Jump to content

Talk:Opera (web browser)/Archive 8

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8

POV

Codename Lisa An attempt by disgruntled Opera ASA employees to create a web browser that their company didn't make isn't POV? François Robere (talk) 22:58, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, François Robere
Let's see whether I have understood your question: You would like the know whether sentence you quoted is not a violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policy? The answer is "No, it isn't." The policy requires us to represent "fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." In other words, it is fine to mention disgruntled employees made the browser, but it is not fine to judge whether their disgruntlement is justified or not.
It is important to note that Wikipedia is not written from a neutralized point of view. It is different from a neutral point of view, in that a neutral one simply does not take sides, while the neutralized one take side somewhere in the middle, even at the cost of censoring some facts, downplaying some and exaggerating some others. All of these here are forbidden by WP:NOTCENSORED and WP:GEVAL.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 13:01, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
1. "Disgruntled" in this context is POV. Google "disgruntled employee" and the top results are:

A disgruntled employee is a potential threat and risk to business that should be taken seriously [1]

Unhappy (disgruntled) employees are usually harmless but in some cases, can cause significant damage to the company's reputation [2]

Unhappy employees can turn customers off and create a negative working environment [3]

Someone who is shit on and ultimately will go fucking insane [4]

And so on. There are other terms that could be used (eg. "former"), but I doubt the whole sentence is necessary.
2. An attempt to emulate Opera is POV as well - "attempt" allows for "failed", "disqualified", "unsuccessful" etc. Neutral terms: "fork", "project", "initiative". Also: "emulate" is incorrect - their goal is not to "emulate" a legacy product.
POV all over. François Robere (talk) 14:56, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello again, François Robere
I will use corresponding numbering to respond to your arguments:
1. I accept all your examples. #1 is actually what happened with Opera. In addition, the first three are well within the standards of our WP:NPOV policy. The fourth goes off because using words that should normally be avoided.
2. Thanks for the example; this is indeed what is intended: to permit the possibility of "failed", "disqualified" and "unsuccessful", in addition to "successful", "qualified" and "perfect". (We are even allowed to explicitly add these six adjectives when we have reliable sources, but that's not the case here.) As for your suggestions, they are clearly neutralized, not neutral: "Fork" technically wrong because it needs source code derivation. As for ""project" and "intitiative", they are zero-informative wordiness.
The fact that you use "POV" as an adjective demonstrates your ignorance of our policy; otherwise, you'd have used "NNPOV", "NfNPOV" of "!NPOV". Our NPOV policy doesn't say cushion the blow.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 23:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
1. I don't seem to get my point across. Can you explain to me why in this context those connotations would not skew the intended meaning of the sentence?
As for your last point - this isn't an article but a talk page, and that doesn't apply here. Here I can say or quote most anything I please, including (but not limited to): shit, piss, fuck, cunt, cocksucker, motherfucker, and tits.
2. No, it doesn't. That part is purely informative and general, and should not in any way project - again, context - on the article to which it links - which it does. No successful company is ever referred to as an "attempt" in real time, and rarely in past tense. Hence the connotation of "attempted initiative" with failure.
You may find other terms as you please, they were just examples. "Project" isn't non-informative, as it's commonly used in software (eg. "open source project"), while "initiative" is often used in the context of civil society (eg. "A new initiative has begun to help charities and funders" [5]); both, then, imply a web-centered, open-source enterprise. Again, context.
As for your last, tasteless comment: There are around 14,400 results to the search query site:en.wiki.x.io "is POV" OR "is NPOV". Considering there are only about 30,000 active Wikipedians on this namespace, one can deduce that about every second Wikipedian has horrible, terrible grammar, and an even worse understanding of Wikipedia's policies. If you wish to educate us about any of that, I suggest you start at the Village Pump rather than here. François Robere (talk) 00:12, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, there was no comment on the WP:NPOV policy in the last message. The only thing was there is that "successful attempt" is a bad word choice (I'll try to remember that) and that you are foul-mouthed person (which I'll try to forget) who is not above or beyond mischaracterizing facts using bogus or questionable search queries (which I'll probably not forget). Clearly this thread has outlived its usefulness.
—Codename Lisa (talk) 02:11, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


3O Response: @François Robere, @Codename Lisa: I think we're getting a bit off-topic here! I don't believe that either side of this discussion has actually presented anything that demonstrates whether or not the statements are written neutrally. Although I (pretty much) disagree with the removal of the description for Otter Browser, I agree with the claim that the description for Vivaldi may not be neutral.

For Otter Browser, a primary source utilized in the article's lead states: Otter Browser aims to recreate the best aspects of the classic Opera (12.x) UI using Qt5. This is corroborated by another reference. I say that I "pretty much" disagree with the removal because I think the word "attempt" could imply negative connotations to some readers in light of the article they're viewing. "A browser intending to emulate Opera 12" or (from the source) "a browser that aims to emulate Opera 12" or some other choice might be better. But I definitely disagree with the need to remove it.

I was about to say the statement about Vivaldi (web browser) should stay because a sentence with "disgruntled" surrounded by the word "Opera" is in the article's lead and the CNET article referenced supports the statement. Then I noticed that the lead says previous Opera web browser users disgruntled by Opera's transition, and the source says the company hopes to attract disgruntled Opera browser fans. The other reference on the lead's statement is an interview with the co-founder of Vivaldi in which he says I left the company in mid-2011, moved and now live in the United States. In recent years I took a role of an investor, but when I realized that Opera announced significant changes that will further alter the product, and not necessarily to the satisfaction of loyal and long-time users, I decided it was time to make another browser. Neither of these references (and a couple others I scanned) portray him as being overtly disgruntled of Opera. I see "went in another direction", "announced significant changes" from the quote beforehand, and (from CNET) "money to be made correcting what he sees as Opera's missteps". Unless there are sources existing elsewhere that portray the founders as publicly discontent, I don't think "disgruntled" is warranted. Also, that their company didn't make seems strange and quite vague. "Created by former Opera Software employees to expand on a former version of Opera that does not transition from the Presto layout engine", or something less wordy maybe?

Hope this helps! Rhinopias (talk) 00:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Very well then, then we'll remove the Vivaldi statement and rephrase the Otter one. Thanks! François Robere (talk) 01:01, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Rhinopias has wrote: "Neither of these references (and a couple others I scanned) portray him as being overtly disgruntled of Opera." There has never been the word "overly" in the article. But I consider this sentence a gross understatement: Leaving a company is a clear sign of deep and troublesome disgruntlement. The universal fact is that people don't leave their jobs, unless they are tormented by it.
In addition, what François Robere put in its place is blatant praise. "A free browser aiming to expand on the customizability and usability of early Opera versions while modernizing other aspects of the browsing experience." That's loaded with advertisement. (It is not using peacock terms but it is true for all top web browsers: Firefox, Chrome and Safari.) Additionally, it tries to hide the reason behind its conception: Its creators were former Opera employees and were not satisfied with the development decisions made by the company.
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 06:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi.
"Project that aims to" is also wordiness. "Attempt" is better. A "project that aims to [...]" can also be unsuccessful.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
FleetCommand Leaving a company is a clear sign of deep and troublesome disgruntlement is your WP:OR. The fact is you don't have any sources supporting that in this case. As for "praise": it isn't, just a description of features (you admit so yourself). As for "true for all top browsers" - that's clearly not the case, otherwise the Vivaldi/Otter folks wouldn't have split from Opera (and other folks from other browsers).
Codename Lisa I asked you earlier about the importance of context and connotation, and you failed to answer. Care to do so now? François Robere (talk) 14:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi.
Lovely day; I am in a particularly good mood. If you permit, I'll answer you last question first.
I did answer. I said your first example is indeed what is intended. That means denotation, not connotation. The very existence of a connotation is an assumption that, I am afraid, is only in your head, not in my text. Also, your latest edit introduced additional problems. For example, the browser name is NOT "Otter". It is "Otter Browser". Even the app title bar (see the screenshot) says so. These two seemingly separate issues have something in common: Non-neutral point view. So, be careful my friend.
As for your message to FleetCommand: You gave the source that you are asking for yourself in your second message. That said, FleetCommand had already taken down the word "disgruntled" from the article. Therefore, your question is futile and purposeless – well, unless we assume bad faith in you, in which case the purpose would be to harass FleetCommand; but I am not there yet.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Addendum: Alright, I answered one of your objections to FC, I might as well address the other two.
  • "you admit so yourself". I don't see it.
  • "As for 'true for all top browsers' [...]". All top web browsers are focused on extensibility and customizability. Firefox is famous for focusing exclusively on them, at the cost of performance, up until Firefox 57. Chrome has created the largest customization and extension store yet. Hence, your description of Vivaldi is zero-informative.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
The statement I suggested started with "Created by former Opera Software employees". I also in no way implied that my opinion required the article to be updated immediately without further discussion to iron out new descriptions for the two entries. If no one agrees that "attempt" carries weight and "aim" is the same thing then by all means continue to use "aim".
I don't quite understand why it is significant that the word "overtly" is not in the WP articles or sources. When I wrote Neither … references … portray him as being overtly disgruntled of Opera I meant that, because no references seem to explicitly (publicly, openly) say the former CEO is "disgruntled" or "angry" or "tormented", those words should not be present in any statements on Wikipedia describing him in the context of Opera Software, because that's not currently verified. FleetCommand, I am amazed you assume that every single person who leaves a job is doing so because they are unhappy with the direction in which the company is going. People move for whatever reason, are offered better financial or career advancement opportunities elsewhere, decide to move on to something else entirely (e.g. becoming an investor), have contracted or other temporary positions… Whatever applies to this person and his former company, I do not agree with the inclusion of such words to describe his relationship with Opera Software or the reason he left without sources that contain them. Rhinopias (talk) 23:05, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
@Rhinopias: Please mind the context. When I wrote "leave their jobs", I was referring to "resignation" and "getting fired", not "job change". While it is true that upon a promotion, people leave their old jobs behind, they don't characterize it as "leaving their jobs". (They might use these exact words followed by "and got a new one" though, but I trust you know the difference.) Jobs are precious. They don't grow on trees.
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 05:42, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
So by Please mind the context you mean to say that "leave their jobs" in your earlier statement Leaving a company is a clear sign of deep and troublesome disgruntlement. The universal fact is that people don't leave their jobs, unless they are tormented by it obviously means "resignation" or "getting fired" and not necessarily just changing jobs? If someone starts working elsewhere for whatever reason it is most definitely reasonable that they say to their friend or parent or former coworker "I left Opera Software because A, B, C". Your experience with colloquialisms in this particular topic is irrelevant because using the sources to mean anything other than what they explicitly say is original research, so please let's no longer discuss this. Rhinopias (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

From a quick glacne, this isn't a "POV" issue, it's an "original research" / "verifiability" one.

To state the editing dispute: the question is how to describe two related web browsers. I see two versions in the recent edit history:

  • Otter Browser: An open-source web browser that aims to recreate some unique aspects of the classic Opera and Vivaldi: A freeware web browser by former Opera Software employees who were not satisfied by the development decisions of their company and thought they could do better.
  • Otter: An open source project that aims "to recreate the best aspects of the classic Opera (12.x) UI using Qt5" and Vivaldi: A free browser aiming to expand on the customizability and usability of early Opera versions while modernizing other aspects of the browsing experience

It's not strictly necessary to have any description of links in the "See also" section. If there's no interest in writing a full section on why these browsers exist, it may be best to remove any description in this article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 06:55, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I am not a fan of deploying nukes when there is so much as a dispute. I believe these sentences all fairly represent their corresponding articles. Also, regardless of your assessment of the subject matter, the dispute is a POV one. But the offer to deploy a summary-style coverage, however, is ... tempting. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:09, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Neither of the phrasings strike me as inherently promoting any particular point of view. I agree that the tone is certainly different ("best" v. "not satisfied"), but not in a WP:IMPARTIAL violation sense. power~enwiki (π, ν) 07:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. No arguments there.
What I argued was that in case of the second bullet point, "best aspects" is subjective and "Qt5" is unnecessary use of very technical terms. Now, "aiming to expand on the customizability and usability of early Opera versions" is exactly what every other web browser does, owing to the fact that Opera brought about innovations that are now seen in every web browser. (I think the article even says it.) Hence, the net value of it ... (sigh!) advertisement.
FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 07:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Mind you've come rather late to this party. Compare these and you'll see where the POV discussion started. François Robere (talk) 14:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree that "disgruntled employees", and speaking to their presumed motivations, is not acceptable, and I'm surprised there were such strong attempts to keep that language in the article. Out of the two options at the top of this sections, I think the first description of Otter is better, and the second description of Vivaldi. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

@SarekOfVulcan: Hello. The only reason that "Vivaldi" is singled out of the navbox below the article and brought to the "See also" section, per WP:SEEALSO, is its connection to Opera. Without that connection, including a link to it there is giving Vivaldi undue treatment. So, our policy-compliant options are (1) deleting the link altogether, or (2) re-writing the description until everyone is satisfied with its wording that demonstrates the connection.
Also, I don't see why you are still beating the dead horse of "disgruntled employee". User:FleetCommand has removed it. You are an admin; you must know better.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 06:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Considering your last edit included dissatisfied former employees, calling the equine deceased is disingenuous at best. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:12, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
@SarekOfVulcan: Alright, let's see your ingenuity. Here is the direct quotation from the source, seen above. Kindly show us how you would rewrite it to explain the link to Vivaldi.

In recent years I took a role of an investor, but when I realized that Opera announced significant changes that will further alter the product, and not necessarily to the satisfaction of loyal and long-time users, I decided it was time to make another browser.

FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 12:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
FleetCommand, that's another thing. The source? There are lots of sources. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/hands-on-with-vivaldi-the-new-web-browser-for-power-users/ - The motivations behind Vivaldi are startlingly simple. As Von Tetzchner tells Ars, "Opera abandoned Opera... I thought, what am I going to do now? There were all these features that I was used to, that everyone else was used to and they were gone. So we thought, well there's a lot of people that want to do more with their browser, let's make a browser for them." https://www.cnet.com/news/ex-opera-ceo-launches-new-browser-vivaldi/ - "People chose to use Opera because of the feature set it had to offer and because they liked the company. Opera has moved on and has defined a new target market," he said. "We aim to provide a browser for those former Opera users that want more from their browser and all others who want the same." --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
You don't have to ping me everytime you write something.
Now, if you have point, kindly bottomline it with a rewrite of the description. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Do we characterize all software forks/splits/spiritual successors as done by "dissatisfied former employees"? No. We simply call them "forks". Which is why doing so this time affect POV. I struggle to see how it isn't obvious to the rest. François Robere (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Well, you are "simply" doing a terrible mistake. "Fork" only happens when the source code is partly shared. So much for your other stuff exists fallacy. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:14, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Sweety, it was forks/splits/spiritual successors, not just "forks". Do you contend none of these definitions fit Vivaldi? It was obvious you'd pick on this (both of you have before), so I've prepared. Back to my question, then? François Robere (talk) 18:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Vivaldi is not a fork of Opera, not a split of it, and not a spiritual successor of it. It is a competing web browser. Its only connection is the disgruntled employee.
How very amazing. We are here in such a heated discussion over two sentences. Clearly disgruntled, to the point that even take the case to ANI. And yet, we give each other a hard time by saying there is no evidence to suggest that the splitting developer was disgruntled; that it is a harsh and non-neutral word! Add the fact that the dispute was over a whole web browser, no just two sentences. Oh, the hypocrisy of it! FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 18:35, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
And therein lies the difference: I do not view it as a heated discussion, I do not feel it had to heat up in any way, and mostly I do not understand how a word that is so often loaded with bad connotations is here - and only here - defended as mundane, and its removal prevented despite its low informational value in this context. "Former developer" is not enough, no! It has to be "disgruntled", it has to be "attempt", and it has to be "thought they could do better", as if it's not an encyclopedia but a children's book. I gave perhaps four different options, and you two agreed to none. How very amazing.
As for the ANI: For this very simple argument ("over a whole web browser"? I know not what you mean - it was two sentences) your partner in crime quoted no less than seven different WP:Policies, gave a couple of (erroneous) grammar lectures, refused actual discussion, and peppered it all with undue personal comments. Now you tell me: For the sake of "attempt" and "disgruntled", was it all worth it? François Robere (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
SarekOfVulcan This is my Quote of the Day. François Robere (talk) 15:29, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Just a note from someone not involved with the above mess, it seems to me that the phrase "and thought they could do better" is an unnecessary modifier. Not only does it sound un-encyclopedic in tone and seems to imply failure, but the sentence is actually stronger by simply removing those words. I would also change "their company" to "the company", since "their company" sounds like it's referring to the new company they founded. What's wrong with just A freeware web browser by former Opera Software employees who were not satisfied by the development decisions of the company? --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Not much. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Nothing. Please let's be finished. Rhinopias (talk) 01:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Agreed. —Codename Lisa (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree, but let's wait for the others. I don't want anyone to become disgruntled. François Robere (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Support. Can we join Sir William Freakin' Wallace now? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 14:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Change made per agreement above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Ladies and gentlemen. power~enwiki, FleetCommand, François Robere, SarekOfVulcan and (optionally) Rhinopias and Ahecht.

I don't believe any of you have taken any results from the current state of affairs. Neither from this discussion, nor from playing the game of "block the opposing editor" in WP:ANI. Why don't we try the proven way, that has always had positive results? Let's burry the hatchets, put on our Compromise Squad hats and take this issue to WP:MedCom.

The requirement is to suspend or abandon any and all side-efforts in other forums and be determined to give a little to take something in return. And of course, every single one of you (well, except Rhiopias and Ahecht) needs to agree, because this isn't a majority vote issue. It is a matter of consensus. Let's one again prove to world the we are Wikipedians; we have built the greatest of human's constructs (Wikipedia) and We. Can. Solve. Our. Problems!

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:15, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Consensus does not require unanimity, and nothing is needed to resolve this discussion beyond a couple more editors agreeing that the statement written by Ahecht is appropriate and a lack of legitimate concerns with it. Four (including Ahecht) have agreed with the statement and have no concerns out of the eight who have commented in this discussion in any capacity, missing François Robere, FleetCommand, SarekOfVulcan, and power~enwiki. Rhinopias (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
And the opinions of myself and Ahecht are not forgone in determining consensus for whatever reason. Rhinopias (talk) 16:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Who said consensus needs unanimity? MedCom participation does. —Codename Lisa (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello again

Now that we have reached a compromise about one of the sentences, I am offering another compromise, about the other sentence: I am withdrawing any all objections to the other sentence. I don't support the disputed variant, but I won't oppose it either.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 17:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

So, you are bailing out? Is the MedCom offer no longer on the table? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 23:14, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
It still is, but with François Robere engaged in juvenile harassment, SarekOfVulcan backing his harassment up and you dragging my name through the mud, it is quite clear that the offer is rejected.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Hey, it isn't my fault that some unscrupulous people resort to sock accusations instead of DR. Or ANI instead of DR. Or a mixture of both. If I am rude to them, it is because they cause provocation. Even the law allows for special treatment when provocation is involved. FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 13:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
@FleetCommand: The special treatment for provokation works both ways: When you are rude to them and they resort to ANI instead of WP:DR, it is the fault of the person who is rude. You seem to be familiar with Persian language. So is Flyboy. So, please correct me if I am worng, but there is a Persian expession that says "the rude people don't just make themselves bad, but burn the entire horizon [=all this is within their range]." That's what you do. It is totally okay that we cooperate in Wikipedia, but it is not one bit okay that you were rude to François Robere. WP:TAGTEAM is an essay. But WP:CIVIL is a policy.
I want you to promise me that you will never again be rude. Or else, I swear, I will severe all ties with you, including Wikipedia.
In addition, your past conduct requires that at least for a while, you cease treating me like a damsel in distress.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:13, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Let me get this straight: You want me to start my messages with "Greeting" and "Greetings again", and end them with "Supreme regards, your lovely friend, FleetCommand". And you want me not to revert any harassment or insult by SarekTheVulcan, or anything that any person with a bit conscience would revert? FleetCommand (Speak your mind!) 14:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
No, that's the thing newsletter writers do. It is superficial and no one believes in it, unless you believe in it and others see signs of your belief. I cannot emphasize how it is not the case right now.
Yes to second. Harassment, e.g. insults, is not like vandalism. When someone vandalizes an article, it is a disruption to the whole Wikipedia. But harassmet, until seen by the target, serves no purpose while it is on public display, hence it is just an expense for the attacker. The longer it stays, the more expensive. So, as long as I don't intend to rejoin a discussion, I let them be.
God has given you a brain, FleetCommand. Use it.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

As the content disputes are fairly minor (and can probably be resolved through normal editing), I don't think MEDCOM is relevant. The clear lack of good-faith between participants (and an inability to resolve the situation at ANI) suggests that ARBCOM may be necessary, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:28, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom won't take the case, when RPP and ANI have conclusively handled it. ArbCom wil decline it with a mention of WP:CALM.
I think MedCom will take the case but we can always try WP:DRN first. But overall, I think we all flocked to Ahecht's solution was because the equine was truely dead.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 07:46, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Whatever. I'm going on vacation for 10 days after tonight, and I don't object to any of the most recent versions. Other editors should be able to handle this editing process without my participation. I do feel that expanding this to a multi-paragraph section on "Related browsers", and reducing it to un-adorned links in a "See also" section, should both be considered if it's difficult to find consensus for any specific one-sentence descriptions here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:47, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for everything. —Codename Lisa (talk) 11:52, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

"unique"

Few things are truly unique. In the sentence where I removed the word, I strongly doubt that the aspects under discussion would merit the word. It contains no useful information in this sentence, and can simply be omitted. Disruptive editor User:Codename Lisa reverted the edit, of course. This time they claimed that there had been a "full fledged talk page discussion" about this. I can find no discussion whatsoever about this. Perhaps they could provide a link to exactly where they believe a full fledged discussion established that the word "unique" should be included in the sentence. Mermaid99 (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I can see a discussion above at the "POV" section. Aside from that, people never separate from one company to reproduce the non-unique aspects of what they were already producing. They must have not shared your opinion about uniqueness. Also, please assume good faith and avoid personal attacks, especially against established editors. You only end up hurting yourself. 37.255.78.3 (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
And who are you a sockpuppet of, I wonder? Mermaid99 (talk) 09:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I agree. You did the same thing in Otter Browser too. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view writes:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

It does not say "remove 'best' because it doesn't look like a neutral word to you." And also, before you mention sockpuppet, feel free to ask a CheckUser to check me. (I don't speak for 37.255.78.3.) 72.52.125.45 (talk) 09:34, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Deleting talk page comments

Move on. --NeilN talk to me 21:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion 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.

User:Codename Lisa can put back their comment without deleting mine. User:ScrapironIV can stop behaving disruptively by deleting my comment then leaving me a message telling me not to delete comments. That is really quite pathetic. Mermaid99 (talk) 20:49, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I did not delete your comment; I retained your comment while restoring the the other user's contribution. I strongly suggest that you restore the user's comment which you deleted. Scr★pIronIV 20:55, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
That is an an unfortunate but nonetheless interesting stance to have, seeing as you previously deleted ScrapIronIV's comments from your own talk page. (66.116.26.89 (talk) 21:15, 13 February 2018 (UTC))
Every editor has the right to remove comments from their own talk pages, per Wikipedia's policy at WP:OWNTALK. They did nothing wrong there. Scr★pIronIV 21:20, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
It is a policy of which I am aware. (66.116.26.89 (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2018 (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.

Misrepresenting SlashGeek's opinion as a fact

Hello

It appears our newcomer colleague Mermaid99 is attempting to misrepresent SlashGeek's opinion as a fact, in violation of WP:NPOV. He has so far failed to comment on the issue and has instead resorted to edit warring: He has so far responded my reversions with counter-reversion and in each, he has pretended that WP:YESPOV does not exist. For example, his edit summary reads: '"opera's features include..." is not an opinion.' Well, exactly! That's the problem. It is a fact. It is SlashGeek's opinion, written as if it is a fact.

In one of my reversion, I tried to see if he is indeed careless or the carelessness is a pretense. I commited a deliberate violation of MOS:ACRONYM and stated the opposite. Lo and behold, he is sharp enough to point it out to me, but apparently, not sharp enough to read WP:YESPOV. What gives?

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 12:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Hahaha. Nice attempt to justify your reversion of my style fix!! Seriously, you're really not making sense right now. I hope you're not a native English speaker; that would explain your grammar errors. Otherwise I'd be worried you're having a stroke or something. Come back later when you feel better. Mermaid99 (talk) 12:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
"Seriously, you're really not making sense right now." Am I not? The source says "5 features Opera Browser did first". The article says "According to SlashGeek, Opera has originated features later adopted by other web browsers [...]". These two seem to match to me.
You preferred version, however, says "Opera's features include [...]". This, in its base, is WP:SYNTH because the source does not say this; it says they were originated in Opera, but it does not say they are still in it. This isn't what you originally wrote. Your original version was: "Features developed first in Opera and later adopted by other web browsers include [...]" You later changed to "Opera's features include [...]" in order to fix your original mistake (not realizing that you are committing a WP:SYNTH) and having done a counter-reversion too. For some reason, reverting to the mistake-free version is not good enough for you.
—Codename Lisa (talk) 13:07, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
No, you are not making much sense. You are so careless you didn't even know what you were reverting, and you are also quite tragically immature. I suggest that you retract and apologise for your laughable claim that you deliberately violated the MOS. Then perhaps we can have a serious discussion. Mermaid99 (talk) 21:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
"Actually, I don't care if it is an opinion or not. I want to give due attribution, the way a good writer always does" And so, we see that you were playing silly games purely for disruption. If you want to give due attribution, you follow the policies of the encyclopaedia and give a citation. Weirdly insisting on putting bibliographic details in the text instead of in the citation is not, in fact, a hallmark of a good writer. Mermaid99 (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
@Mermaid99: Actually, this is a valid avenue of dispute resolution called "offering an alternative take". Editors explore other reasons for why something is right or wrong. Here, I offered you another reason. And here is yet another reason: Our fundamental policy is WP:NOTCENSORED; this means I am allowed to add anything I want unless there is a policy explictly saying I am not allowed to. I feel SlashGeek isn't a source whose word should be taken as gospel trutht. The reader has to right judge for himself/herself. But right now, you are engaged in content removal without justifying the harmfulness of what you remove; WP:VANDTYPES says this action is vandalism.
Since we have started this thread, you not written a single comment on the contents. All your messages have been personal attacks. You made a contribution to this article that was wrong. Everything else you have done after that was to save your own vanity. I have only stalled reporting you for edit warring because you have shown some semblences of wanting to offer a compromise. If you convince me that all this have been subterfuge, I will not stall it any longer.
—Codename Lisa (talk) 08:04, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Mermaid99
So, we are supposed to be nice to each other, following the ANEW verdict, right? Alright, let's finally discuss contents.
I would like to add "According to SlashGeek" before the sentence that says "Opera has invented such and such features". Is there a policy that says I mustn't?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 14:38, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Dispute resolution closing report

Hello! I've never had a more ironic dispute before. We had a fruitless discussion; the article was protected; I offered a fresh respectful restart; instead, Mermaid99 managed to get an indefinite block. And for the ironic part: On my own, I found reasons that Mermaid99's preferred revision actually has merits. —Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 08:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Possible removal from list

An entry in List of colors: N–Z contained a link to this page.

The entry is :

  • Opera Red

I don't see any evidence that this color is discussed in this article and plan to delete it from the list per this discussion: Talk:List_of_colors#New_approach_to_review_of_entries

If someone decides that this color should have a section in this article and it is added, I would appreciate a ping.--S Philbrick(Talk) 12:57, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should actually be mentioned in the article, but there are a lot of mentions showing up on Google. Nothing terribly in depth at first glance, though. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:10, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Opera 58, 60

Opera skips 59 in version numbers, so there'll be no Opera 59.x. Source: https://blogs.opera.com/desktop/2019/04/opera-60-reborn-3-web-3-0-vpn-ad-blocker. Alfa-ketosav (talk) 20:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Opera 15 is stable; article describes legacy versions

Opera 15 and recently Opera 16 are stable builds and are promoted as the current versions by Opera. This page needs to be reworked, especially in the features section (see Features of the Opera web browser ). Tagging it as incorrect until someone corrects it (I can't at the moment). — Preceding unsigned comment added by TvF (talk • contribs) 16:44, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

  • ====

Forget it188.27.164.20 (talk) 01:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)!Paul

Predatory loans

Useful source: Opera: Phantom of the Turnaround – 70% Downside. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

OPERA WEB BROWSER

This browser is currently not allowing the user to delete used mail notifications — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:1210:6900:F564:1938:A54:AB97 (talk) 06:07, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Merge from Opera GX

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result of this discussion was merge. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:30, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm proposing this merge as in the Opera GX article, the information could simply be summed up into a section on this page. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Since no one else has opposed or supported the merge I'm going to close the discussion and go ahead with the merge. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) 18:27, 7 May 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.

Opera Loan Apps

At the end of the "History" section, the article mentions "Opera's loan app OKash, OPesa and CashBean . . .".

1) Shouldn't this be "apps", and 2) why are there no articles about them ? Darkman101 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

History of Opera in relation to Operating Systems

Normally, I go to Wikipedia and I learn what version of the product can go with what Operating System. Wikipedia, in this article makes it seem that one has to be using Windows 7 in order to run Opera, without the explanation that the older versions of Opera can still be run with the older Opera Browser. For example: The Last Version of Opera to support Win95/ME is v10.54. Windows 2000 runs well with Opera 10.63. XP/Vista can run up to Opera 36, yet the version is very slow on XP. <erpman1.tripod.com> <opera.com/ie-simple>Easeltine (talk) 12:53, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

@Easeltine: Wikipedia doesn't really mention that older versions of browsers can work on older computers. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Mozilla Firefox and Google Chrome - Look up the Platform Table - <http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Firefox>Easeltine (talk) 01:26, 14 December 2021 (UTC) <http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Google_Chrome>Easeltine (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC) You are correct on SeaMonkey though - <http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/SeaMonkey>Easeltine (talk) 01:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-proposed split

Hello! So I'm redoing the merge discussion to merge Opera GX into this article as I did not allow the appropriate amount of time for the discussion (being 7 days or 1 week) and closed it VERY early. So, if there are no objections still to Opera GX being merged into this article then it will stay as is. However, if there appears to be reasonable consensus for them to be separate again then it should be split. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ganbaruby: Pinging as they were the sole participant of the previous discussion. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 19:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't particularly remember this but Support still. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (talk) 03:43, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
@Ganbaruby: Don't worry, I completely forgot that you were the only participant when I proposed the merge. That's the entire reason I'm redoing it. I simply wanna make sure I get as much participation as I can. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 13:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
Welp since I haven't received any opposition to the merge then i guess it's safe to say that no one minds the merge of Opera GX into this article. ― Blaze The WolfTalkBlaze Wolf#6545 14:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Other junk?

In the "Opera GX" section, it says "[You] can purge cookies, cache, and other junk". I'm paraphrasing slightly, but shouldn't we replace "junk" with something less weighted? סשס Grimmchild. He/him, probably 11:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:Opera_(web_browser)/Archive_8&oldid=1218065189"