See also Commons:COM:TOO) mabdul 10:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd love to, but are You sure that the soap photo can be considered a "simple geometric shape"? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:55, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I talked to some commons admins: there is a simple rule: if the images uses 3D effects, it is simply not pd-text. :( mabdul 19:15, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I expected something like this... — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 20:20, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible neutrality issues

At times this page has phrasing that makes it seem more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic entry. If this does survive the AfD process, it will have to be heavily edited to make it more encyclopedic and less like it was written by someone marketing for the company.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 05:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

What exactly is non-neutral? I'm sure I didn't try to advertise it, so I would be thankful for any hints. Why did You not add a subtemplate to "multiple issues"? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:55, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

This article has come a long way. And much of that is due to the insistence of User:Czarkoff that it continue to exist. Clearly Czarkoff's contributions are valued in the wikipedia community.

Personally, I see this article as barely meeting wikipedia's notability guidelines (if it in fact does so). Just a month ago, it was agreed that this article didn't meet wikipedia's mainspace standards. It very quickly returned to mainspace with Czarkoff's insistent campaigning and a link to an article from a source that itself has a hard time on wikipedia finding independent sources.

I don't think it's appropriate to nominate this article for deletion, but I think it is appropriate to inform readers who may not look at the talk page to see the history of non-neutrality observations. I think despite this article's recent entry into the wikipedia mainspace, I think a notability tag is appropriate. To be clear: while the outcome of the move request was to move the article into the mainspace, the outcome of the move request was not to declare that the article required no work to satisfy the notability requirements or that a notability tag was inappropriate. Further, the outcome of the move was that the article must "stand [on its merits]".

I think it is non-controversial to say "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view. Please discuss further on the talk page." But maybe I'm wrong.

I believe it is probable that this article will remain on wikipedia for perhaps as long as a few years and I'm not willing to campaign for it to be deleted. However, I believe a warning to users is appropriate in this case. Agree or Disagree? Johnathlon (talk) 09:55, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty tired of weasel wordings. What exactly is my interest that conflicts with WP:NPOV? There are two things connecting me with xxxterm: I wrote one of the references (after the article's creation; and my article was published in modified form by independent editor) and I use it. Where is the conflict of interests? The wonderful example of the WP:NPOV issues in the article is that You replaced my words about low popularity of xxxterm with the words about niche position.

The notability threshold is passed not only with my ref, but also with an LWN.net's article. LWN.net (regardless of the status of the Wikipedia article on it) is one of the most reputable sources about Unix-like systems ever existed. In fact, there are six most reputable sources on the topic: Ars Technica, CNet, LWN.net, OSNews, Phoronix and ZDNet (with CNet and ZDNet balancing on the margin of amateurishness). Two of six are supporting the article. So there can be no possible concerns about the browser's notability.

In the end, anyone can walk through the template:web browsers and see the effective standards of browsers' referencing. It won't take long to see that this article is referenced above the standard level. Even not taking in account that the majority of editors involved with it either only talk or commit minor edits with only me actually writing anything.

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your prompt reply Czarkoff. Your opinion on this matter would never be in question. I am trying to solicit the opinions of editors besides you because I believe that you have the appearance of a conflict of interest (which is different from NPOV or rather lack thereof in this case) on this issue. Appearance of a COI is the standard required for the template.

However, with regard to your defense of this article's notability: your defense of this article's notability based on your own standards (ie "most reputable source ... that ever existed", "six most reputable sources" (including a self-published source that you wrote), and referenced elsewhere in wikipedia) rather than on community respected standards is unhelpful. And again, I'm not proposing that this article be deleted or returned to your namespace, I am proposing that this article contain a template to inform readers of various issues that have been noted multiple times by other editors. I'm flexible on what that template could be. Perhaps we could go back to the [index.php?title=Xxxterm&oldid=462691746 multiple issues] template?

Finally, I am not campaigning for a point of view nor am I trying to have a debate with Czarkoff, I'm trying to establish community concensus. I will wait for another editor to join this discussion prior to replying. Johnathlon (talk) 20:40, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to try to reach consensus on these issues and to fix any remaining POV problems.

1. I agree that Czarkoff has a conflict of interest with this article because the article's notability depends on a source he wrote. That source was published after the article was userfied at Afd. As a contributor and reader, I find the apparent course of action distasteful: a Wikipedia contributor gets his own material published elsewhere so he can return to Wikipedia and cite it. Yes, the subsequent edits satisfied the letter of WP:V, WP:NOR, and WP:N, but the cycle seems contrary to Wikipedia's status as a tertiary source: a publisher of material which has already been published elsewhere. WP:SELFCITE in the COI guidelines addresses self-citation directly but doesn't consider the possibility of contributors writing secondary-source material in order to satisfy Wikipedia policy. I went to the trouble of creating a new banner {{Citation by contributor}} to place on the talk page, which I support leaving in place as long as the citation remains. It alerts savvy readers and contributors to the possibility of a conflict of interest, and informs any deletion discussion.
2. The article Czarkoff wrote was self-cited, but not self-published. It was published by OSNews which meets Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. I believe LWN.net also meets the criteria. Assuming that is the case, and possible COI notwithstanding, LWN + OSNews sources satisfy the general notability guideline and indicate that the topic may be appropriate for inclusion.
3. As in the discussion below, I strongly disagree with relaxing Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources when writing about certain topics. I think it's a "but I like it" rationale. If certain details can only be verified using sub-par sources, they should be excluded. If reliable sources do not say anything significant about a topic, it should be excluded. Regardless of the topic, contributors should not ignore content policies and guidelines just because satisfactory sources are non-existent or difficult to find. Other stuff exists: if other software articles rely on unreliable sources, they should be fixed, too.
4. I think the {{COI}} banner is reasonable right now, but given that cleanup banners are for cleanup, not indefinite alerts, it's necessary to identify the problematic content. When the existing problems are fixed, the talk page banner is adequate to alert readers and contributors to the possibility of future problems. I see five possibly neutrality-related sourcing problems with the article's content:
   1. Still cites K.Mandla's self-published blog post, despite this discussion
   2. "Default" browser in ConnochaetOS is not supported by sources
   3. "Growing interest in Debian" is original research
   4. "Gained popularity within OpenBSD community" stretches the source to say something obvious in a non-neutral way. (The software was developed for OpenBSD, so obviously it would have gained popularity in that community first. Source (by Czarkoff) uses the phrase "popular enough," but that isn't the same as saying it was popular.)
   5. Vervloesem quote in Reception is presented from a positive POV. To be neutral, I would omit the direct quote, and use the source as a citation to the sentence on command mode in the "User interface" section.

– Pnm (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting involved Pnm. I agree that there is something pretty questionable about an editor writing a secondary source after a deletion to satisfy policy.

Thanks for your work on getting the talk page banner up. And sorry for my misunderstanding of the OS News reliability. I thought that it was user-generated content. Further, I now see where you were coming from with regard to the blog post. Precedent doesn't overule policy (wp:OTHERSTUFF).

I understand the {{COI}} banner must be temporary.

Finally with regard to the points you brought up:

1. Dmitrij went against community opinions and wikipedia policy by moving the unreliable source within the article instead of deleting it.
2. "Default Browser" claim is unverified by the source cited. The world default is not listed anywhere. Simply because a browser is included in an OS does not make it default.
3. Agreed.

4 and 5 are undisputed by Dmitrij or myself.

I think your implication is that these 5 POV faults demonstrate a pattern, which taken together with the strangely timed publishing of an article by Dmitrij amount to a conflict of interest because the contributor has taken action outside wikipedia which seems to promote the subject of the article.

Pnm am I correct? And what do you see as a way forward on this issue? wp:RfC?

Dmitrij do you understand how someone could think that?

Johnathlon (talk) 12:06, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Since when including only one browser doesn't make it default? Well, probably since the same time as writing about something is promoting it. I'm just curious about the phrase "Dmitrij do you understand how someone could think that?" Was it supposed to have any meaning? If so, which one? I guess someone might think something, which would widely differ from someone to someone. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

1. Nice that You established concensus, but I still didn't and Wikipedia is still WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Either of You fails to specify the nature of the assumed conflict of interest. The linked essay states: A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. So the question You fail to answer is: how do my interests differ from that of producing "a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia"? Until You are able to answer, Your position boils down to I like this template here, which is more of a personal attack.
2. As far as I can see, all of the article is backed up with unquestionably reliable sources.
3. There is no policy that limits the amount of sources. If You don't like all sources but OSNews and LWN.net, it doesn't mean they should be removed. Regardless of any discussions.
4. About the points:
   1. See above.
   2. Supported by the references (currently #2 - the release announcement of the ConnochaetOS - and #14).
   3. It is backed up with a source showing a nice graphics of the growing interest.
   4. So what is the wording You like? AFAIK, the article is not protected: change the wording.
   5. So why didn't You do it?

P.S.: though You might have missed that, but I have a name. Is it obligatory to address me with surname?

Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

My apologies Dmitrij, I was referring to your username. I would like to reiterate that I am not trying to debate. I am not trying to advocate a specific viewpoint. I have simply shared my viewpoint and I would like to work to establish a concensus viewpoint, preferably including your input, Dmitrij. Concensus does not mean a personal attack against you, nor does it mean an attempt to vote a particular viewpoint into practice. Do you understand?

Johnathlon (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I also want to establish a consensus. Still I really believe that there should be some grounds for changes in the content. Eg., added text should be referenced, text removal should be based on policy violation or added alert template should reflect the reasonable concerns over policy violation. I can't see any relevance between the fact that I wrote one of the references and the proposed template:COI inclusion, as I see no conflict of interests as it is defined in a guideline. I really wouldn't mind such template if either You or Pnm actually explain, what interests are in conflict. I don't try to own this article and guard it from changes as You might think, I just want to avoid unreasonable changes. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 10:22, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm glad we're on the same page. Clearly, changes in content should be based on policy or guideline. Do you agree or disagree that multiple editors have written on the talk page and/or in editing comments that this page is in some ways not written from a neutral point of view? Johnathlon (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes, 2 editors argue neutrality. But this isuue is easier resolved by editing the (assumed) POV sections. Placing templates doesn't make text more neutral, or does it? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

OK, I think we're having a stalemate here. To find a way out, I currently blank out two section containing all the controversial material and ask for Your suggestions. How do You see their content in neutral way? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I have only minor reservations about to the article in its current form. If it stays like this, I don't think any templates are needed. This article has improved a lot.

I looked over the Adoption and I wasn't able to find a reference that was reliable (kmandla, hatena-diary, root.cz) or that wouldn't require original research to offer meaningful information to include in the article (debian-popcon, freebsd-port, gentoo-package, ubuntu-package).

The reception section doesn't seem to be needed. I added a sentence on adoption/reception into the lead.

I admire your commitment to this article Dmitrij, and I'm sorry if I offended you in this discussion. Johnathlon (talk) 11:15, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I converted the list in "User interface" section to prose (per WP:MOSSAL). In the current form the article is OK for me, though I'm not sure that the lead's wording makes it clear enough that the browser isn't as widespread as, say, Epiphany or Midori. Anyway, I think that the current consensus (unless Pnm or Mabdul disagree) is that the article doesn't need further editing unless new reviews in reliable media are published. (Of course I'll keep update the version info.) P.S.: nobody offended me here, and I would like to apologize if somebody feels offended by me. If so, it wasn't intentional. P.P.S.: Why do You think reporting popcon statistics is WP:OR? I don't insist on its inclusion, just curious. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 12:00, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think reporting the statistics is OR, I think making verbal generalizations is. For example saying "In December of 2011 the number of submitters grew to nearly 160" is not OR, saying "The browser has seen a marked growing interest in December of 2011" is OR because the former is explicitly verified by the source, while the latter is an idea that is not present in the source, though it stems logically from the information in the source. My 2 cents Johnathlon (talk) 21:02, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

I would prefer the second wording (regardless of content) as it presents the source more accurately. Anyway, we don't need this currently, and we can discuss it when we'll need something of a kind. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 22:12, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

break

adding headline for better editing
tldr (the stuff above): I just reread the references and the article. I really can't understand why you both are arguing about: Yes, indeed Czarkoff has a "COI" issue since he wrote one ref, but that is correctly tagged here at the talkpage. The rest of the references are independent from him and there are enough references which show notability, coverages on web sites. Since the two problematic sections were already removed. Any problems now to solve? (Hopefully I will follow up the conversation now) mabdul 02:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

As I see it, now we are in phase of consensus found (though Pnm didn't reply yet. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

COI check

I am both the main contributor to this article and the author of the following source:

• Czarkoff, Dmitrij (2011-12-05), "Introduction: xxxterm Web Browser", OSNews, retrieved 2011-12-05

Please, review the article and edit as needed and/or raise the concerns you believe require the attention in this thread. If you see no issues with the article, please just remove the {{COI-check}} from there and {{DNAU}} output from this thread's first line. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 14:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion this article is not biased. — Pilamipolima (talk) 20:25, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I am removing the tag. AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:22, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

xxxterm was renamed to xombrero

As I've seen xxxterm has been renamed to xombrero. Thus I created a xombrero-article which content is mainly this article. In my opinion the xxxterm article could be a redirect to the xombrero-article. Do you have any doubts about that? — Pilamipolima (talk) 20:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, though I believe that differences between xombrero and this page should be merged back here and then this page should be moved to xombrero. This is needed to preserve editing history. – Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 08:07, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

I've merged the content and wanted to move this article, but because of the xombrero-article already exists it can't be moved. The xombrero-article needs to be deleted, but I can't do it ... Pilamipolima (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done An administrator deleted the old xombrero-article and I've completed the move. Great work! AgadaUrbanit (talk) 17:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Userbox

I made a userbox for this browser:

{{User:Czarkoff/userboxes/xombrero}}

This user contributes using
xombrero web browser.

Transclusions

Users of xombrero are welcome to use this userbox. Note, it automatically categorizes user pages within Category:Wikipedians who use xombrero. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

About “AdSuck recommendation”

I removed this from the article:

An ad filtering feature is intentionally absent from Xombrero. The authors recommend using the ad-filtering proxy AdSuck for such purpose.

The reference actually says this:

Then for the longest time Firefox was really the only viable solution. It works well enough so that one sticks with it but the irritants started to build up. At times it was unstable, new features replaced well working old ones etc. But first and foremost, it got slower and slower. As a result of that I wrote a DNS spoofer called adsuck.

First, it's not even about Xombrero, it's about Firefox (which he used before he started XXXTerm then later Xombrero), and second, it's not a recommendation. Wikipedia should learn getting ride of political propaganda. --Hibou57 (talk) 10:42, 4 January 2016 (UTC)