Talk:Pale Moon/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Pale Moon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Compatibility with Firefox extensions and plug-ins

I changed a single word in the article, but I anticipate having to defend my edit. The article had said, "Because it is a fork of Firefox, Pale Moon is compatible with most Firefox extensions and plug-ins." That may have been the case in the past, but it is no longer true because the two browsers have grown further and further apart with each new respective version, and extension and plug-in compatibility between the two browsers continues to decrease. Therefore I changed the word "most" to "many."

If you don't believe me, feel free to fire up Pale Moon yourself and head on over to Mozilla's page for Firefox extensions and plug-ins (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/extensions/?sort=users). It is plain to see that the majority of Firefox extensions and plug-ins are no longer compatible with the latest versions of Pale Moon. Pale Moon indicates their incompatibility by graying out those extensions and plug-ins. I know "OMG original research!" is just the worst thing ever, but please use some common trucking sense here before you swing your wiki weight and revert my correct and true edit.

If you don't feel like firing up Pale Moon yourself to have a look, here's a screenshot of how Pale Moon views the top Firefox add-ons on Oct. 19, 2016 (quantified according to their user base): http://i.imgur.com/G5UUhFw.png

As you can see, only two of the top six add-ons are compatible with Pale Moon. This view is not an isolated instance of add-on incompatibility between Pale Moon and Firefox. Please do not make me belabor the point with screenshots of all 900 pages or so of Firefox add-ons. You will see the majority of Firefox add-ons are not compatible with Pale Moon.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by InternetIsSeriousBiz4RealUGuyz (talk • contribs) 19:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Binaries redistribution

In the article say "Unlike Firefox, the Pale Moon binaries have a redistribution license". This redistribution license is the same as Firefox (see Mozilla Trademark policy). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.84.136.144 (talk) 13:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I clarified the sentence. See its source. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 09:51, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Updated the Licensing because it was indeed incorrect. Both Pale Moon and Firefox use the exact same method of licensing binaries as per the MPL 2.0 (binaries released under a different license) to protect branding and reputation. Wolfbeast (talk) 09:37, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Non-primary sources

Why is a non-primary source needed for such statements as:

the browser NOT functioning with non-SSE2 processors
which features from Firefox were REMOVED for this port
licensing terms

Am I supposed to believe the software developer is lying when he says it won't work on an Athlon XP that doesn't have the SSE2 instruction set, or how he has licensed his own work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.246.17.172 (talk) 23:32, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Developer may be biased. Also, these claims appear to be wrong:

The statement about SSE2 means much more then developer is saying, because he is referring to binaries he supplies, while the source code is not known to be malfunctioning on SSE2.
"Removed" is not well defined: are they not available at all, or disabled by default? Obviously, developer tries to promote his browser by making it seem different from generic Firefox as much as possible, but that does not necessarily mean that he is completely frank while doing so.
I am unsure whether these licensing terms are legally possible at all. If they are not, then the statement is untrue. Developer's wishes are not what encyclopedic article should be about.

— Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Several things :

I think you meant "while the source code is not known to be malfunctioning on non-SSE2" (you forgot the "non"). That said, you don't execute source code when you launch your browser, you launch the binaries, obtained after the developper's compilation. So the statement about the browser makes 100% sense. Your build on source are not officialy endorsed.
They are not available at all in the binaries, but exists in code : disabled at compilation time.
Of course they are. MPL allows proprietary redistribution of binaries as long it doesn't restrict source code access, so this is possible, and then the "default redistribution policy" if nothing is written is "you have no right at all". The license then give more possibility. Then, this or that country can have laws which make this or that point not valid and then it doesn't apply to people subject to these laws.

CEFPC (talk) 23:59, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

You mix up software with particular builds: I can compile the source code myself, and it will be the same software.
If feature is present in source code, but is not built into official binaries, it still belongs to the features of the software.
MPL enforces the availability of source code and users' rights to redistribute their own builds, which is exactly what freeware is not. Thus combination of MPL+freeware is legally impossible.

As you might have already noticed, these claims are already challenged by me; thus they have to be supported with reliable third-party sources per WP:V. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 10:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The distributed software is the official build. If you compile the source code yourself, it will be the same only if you use the same compilation options (mozconfig etc), compilator... To take a very basic example, there is no mozilla supported 64 bits build of firefox on windows, but with the same code it is possible to do a 64 bits version (what PM was or what is cyberfox). Will you therefore say there is a 64 bits versions of mozilla firefox ?
The above example apply as well. You mix up binaries and source code, the software is binaries and source code are only 'what is used to create it'. The disabling of certain things at compilation time has very real consequences on the software you run, and you don't measure features on source code base.
As per point 3.b of MPL V2.0 : "You may distribute such Executable Form under the terms of this License, or sublicense it under different terms, provided that the license for the Executable Form does not attempt to limit or alter the recipients’ rights in the Source Code Form under this License." The PM redistribution license do not limit or alter acces to source code, so it is compatible. If you look, you'll observe that users are allowed to redistribute their own build/modified version, they just aren't allowed to use the official brand for that without previous permission.

Yes you challenge these claims, but did you notice the 3b point of MPL before challenging ? The MPL redistribution license is linked and anyone can therefore check it. imho, this is unbiased and verifiable, so acceptable. CEFPC (talk) 13:39, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Again, there is official build of this software, which can be downloaded from official website. If I build this software myself, it will be my own build of the very same software. Compare this to ffmpeg, where multiple builds coexist, each with some different set of features. Source code defines the features, and in case of Pale Moon the source still have them.

I must have misformulated my problems with licensing: I don't claim that Pale Moon's binary redistribution license is illigal, I claim that combination of MPL for source code and freeware license for official binaries legally means that software is open source, and the text in infobox (which describes license of software as whole) legally does not make sense. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:16, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I've made a distinction in the paragraph between what is disabled and what has been removed.

Also, MPL is a "source code license". Pale Moon explicitly excludes the official branding material from the source. MPL+freeware licensing can co-exist. MPL+commercial licensing can also co-exist. The only requirement for MPL-licensing is that the source code is released in a free-to-obtain and (limited to the license) use/re-use manner. Dormant/unused code in a source tree does not determine what features "software" has, only the final product determines what features software has. Otherwise you can also say that a feature of Firefox is that it "supports BeOS and OS/2" or even that it "supports 7-zip archives" just because it's in the source tree as part of a library...? No. The features of software are only those features that end up in the final and official builds.

Shall we put an end to this bickering about semantics? ;) Wolfbeast (talk) 10:14, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Notability not an issue

The idea that a browser which has 85 language versions lacks notability is absurd. There appears to be quite a lot of bias imposed on these pages by the Firefox establishment (whose lack of objectivity about their own work is why many people have recently moved to Pale Moon instead). For these reasons the notability tag should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.46.186.149 (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Completely false: any hobby Firefox fork will automatically inherit 85 language versions. Notability is established by citing secondary reliable sources which are not connected to the subject and discuss software in depth. Neither source from the article qualifies, and I didn't find any on the web. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Incompatibility with plug-ins and addons

It should be noted that Palemoon has forked from the main branch and it's no longer 100% compatible with Firefox. Palemoon devs have decided to re-brand everything and change the GUID, and thus is no longer recognized as secure by Jetpack ( some addon refuse to work ) or uses deprecated functions ( incompatible with non-aurora ). In addition, some sites don't recognize their GUID and won't present the contents properly and/or block them for being non-secure. 24.201.173.183 (talk) 15:28, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean some sites will not recognize their UserAgent, for as far at I know GUID/UUID is not detected by websites. To that the developer has already written a fix for, see this forum post: http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6200 So I believe only your former statement is true. Kami Mikazuki (talk) 20:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Less selling, more telling

There is more than a little advocacy in this article The lede in particular sets a tone somewhere between a PC Week review and a COMDEX pitch without saying what Pale Moon is exactly or why it should exist at all. Ditto for "Features", and to a lesser degree "Optimization". "User Interface" depends upon an historical knowledge of changes in the Firefox user interface but doesn't explicate those changes; a casual reader won't understand the section without it. "License" should talk about, yes, the license and not mumble diffusely about "certain conditions". Yappy2bhere (talk) 04:40, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

You can't expect a WikiPedia article of a fork of a well-known product to be written completely independently. Comparisons have to be made to make sure, as you yourself said, that there is a clear distinction between the siblings. Referring to the article of the more well-known sibling and pointing out the notable differences isn't "selling" anything, it's listing facts about the fork in relation to the other pieces of software. "Like X, but different as follows" should be a valid way of presenting objectivity. Wolfbeast (talk) 09:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"... or why it should exist at all." This is not the point at all, since PaleMoon obviously exists, and it's being actively maintained. What do you want more, and why? 31.19.115.219 (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No citation to registered trademarks

I added a one sentence paragraph, at the bottom of the "Licensing" section, saying that the Pale Moon branding information page on the official website shows no citation of any kind of trademark registration.

Also, in the first paragraph of the "Licensing" section, I deleted the words "and copyrights" because you cannot copyright a logo or a short phrase.

If Pale Moon, Moonchild Productions, or M.C. Straver has any trademarks legally registered in any country, they should list them, appended with appropriate registered trademark symbols, complete with URLs showing the trademark registration status. If there aren't registered trademarks, this should be made clear on the Wikipedia page.

Stevelitt (talk) 03:45, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

If your assumption is that valid trademarks cannot exist without registration, then that is your fundamental error. At least in common law countries (such as the UK and USA), common-law trademarks arise automatically through usage and vest in the owners of a product or service that depend on them. (Look up "common law trademark".)

This kind of speculation is not really germane to this article. We can only cite what the owner states, and any cited challenge to this could be referenced as well. -Pmffl (talk) 16:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Sources

The sources on this article are entirely lacking; the "7 external sources" claim appears to be counting the three sources that are in the benchmarks section (the only paragraph in the article that is properly sourced), the two sources which are entirely about Firefox and don't mention this browser at all, the press release from Start Page who are monetarily invested in this browser and thus not an independent source, and the market share from statcounter. Outside of that single benchmarks paragraph and the market share, everything in this article that is actually about this browser/project (not Firefox) is cited entirely from primary sources tied directly to this project. ♣ Ameliorate! 12:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

To say it's "entirely lacking" is a gross overstatement. The many citations to the Pale Moon website and forum (for posts by M.C. Straver, aka Moonchild) are relevant and accurate. I've been using the browser for several years and empirically know every single claim is legitimate. Other sources would be a welcome addition, but to belittle the current ones as "entirely lacking" is just plain wrong and not a solid ground for tagging. -Pmffl (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

So, it's already 2 years, 8 months, 7 days ago at the time of writing this comment and Ameliorate! did not tell how many external sources he wants to see. Meanwhile, more references has been added through the time. I guess the time is ripe to remove the template? RoestVrijStaal (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Users

How many users use Pale Moon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.6.238.199 (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Mail client mentions

Although FossaMail was mentioned as relevant for using the same back-end as Pale Moon, it ultimately doesn't belong in this article which is about the web browser. A recent addition stating Interlink being a fork of FossaMail is wholly incorrect (they are completely unrelated). To keep the article focused the paragraph has been removed. Potentially it can be mentioned elsewhere in the realm of Mozilla-based applications. Wolfbeast (talk) 16:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Recent release history table edits

I would like to know the reason why OS compatibility information is considered "unnecessary detail". Other similar tables, like the ones for Firefox and SeaMonkey, do include this type of information. kn-yami (talk) 00:01, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Win XP support is fully covered in the Old Platforms section. No more detail is necessary. -Pmffl (talk) 19:50, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Market share

How many installations are out there in action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.209.78.242 (talk) 08:48, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

POV

There is just too much shilling on this page and Goanna (software) (the latter of which is just a stub that wouldn't even exist wihout the browswer its used in) to not question its validity. Wikipedia's focus should be on notable subjects; this is not the place for free publicy. MarcoPolo250 (talk) 11:03, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Shilling, eh?

I'm curious, is this page only supposedly "shilling" for Pale Moon because it isn't a hit piece on the browser? The browser has been around since 2009, and has a dedicated userbase. It also is noteworthy for a number of reasons. If nothing else, the fact that it continues to be a regularly updated browser that isn't a Chromium variant, isn't Rust-based, nor is it essentially just copying Chrome code, and is a browser that has a not utterly insignificant userbase is pretty noteworthy in and of itself. Tharthan (talk) 02:22, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

You marked this article as POV, but did not mention any conditions when the article could be un-POV-ed. Please mention those. Failing to do so means the POV-template could be removed from the article. RoestVrijStaal (talk) 00:04, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

As it has been nearly fifteen days since the user was notified, and they have still failed to attach appropriate conditions to the template, I am going to remove the template from this article. From all appearances, it looks as if (just as I had guessed) the introduction of the template to this article (as well as the accusation of "shilling") arose out of a strong personal dislike of this article's subject. Tharthan (talk) 06:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Wrong horse?

I am not a technical expert on web browsers, but, having used Pale Moon for many years, I have reluctantly concluded that its developers backed the wrong horse in choosing an old Mozilla engine.

The GUI of Pale moon and the emphasis on customizability are great --- in fact unmatched among contemporary browsers. But Pale Moon is plagued by compatibility issues which seem insurmountable. It seems to me that the developers have effectively abandoned any hope of overcoming the compatibility issues and instead design updates around security and minor bug fixes which skirt some of the most serious and persistent problems.

I am now switching to Vivaldi, which does not have as good a GUI but which has essentially no serious compatibility issues. Like Pale Moon, Vivaldi is inspired by the old Opera which was the best browser of its time. But Vivaldi went with a Chrome engine which seems able to handle the newest demands of mainstream developers in the field. I would very much like to see Pale Moon switch to a Chrome engine and thus confront and vanquish compatibility problems in a clean sweep. ---Dagme (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@Dagme: The Pale Moon developers are currently working on implementation of WebComponents, and are (in the meantime) doing whatever they can to deal with any individual site issues as they come up. One thing they have pledged to never do is become some kind of Chromium variant. Google Chrome is the antithesis of what Pale Moon stands for. And this is all not to mention that the reason that you are finding all of the incompatibilities that you are is precisely because Web developers are solely targetting Chrome these days. They are targetting it in a way that ends up breaking their websites on any browser that is not Chromium-based (or that is not essentially copy-and-pasting Chrome code, like Mozilla Firefox does nowadays).

Pale Moon, and UXP in general, exist purposely in explicit opposition to the monocultural attitude that pervades the Internet nowadays. Moreover, the recent probe for a future antitrust case against Google did not go unnoticed by the Pale Moon community (and, indeed, the ones behind the probe had some contact with the Pale Moon developers in the early days of the probe).

You ought to have been able to understand after reading our entry that Pale Moon is intended to be "your browser, your way". Not some Chromium reskin like Vivaldi. Tharthan (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Merging Basilisk

I merged what I think is the important information on the page for Basilisk, which isn't much. I tried rephrasing things for clarity. If no one thinks there is anything else to add, I suppose Basilisk can be deleted. Please feel free to disagree and add what you think needs to be added. Dgcampbe (talk) 13:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I do not think the Basilisk article should have been deleted. According to the Basilisk website the Basilisk browser is no longer developed by the team who developed Pale Moon, instead it is developed by a new development team. The article should be reinstated since Basilisk is its own project. 50.110.35.252 (talk) 12:53, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

Before you (or someone else) recreates the Basilisk article check out the guide on notability: WP:Notability.

In summary, WP requires an article to be not just correct and accurate, but also to cover a notable subject. And WP requires reliable second-party sources to establish the notability of a subject. Since there was already a previous merge/delete discussion, you'll want to have solid, second-party sources (not from the devs or from forums) to establish that and get your article to stick. Rjjiii (talk) 00:00, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Abandoned?

Apparently, Pale Moon is no longer maintained. The link given in the WP article refers to a single object still accessible - the automatically generated source code. Everything else (i.e. every software distribution item) has become inaccessible, including the repositories (which are outdated by the operating systems named in the path). Pls chk. --2A02:908:895:5EA0:6207:A9AB:A232:E101 (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It still seems to be maintained, albeit with slow development. There was no release for the month of October (https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=27456), but it doesn't appear abandoned (at least not yet). Dgcampbe (talk) 03:09, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

It's definitely not abandoned. They just archived their repo and moved to Cathedral-style development (like early GNU), and it just so happens that there are no applicable security patches from Mozilla upstream. pandakekok9 (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 5 December 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (closed by non-admin page mover) BegbertBiggs (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Pale Moon (web browser) → Pale Moon
Pale Moon → Pale Moon (disambiguation)

– Primary topic per page views: [1]. Kleinpecan (talk) 06:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Support The longterm primacy of the browser seems relatively uncontroversial. The vast majority of people visiting this name are interested in the browser._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Consider a rewrite of the History section

The history section is a growing recounting of select events in Pale Moon's history which currently reads like a blog; a rewrite to give a relevant-descriptive history of origin and development instead of going point by point describing the actions of specific individuals and isolated events would probably improve the article by a good amount. However, I'm not a regular editor so I don't know what the general policies about this kind of article content are. Wolfbeast (talk) 22:43, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Still some toxic animals there banning normal users

I had to mention that. The internal struggle hasn´t ended, normal users beeing banned for questioning despite in a polite way. See Yourself https://forum.palemoon.org/ an user.--2003:F2:870F:685:D89A:1EC3:5C95:9BBE (talk) 01:25, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I expect this comment will be removed but it is sadly true. It is one of the reasons I moved away from Palemoon after receiving abusive responses to my postings there. Dsergeant (talk) 05:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:52, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Pale Moon 29.4.6 on Windows 7.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:37, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Removing Primary Sources Warning

I've added 10 secondary or tertiary sources throughout the article today (13-08-2022). If there are no objections, I'll remove the "primary sources" warning. Let me know if you see something that's an issue. Rjjiii (talk) 23:57, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Notes Regarding Readability

I've noticed some issues with readability in the article and I think it would be better if a Pale Moon user tackled these issues.

Why XUL/XPCOM? The article references these technologies with no clear explanation of what they are, why Firefox ditched them, and why a Pale Moon user would benefit from keeping them. I wouldn't expect the article to completely break down the whole situation but the UXP section would leave me somewhat confused if I had less knowledge of niche Mozilla tech.
Who owns the Basilisk browser? What made the bids false? The final 2 paragraphs of the Basilisk section leave me with a lot of questions and the impression that maybe they were written as events happened?
The MPL is linked on Wikipedia but what are the specific circumstances for using the branding? The license linked seems to say it's unaltered binaries, with no charge, with no demand for personal information, and without additional third-party software bundled in. Also, does the article explain the unbranded logo image? Is it used for nightly releases, Linux releases, the forked browsers mentioned later in the article, alpha releases?
Is macOS supported right now? The article seems to say both yes and no in different places.
What happened to Pale Moon 30? The sources look like they point to arguments in the forums? The only secondary source I found was this article: https://www.ghacks.net/2022/05/10/pale-moon-31-is-out-now/ which says version 30 was recalled "days after the official release" because a dev quit the project mid release and to quote "The exit resulted in several issues for the browser and its services, including that the add-ons server for the current version was pulled." It felt strange to see such a large portion of the development history devoted to a version that barely existed.
Why is Albus Luna notable? Is it notable? I was going to remove this from the article but I honestly can't tell what it is; it looks like a parody browser? All of the other forks seem to follow the same pattern of Pale Moon users/contributors/devs (not clear) creating a fork to continue support for a platform. If that's the case, then why not rewrite the forks section as prose?

Rjjiii (talk) 06:40, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll try to give a summary answer here:

- XUL/XPCOM offers the full customizability of previous Firefox and Netscape in terms of how the user interface is built up and interacts with the browser core. Through these technologies, extensions to the browser can redefine and customize any part of the front-end, not just manipulate page content, giving a great deal more power to the user and extension developers, allowing complete customization.

- The Basilisk browser is currently owned and maintained by an individual developer whom currently wishes to remain anonymous to avoid negative approaches from previously-involved people; as such I respect that wish and will leave it up to them to disclose if and when they wish. There were a few bids that were made merely to extract details about expected amounts with no intention to actually purchase the rights, merely to then fuel the drama initiated by Matt Tobin that it would be "a money grab". It wasn't until a good time later that the current dev made a serious offer which was accepted.

- Branding is clearly explained in the linked redistribution license. Without supplied official branding, the software is fully MPL licensed. This setup is no different than the Firefox browser retaining full trademark rights on the Firefox name and logo, but otherwise being MPL licensed. The licensing setup is exactly the same (a mixed license on official binaries but FOSS on the source code for the actual browser excluding branding). The linked license does not explain the unbranded logo image and that image is actually not in use by any branding of Pale Moon. I believe the "New Moon" spin-off might still be using the image -- it doesn't really belong in this article, afaik.

- MacOS is currently supported fully. it was dropped for a while under pressure of Tobin trying to make the project have a different focus, but eventually reinstated and support code restored with the help of the White Star developer who is currently also building the official Mac binaries.

- Pale Moon 30 was unstable, had a bunch of undesirable changes and untrusted code edits that could not be verified, and was completely dropped, with the binaries recalled from distribution. The project rolled back its code to a known-good state and reimplemented from there to come to the release of v31 with only known and trusted code commits. The issue was that this entire release was a setup from the malicious dev that left, the only way to get back to something sane was to roll back and redo, which is why it took considerable time to get to v31 afterwards.

- Albus Luna is not at all notable. It is a (bad taste) parody from a long-time opponent of the project for the sole purpose of trying to spark litigation (which is a pattern for that publisher). The statements about what Pale Moon does and does not permit or forbid on its website are even pointedly false.

I'm not sure in what way this information can be used best to improve this article, but there it is. Wolfbeast (talk) 10:01, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! That's a thorough response. I've already removed Albus Luna. I commented out the unofficial logo after reading your post. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 03:06, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

You know, you should really consider NOT specifically calling attention to facts that are clearly in dispute. MattATobin (talk) 06:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

That being said, if anyone IS actually interested in someone else's point of view they are free to track me down. I won't be stalking this talk page but do keep in mind that namedropping people you previously have been in conflict with can only make keeping this wikipedia page, which to some has always been of dubious notoriety, from becoming more trouble than it is worth to the wiki gods harder. Especially, when it reads like an old PC Mag spread. MattATobin (talk) 21:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Which facts are in dispute? Can you provide sources indicating those facts are in dispute? 184.15.128.140 (talk) 14:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I will not get into some war on wikipedia. It isn't that important to me but, and correct me if I am incorrect, as a primary source I can't directly do much to deal with such things.

That being said, my interpretation of events was recorded in the Interlink Mail & News release notes in 2022. One would have to go find it in the archive as there are major changes happening on my servers. That is at LEAST as valid as any source off the forum and I would prefer not to rehash it as I do not want to retroactively re-cast it simply because I have progressed forward. THERE IS a far more raw and accurate recount including subsequent events but it is not currently allowed on the public web. Not that I would recommend it but it does exist.

If there is anything more I can do for you please use an actual named username or seek me out elsewhere. MattATobin (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, I've removed the section of the article about this incident that cited only primary sources and will now archive this discussion. Rjjiii (talk) 01:49, 26 May 2023 (UTC)