Is the Babylon Toolbar still included, or is this info there for removing it when installed by a previous versions of BlueGriffon? - Lopifalko ( talk) 10:01, (UTC) Reply This is still there only for people who catch a 1.6.2 installer from an unofficial repository. Glazou ( talk) 09:45, (UTC) - Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.118.184.70 ( talk) Reply The malware section has no *reliable* sources so shouldn't be there anyway - Lopifalko ( talk) 09:54, (UTC) Reply still says "How to remove Babylon if you need it", implying that the Babylon Toolbar is still incorporated in the installer. I would appreciate if someone could tweak that section to reflect the above or even remove it since it's not longer relevant. The installer for 1.7 is clean and has no third-party add-ons.
Bluegriffon wikipedia software#
I have decided to end that contract when I noticed silent installs and undesirable software like toolbars hard to delete or modifying user preferences in browsers. *They* controlled what was installed with BlueGriffon's installer, not me. I ack'd the fact I had a contract with a company bundling thirs-party software with the BlueGriffon installer. I never acknowledged the fact I included the Delta toolbar, this is totally wrong. There is an error in the "Malware" section. Glazou ( talk) 08:27, 03 February 2013 (UTC) Reply Malware section Could someone please remove Mozilla as developer in the colophon? BlueGriffon uses Mozilla XULRunner but Mozilla (Corp or Foundation) is not at all a developer of this software. Glazou ( talk) 16:52, 09 November 2010 (UTC) -Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.96.19 ( talk) Reply SC ( talk) 19:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Reply Terrillja, please do remove the close connection banner.
If that is the case then the "close connection" banner can be removed. Terrillja, you say "I believe that I have removed the content that is clearly in violation".
Bluegriffon wikipedia free#
Any other users that would like further clarification of this comment, feel free to email me.- Terrillja talk 17:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Reply We have lots of articles on Mozilla projects, I'm sure that someone of your expertise could be a great asset in improving those.- Terrillja talk 16:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Reply You also might want to consider that making uncivil comments on external sites don't help your claim of genuinely wanting to work to improve the encyclopedia. If you want to be clear of COI, then the best way to do so is to propose changes on the talkpage (this page), otherwise any questionable edits could be construed as spamming, as well as to contribute to something other than articles you are related to, as you currently appear to be a WP:SPA. Inserting a link to your blog where you have a 100% promotional post is a violation of WP:ELNO #11. If it said "It also supports CSS 2.1, and all parts of CSS 3 already implemented by Gecko.", that's neutral and fine. The problem is things like "It also offer support for CSS 2.1, and all parts of CSS 3 already implemented by Gecko without requiring deep technical knowledge of the underlying Web Standards." Factual, yes, promotional, yes. Glazou ( Glazou) 16:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Reply Haha, a new web editor isn't the slightest threat to what I do. So please tell us what's the point ranting again? Just apply the policy for the policy w/o being even _a little bit_ pragmatic? Or do you have yourself some kind of conflict of interest and BlueGriffon itself represents a threat for you, your work, your employer, whatever? I just do not understand you at all, sorry. Nobody stood up to add those data EVEN IF contributions to the deletion page were added, so I added them and they're not questionable. But **you** are the one who requested more data and more references to stop deleting this page. Even w/o the wikipedia policies, I am myself reluctant to edit an article about my own work. There is not one single subjective piece of information added. Terrillja talk 16:58, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Reply all my additions to the page are strictly factual, and verifiable. Which parts are you referring to? SC ( talk) 14:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Reply I believe that I have removed the content that is clearly in violation, but I will have to take another look.
Reference "It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view." Yes, Daniel clarified the results of the 2010 Open World Forum.
contribs) have identified themselves as Daniel Glazman, the author of the software and between the two of them, some spammy material was added.- Terrillja talk 14:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Reply.Could this assertion be substantiated please? SC ( talk) 10:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC) Reply Both Glazou ( talk
Reference "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject".
0 kommentar(er)
