Talk:Xmarks Sync

Name of the plugin
I understand the desire to have a separate article for the company and for the plugin, but do they have different names? While Wikipedia has an article for Foxmarks Bookmark Synchronizer, I do not see that phrase anywhere on the Foxmarks website. What justification is there for calling it that, especially with capital letters? If there is no formal justification, I say the other article should be merged back into this one. — Epastore (talk) 03:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Update Article
Foxmarks has been formally released. If I wasn't so lazy i would change it myself, but I have a real life today. Just bringing attention to anyone who cares... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Black2sday (talk • contribs) 15:29, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Foxmarks is becoming Xmarks
http://blog.xmarks.com/?p=738 We need something written on that, a new name redirect etc. Xbrasil (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC) Black2sday (talk) 11:30, 26 March, 2009 (EST)

Xmarks & Performance Issues
How do we put in the article that Xmarks has major & has always had major performance issues? Or should I say non-performance issues? Mitch Kapor made out by selling a product that was a great idea with horrendous performance. But how do we include that as a significant fundamental issue for this software product? Stevenmitchell (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Xmarks blocked in India
I was looking for a more recent update on this story. Having read the court order that supposedly led led to this block, it is far from clear (and certainly nothing explicit) that would explain why Xmarks was targeted. There seems to be no recent article on this story, so it is not clear if Xmarks continues to be blocked and (regardless) whether there is any further clarification on why it was blocked in the first place. Since I am not in India, I cannot check if the domain is currently blocked. Can anyone else shed light on this episode? Enquire (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Starting in May 2012, the xmarks.com domain was blocked in India by court order. 

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Xmarks Sync. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120814233140/http://techwhack.com/airtel-broadband-blocking-bunch-file-sharing-regular-websites-3136/ to http://techwhack.com/airtel-broadband-blocking-bunch-file-sharing-regular-websites-3136/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 08:08, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

The service has officially shut down, proper citations are not yet available
Source: I agreed to post this on Wikipedia for an Xmarks team member who is aware of the "NOR: No Original Research" policy on Wikipedia but also is frustrated because the manner in which Xmarks was shut down means that the official Twitter account and the official Blog cannot possibly publish anything. About nine hours ago, LogMeIn updated the DNS entries so that xmarks.com does not resolve to any IP addresses. blog.xmarks.com and my.xmarks.com were also turned off via DNS. The servers were powered off so that all IP requests, especially attempts to push and pull bookmarks, would time out. This should limit the possibility that locally-run Xmarks software will delete bookmarks (erroneously) due to misconfiguration.

Editorial Comment: The following comes from me, the long-time Wikipedia user, and not from the Xmarks team member. Could we please leave up this improperly-cited information until it is possible for them to publish in a manner that can be properly-cited on Wikipedia? I am extremely aware that this qualifies as original research and/or a primary source, and the primary source literally refused to be named so it wouldn't belong on Wikipedia 99.9% of the time. However, the primary source in question is very upset right now, and let's restore a little faith in humanity and also make Wikipedia a good source of useful, correct information in a world that will otherwise lack that information for at least a few hours or days. Hopefully only a few hours, but let's not delete the information on the Wikipedia article until it becomes possible to cite it in a manner that holds with Wikipedia's editorial standards for more normal circumstances. This is not a biography of a living person, this is a Wikipedia article that confused Xmarks users are likely to visit, especially judging from the fact that even the blog either times out or gives a DNS error, which was not the plan.

I think being a good Wikipedia means being decent human beings who share useful and correct information, even if it does not precisely meet the editorial standards of Wikipedia in general because of extenuating circumstances. Hopefully in a few hours or a few days, we can cite this properly. However, until that happens, this information being available on Wikipedia is especially important because it is not available anywhere else. (Unless you know which Twitter accounts and personal blogs to trust.) Thank you. Fluoborate (talk) 22:10, 1 May 2018 (UTC)