Talk:Realbasic/Archive 3

message: I've removed many of the screenshots in this article.  After my removals, there are five, which I think is plenty for this product.  Even five may be excessive.  Compare to Visual Basic, a much more prominent product which has two screenshots. Vslashg (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Screenshots 

message: Where are the outside links to verify text of this article and sample code? where are the outside photos from independent articles (i.e. not from Real software or publications whcih get advertising dollars from RS)? Based upon your past shilling I don't believe ay of the information you are are posting and want outside articles which say it is true. I don;t know you from "Adam" and have no reason to believe anything you have to say. Its time you live up to the standards and rules you wish to impose on other people - your univerfied information is going to be removed in the same manner. —This unsigned comment was added by 67.0.73.223 (talk • contribs) .
: You've tried this stunt multiple times before. We were not amused. (And you're not really making your WP:POINT very well.) Please don't do it again. Zetawoof(ζ) 10:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  They did it again. Warrens 06:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Verification 

message: The AfD template was still on the page (possibly due to a revert; I admit I haven't been following this dispute), even though the discussion was closed last month with a result of speedy keep.  For the sake of reference, here's the link to the discussion.  Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/REALbasic
-- stubblyhead | T/c 06:30, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Vslashg/TruthInAdvertising_Sockpuppets is a succinct summation of what's been going on with this article for the last several weeks  Warrens 06:32, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AfD 

message: Let's see.
* I've removed most of the screenshots. I personally feel that the two screenshots - the one in the infobox, and the one at "Current Versions of IDE" - should suffice. It isn't necessary to post screenshots of every single feature of the program, so I've removed images of things like the documentation viewer (which just looks like an embedded HTML browser or something) and an empty code editor. If there's some important feature which isn't pictured, fix it!
* I've removed a lot of the sample code. As it stood, the example code was presented largely without explanation. The Complex class example, however, did explain the code somewhat, and - more importantly - demonstrated a feature unusual to this specific dialect (classes and operator overloading). I don't know RealBasic myself, so there may be other unusual features which bear explanation; if so, again, fix it!
* Finally, I've heavily trimmed the external links:
** First of all, separate links to Real Software's main site, their forums, and their mailing list interface are unnecessary - so I removed everything but a link to the main site.
** Then, there's the ten or fifteen links to tutorial sites. That's certainly excessive. I've removed most of them, picking the three that remain more or less arbitrarily. I did, however, avoid sites that were down, or which charge for their information, as those are less likely to be useful to the reader.
Thoughts? Questions? Complaints? Zetawoof(ζ) 00:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks a lot better, you, uhh, shill and stuff! Nice work. Warrens 01:24, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  Very well done.  Vslashg (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: My only complaint is that some of what's leftover is still not very neutral-sounding, but I'm trying to fix that a bit. –Tifego(t) 03:25, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Brutal Edit" - What I've done 

message: I'm not sure what to do about the "Language features" section. I'm sure REALbasic can probably be used to do those things, but I highly doubt they can be called core features of the language itself; programming languages don't concern themselves directly with such high-level functionality as those. I changed it to say it "has libraries supporting" those features, but library support doesn't belong in the "language features" section even if they are provided with the language. I think maybe a few of the things in that list are language features, though. I'm having trouble finding a definition of the REALbasic language anywhere, even on REALbasic's website. –Tifego(t) 03:48, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it's correct to say that those features are the features that REAlbasic framwork has. Still I think they should be listed, otherwise for every articles about an object-oriented programming language, you would write 2 lines of text. --Kiam 15:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[REALbasic#Language features|Language features]] section 

message: What happened to the images in the main article?  They were there yesterday, but not today..209.198.132.66 17:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are some technical problems with Wikipedia today.  The images will come back soon, hopefully.  Warrens 17:29, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool -- I just wanted to make sure it wasn't some new form of vandalism.  Thanks! 209.198.132.66 17:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What happened? 

message: I have semiprotected the page due to constant disruption. Just letting you know. Sasquatch  t|c 02:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh. I tried for a sprot a few days ago, but the request was denied. Ah well. Zetawoof(ζ) 04:34, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Heh, well, there never has been a semi-protection standard but looking through the logs I can justify it. Sasquatch  t|c 01:43, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  As much as it pains me that this was needed (it means I can't modify the page for a while), I'm still glad to see it happen. 204.251.84.212 14:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You should make an account!  It only takes a minute, you get some extra tools like being able to upload images and configure the appearance of Wikipedia, and future page-protections won't stop you from editing.  Warrens 15:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

text:  Ok, Ok, you've convinced me.  :-P  BudVVeezer 16:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semiprotection 

message: The schill was pointing out that the ExtremeBasic link removal was improper because it's not based on Java.  Since I was the one who removed the link, I feel the need to justify its removal.  From the [horse's] mouth.  He's basing the entire runtime on Java, while keeping the language constructs.  Since REALbasic is a commercial product whose apps use native OS controls, I don't think a pre-alpha, in-some-guy's-spare-time project which doesn't use native controls is terribly relevant to anyone reading this article. 204.251.84.212 14:29, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Justification 

message: Well Warrens, here is a link to Real Software's own Realbasic Forum about threads.
http://www.ninjaproxy.com/cgiproxy/nph-proxy.pl/010110A/http/forums.realbasic.com/viewtopic.php?t=3608&highlight=cooperative+threads
Notice the sentence from Aaron Ballman: "No, it has cooperative threads , which cannot (by definition) be used on multiple processors." which disproves the register article. And who is is aaron Ballman do you ask, but one of RB' chief software engineers (i.e., he's listed in the AboutBox).
This completely disqualifies the author of the register article as a RB expert. To get someonthing as fundamentally wrong as this means the author is a complete noob or is a liar! The article does not contain helpful information, it contains this guy's opions - who exactly is this guy, but someone writing an article for a publication, which in turn has Google ads for RB on the same page - a conflict of interest as they get money when people buy through those RB ads.
Helpful information, really, how can you ay that, you've jusy said you know nothing about RB, yet your opion is that the article is helpful. How much more of the information in the article is false / personal opionion? but then you would not know because you know nothing about RB as you claim.
Your continued inclusion of false information is fraud!
:I'm not certain if you've seen our policy on personal attacks.  Please comment on the content of the article, not on its contributors.
:The forum link says multiple processors.  This is different than multiple threads on the same processor.  Regardless, the article currently says cooperative threads, so I'm not certain why you're continuing to rant in this direction?  It would appear the article is worded in precisely the same manner as the thread you pointed out.  Magazine and newspaper articles make mistakes all the time; this is why they print corrections.  One error doesn't make the entire article incorrect.  Is there anything else in the Register article that you felt was incorrect, or any other areas of our article it affected negatively? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 18:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Jareth, he's been vandalising this article and insulting other Wikipedia contributors since January, and has had these points made to him repeatedly.  He continues to ignore them and carry on on this fashion.  I mean, really, "this means war!"? What more does a person need to do to earn a permanent ban around here? Warrens 18:58, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have you tried an RfC or mediation? There's certain channels of dispute resolution; people aren't typically just banned outright.  Have any of his multiple socks been banned or has any kind of sanction happened? .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 19:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, he's had four sockpuppet accounts blocked, for 3RR violations and for other reasons, and the page itself has been sprotected to stop him specifically from his problematic editing.  See User:Vslashg/TruthInAdvertising_Sockpuppets.  Warrens 19:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warrens True Identify Revealed - A RB Shill! 

message: Regarding your comment (quoted from above):
:"Gone are the various floating palettes and windows of old, replaced by a slick single-window user interface that places controls, application window or code, and control properties into separate panes."
:I made a correction to the article removing the sentance that said Rb used pallets, yet even this article, which you link to, says pallets were removed, yet my correction was removed by you shills who don't even bother to read the articles you link to! This is just one example of why this article should be removed until verfified sources are found - none of the information in the article is verified.
Though the Computer Desktop Encyclopedia defines palette as "A toolbar that contains a set of functions for any kind of application" , thus distinguished from a "floating palette", I agree that the term palette seems to suggest a floating window.  (I've never heard it used to refer to toolbars before looking it up.)
I'm having trouble coming up with a better term for the integrated listbox of controls, though.  For now I put in "toolbar" but would happily hear anyone's suggestion for a better term. Vslashg (talk) 22:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Visual Studio calls this a "toolbox".  Warrens 22:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for TruthInAdvertising re palettes 

message: Apparently Bigfoot have never heard of dialup service where you get a different ip each time. If your so concerned I suggest you send me some money to buy a statice ip address. But no you are only interested in shilling a commcercial product on Wikipedia and defrauding potential customers of this product by allowing false information to be posted in this article!
:And you still haven't read WP:3RR have you. Sasquatch  t|c 02:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sasquatch (anon user jumping IPs using it to cross 3RR) 

message: And I suggest you read this from Wiki's policy:
"It does not necessarily mean taking a previous version from history and editing that."
As you can see all my changes were in fact edits of previous versions - information added, changed, or corrected. And according to Wiki's rules reverting your own stuff is not included. Of course some of these edits wouldn't be necessary, but for the actions of others who revert the article while I am making corrections.
Once again we see that the adminitrators do not follow their own words or Wiki's rules. The authors of this article are nothing but shillers of a commercial product and are misuing Wiki by posting false and deceptive information. nothing but a bunch of lying hypocrites.
And how does anyone know exactly who really made the edits. Perhaps the administrators involved in article can explain why information posted on the discussion page has been REMOVED - and no I am not talking it be moved to another page. So then what elese are the administrators doing to this page to shill this product. And before you deny removing information I suggest you do a little research on how easy it to save web pages as pdf files on the Mac from a browser window.
:No violation of 3RR? than what's , , , ,  all deleting certain text and only readding " whoes current creation is Extremebasic." which is MISSPELLED in ever single revert. I suggest you not lie again on here or I will lock this talk page too. Do you really want to start an argument on policy with an administrator? I think not. I'm very close to locking this talk page too if i see one more legal threat or insult. Thank you and have a good day. Sasquatch  t|c 06:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, I moved yet another of his lengthy dumps to the archive page.  Warrens 22:23, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bigfoot I Suggest You Follow Your Own words