User talk:schapel

Hello, Schapel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Flockmeal 05:54, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Acid3 Performance criterion

If there is no independent and reliable source (other than somebody testing him/herself and making some claim which can be true or not), why lets not skip the Performance criterion from this section?

I believe that saying "This overview does not take the Performance criterion into account because of the lack of reliable and independent sources to verify that a full pass claim is valid." in the introduction is a fair way to deal with this unclear situation (which has been a controversy here ever since the first browser made a full pass claim).

BTW, IMO this section has always been very biased, and most likely people have tried to make "their" browser look better by somehow trying to justify a full pass claim. --DeTru711 (talk) 22:14, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly are reliable sources in that section. It's also not biased at all; I have in fact tested the browsers and I can verify the information was true. If you like, we can change all unverified claims to ? and add citation needed tags. I have left the information for which we have unreliable sources. If you think they are unreliable, there is a process for claiming so. This was done with the sources for Chrome and Safari, and they passed. -- Schapel (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If there are reliable (and independent; statements by browser manufacturers themselves are not independent and also not reliable) sources, then please find them and provide the reference in the article. As long as that's not the case, lets please skip the Performance part at all.

My introduction "This overview does not take the Performance criterion into account because of the lack of reliable and independent sources to verify that a full pass claim is valid." makes it very clear that the Performance criterion is still part of a test, but that only this section of the Wikipedia article does not take it into account, due to its controversial nature.

As for Rendering, the test itself is a reliable source (the rendering will be the same for all users with fresh installations of the browsers, while performance results vary across hardware and other factors).--DeTru711 (talk) 22:21, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In the review process I mentioned, it was determined that they are reliable sources, so you are quite simply incorrect that they are unreliable. It is also only your opinion that it is controversial -- you may not add your personal opinions to Wikipedia. The rendering itself is not a reliable source, because it must be interpreted; I think Firefox still does not pass the rendering aspect because it displays the favicon incorrectly. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and the details of the Acid3 test. Thanks. -- Schapel (talk) 22:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have won. I am out. I will never make any more contributions or donations to Wikipedia again and you can be proud of this achievements. Good luck on your way further to destroying Wikipedia. I will not stop you anymore. --DeTru711 (talk) 03:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we still have a case of WP:BITE (@Schapel). DeTru711, disagreements are part of Wikipedia. The test is not a reliable source, in my opinion - so find another.Jasper Deng (talk) 03:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not find another. I will not degrade myself to go looking for blog articles of browser manufacturers that claim "woohooo, we passed the Acid3 test" when the evidence is found right in the test itself.

Schapel shall go ahead and get his religious beliefs into the article. Like all the many times he has done it before when others (previously often about Opera which also has been fully passing for a long time, but never got the full deserved credits; I'm not an Opera user BTW) correctly disagreed and said that this stuff is biased. Schapel won again, congratulations! (and I promise not to revert it again). Make the update, Schapel, you are the hero of the day.--DeTru711 (talk) 06:04, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No one but you is saying anything about bias or controversy. There are people who think browsers pass Acid3 when it gets a score of 100%. They simply "jump the gun" and don't check their facts. I checked Opera, Firefox, and IE, and they quite simply don't pass the performance aspect of the test. Opera and Firefox are close, but IE is far from passing. By the way, I use Firefox and think Chrome is still too buggy to use; but it does pass Acid3 fully. -- Schapel (talk) 11:02, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes big hero, you have won and this is my last comment that I will ever make on Wikipedia before I leave for good. It is assholes like you who are destroying Wikipedia. Sources count more than facts and if somebody makes up a source to change the facts (like Safari and Google did with their own blog posts), it still counts more than facts. That's how you and many other editors think and that's making me sick.

So long, big hero. I hope you are really proud of yourself for your big achievement and I hope you feel like a real winner. In the future you'll have to win against others because there will not be any contributions from me anymore which you can revert. --DeTru711 (talk) 13:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to add the facts, but you removed them. The Safari and Google blogs you mention have been deemed reliable sources, and there is agreement that they are not self-published or self-serving. You are welcome to go to the reliable sources noticeboard and discuss the matter further. But if you're not willing to work within the system, I think not contributing is your best option. -- Schapel (talk) 13:57, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to events: bot, template, and Gadget makers wanted

I thought you might want to know about some upcoming events where you can learn more about MediaWiki customization and development, extending functionality with JavaScript, the future of ResourceLoader and Gadgets, the new Lua templating system, how to best use the web API for bots, and various upcoming features and changes. We'd love to have power users, bot maintainers and writers, and template makers at these events so we can all learn from each other and chat about what needs doing.

Check out the Chennai event in March, the Berlin hackathon in June, the developers' days preceding Wikimania in July in Washington, DC, or any other of our events.

Best wishes! - Sumana Harihareswara, Wikimedia Foundation's Volunteer Development Coordinator. Please reply on my talk page, here or at mediawiki.org. Sumanah (talk) 15:03, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Internet Barnstar
		For your work and effort to keep Comparison of web browsers up to date! mabdul 18:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Acid3

Sir I was working on the Acid3 page can I edit the page without being disordered?

And Chrome must be on the page to let see all user that Chrome has fully passed Acid3 test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remzicavdar (talk • contribs) 12:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Chrome is already on the page, saying it passed. You are adding it to the section on browser that do not pass, so you are saying it doesn't pass. Please don't do that. Thanks! -- Schapel (talk) 12:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay I will make a section of passed browsers, so could you leave this job to me?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remzicavdar (talk • contribs) 12:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is already a section for browsers that pass. Please don't change it radically. It took long time to reach an agreement about how it should be. Thanks! -- Schapel (talk) 12:52, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Firefox article needs you!

Your edits have been dearly missed at the Firefox article. Come back! Thanks! ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 00:28, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I'm far too busy these days to meanfully contribute to such a heavily edited article. I hang out in lightly edited articles, making sure they don't deteriorate. -- Schapel (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

License agreement of Internet Explorer 9

Hello, Schapel

I received your message. Internet Explorer is both MS-EULA and freeware. "MS-EULA" means it is licensed by Microsoft. Freeware means it is can be used free of charge but not changed. In another word, "MS-EULA" is the internal long word for "license". Freeware is the type.

Another user and I had this discussion and in the end decided to use "freeware". See User talk:Codename Lisa § Freeware and MS EULA.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. To address this issue once and for all, I have opened a discussion thread in Talk:Internet Explorer 9 § MS-EULA again. You might like to participate, in case you are still not satisfied. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Internet Explorer". Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 23:08, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Michigan Wikipedians

Greetings Schapel! I noticed that you made mention of the University of Michigan or Ann Arbor on your userpage. If you are a current student, faculty, or other affiliate at the University of Michigan, I would like to welcome you, on behalf of the Michigan Wikipedians, to our next weekly meeting on Monday September 30 (and every Monday thereafter). The meetings are held at 8:00 PM (EDT) in the University of Michigan Shapiro Library, room 4041. New and experienced editors alike are most welcome. Do not hesitate to leave me a message if you have any questions, and feel free to stop by the MWiki talk page. The Michigan Wikipedians are excited to meet you! Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 00:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Acid3: Back From The Vat

Sorry about the title. :-) But it sounds like this sub-section has been a bit of a horror movie. I've made some revisions, and would like to make some more. Are you still interested in the comparison article? If so, please review my adustments, and if possible comment on the article talkpage about the plans I have (in particular for condensing three current tables into two). Thanks. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 04:24, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nondeterministic algorithm, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Guess (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Latest preview release

A template you created has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Primefac (talk) 01:05, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Latest preview software release/Amaya

Template:Latest preview software release/Amaya has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 07:44, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Latest stable software release/Netscape Communicator

Template:Latest stable software release/Netscape Communicator has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:32, 29 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]