Talk:Realbasic/Archive 2

message: This article is nothing more than product shilling by people who do not even follow their own rules:
Actions of these shills:
1. You remove screnshots others have uploaded, but then object to the fact people are removing your uploaded screenshots which are NOT linked to articles articles verifying the screenshots.
And top further shill this product you include multiple screenshots of this product on multiple operating systems as a way to sell this product instead of following Wiki regulations which say you should only use multiple os screenshots when there is a significant difference between the product on each. The purpose of the new IDE was so RB looks the same on all platforms, thus you ar enothing but shills.
To further illustrate this point you remove historical screenshots of previous IDE's of RB from the article, even ones linked to outside articles, and accorrding to Wiki guidelines mutliple screenshots of previous IDE's is justified because the product looked and acted completely different on different operating systems prior to the new IDE in RB2005.
2. You remove information as being controversial as opposed to neutral yet you link to articles which have their own "con", "controversial", and the like sections.
3. You remove any historical information about the redesign of this product and the removal of features with the introduction of RB2005. Lets see here a product is originally made for the Macintosh platform only, uses a Macintosh interface for the vast majority of its life, and thats not historical information. No you only want to provide free advertising to Real Software instead. The redeign of the product is a historical fact and people have the right to know exactly what they buying and what they no longer can do. Neutral means a balance of + and -, not all +, unless of course if you are nothing but product shillers.
4. You remove a complete set of instructions that any RB user can duplicate for testing for the problem of increased application sizes in RB as RB is updated under the grounds it would be too much of a burden on users to download RB and try it, yet on the other hand you provide code samples which are linked to outside articles, but which you say users can duplicate for themeselves - just how are they are suppose to do that without downloading Realbasic in the same manner.
5. You continually post information highlighting the supposed features of this product, yet provide no links to articles from independent sources to back this up. Instead you say RB has this and that feature and then just link to a generic subject on Wiki. Yet on the other hand you remove other people's work for the same reason.
You continually remove other people's work, but object when people remove your work for the same reason. For this reason this article should be removed from Wikipedia as its nothing more than product shilling for RS, instead of a HISTORICAL GUIDELINE TO THE REALBASIC PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE. You do know Realbasic is programming language - not just the latest versions of the IDE for sale over at RS.
:Your destructive changes are being reverted by a wide variety of Wikipedia editors who have likely never used (or even heard of) REALBasic, myself included.  You have been classified as a vandal for your behaviour here, not because of your opinion.  You have been told this repeatedly, you have been warned repeatedly, you have had multiple accounts banned from Wikipedia for this destructive vandalistic behaviour, and yet you carry on with the blah blah blah.  Don't you get it?  YOU ARE IN THE WRONG HERE.  Nobody is going to give a sh-- about your stance on the subject matter if the sum total of your contribution is destructive vandalism.  There are over one million articles on Wikipedia, can't you find something productive to contribute to this project?  Wikipedia is, first, foremost, and solely an encyclopedia. It is not a platform for advocacy of any kind.  You know this and yet you wilfully ignore it.
: You have absolutely no chance of winning any kind of concession with this kind of destructive behaviour.  Edit constructively, or don't edit at all.  Warrens 04:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

message: Once again we see the article has been reverted to a ad campaign for Real Software full unverified information. Instead of verifying information the RB product shills continue to use deceitful tactics such as this example under “Language Features”:
“RB is a strongly typed language with minimal automatic type conversion, that supports single inheritance and multiple interfaces, class methods and class properties, reference counting (similar to Java), definition of customized arithmetic operators (similar to C++). It has a complete feature set supporting hash tables, threads, real-time 3D graphics, sound, XML parsing and generation (even through XSL), full Unicode support, API calls to compiled C libraries on all supported platforms, Visual Basic datatypes compatibility, regular expressions, QuickTime, serial, TCP/IP sockets, SSL, HTTP, POP3, SMTP, SOAP, scripting language support through RBScript, Apple events, Address book, Windows registry, system tray icons, ActiveX and OLE.”
This entire paragraph makes claims about features in Realbasic, yet there are NO links to articles verifying that such features actually exist in Realbasic. Instead we see the shills only linking to generic articles on generic computer terms so as to convinve the user that Realbasic contain these features. This is deceitful behavior designed to provide advertising for Realbasic. If  in deed these features are included in Realbasic as they claim then they should have no trouble linking to specific INDEPENDENT articles which state such.
We see the same thing repeated in the file format section:
“The source file format contains window and control placement data and is proprietary; however, XML import and export and Visual Basic import functionality is included. All source code can be contained in one project file, but it is also possible to have classes/modules in separate files in the same way as most other languages or dialects can. REALbasic compiles directly to machine language for each platform that it supports (Mac OS X, MS Windows, Linux).”
There are no actual links to articles which verfiy this information - only links to generic computer terms which are misued for the sole purpose of trying to convince potential customers to buy this product. Gee, you neglected to mention that versions of RB prior to RB2005 also included a much ore important feature than XML - the ability to export projects as a plain text that you could then open in any text editor as opposed to XML which you much parse yourself into a plain text if you wanted to print it.
Let’s examine the introduction:
“REALbasic (RB) is an object-oriented dialect of the BASIC programming language developed and commercially marketed by REAL Software, Inc in Austin, Texas for Mac OS X, Microsoft Windows, and Linux. Created by Andrew Barry, who has since moved on to creating ExtremeBasic, it was originally called CrossBasic due to its ability to compile the same programming code for Mac OS and Windows (although the IDE was Mac only). It was then redubbed REALbasic by REAL Software when they took over development in 1997. The IDE is now available for all three supported platforms (with exception, as of February 2006, of Intel”
Once again no links to actual articles which verfiy this information, just generic ones. The statement that this product is marketed for Mac OS X is false because with the introduction of Realbasic 2005 it no longer runs on any Mac OS X system from 10 to 10.2.6 (not to mention the fact it no longer runs on any Macintosh Classic platform - the original platform it was developed). Further more you cannot include blanket statements such as it runs on windows or Linux as that means nothing since there are only certain versions of these os’s it will operate on - or that given features will work.
And even more interesting is the fact that the shills behind this product continue to remove historical information about previous versions yet they include historical information within this section, while the remainder of the article only contains information about the latest features so as to sell the product to potential customers.
In the IDE Versions section:
 
“There are two versions of the IDE:
*	The professional edition can compile programs for Mac OS X, Linux and Microsoft Windows (plus Mac OS) from the same source code file; it can also access databases (Oracle, PostgreSQL, MySQL etc.) including the built-in single-user REAL SQL Database engine based on SQLite; it compiles console applications and has numerous other features.
*	The standard edition only compiles programs for the platform that the IDE is running on (either Windows, Linux or Mac), and does not allow access to databases other than the built-in REAL SQL Database.
Both versions of the IDE permit building the application GUI by dragging the controls from a palette to their parent window. Layout of the controls is helped by the IDE that permits aligning them (both horizontally and vertically), and which gives informations about the distance between controls, or between a control and the window borders.
RB IDE can use plugins that extend the language with classes or modules and which permit to develop multiplatform code more easily.”
Once agian no verfification, only the misuse of generic links in an attempt to add legitimacy to the statements made. If the statements are legit then provide some links! The staement “Both versions of the IDE permit building the application GUI by dragging the controls from a palette to their parent window.” is false - previously versions of Realbasic allowed you to drag controls from a control pallet window with icons of all the controls - the newest versions allow you to drag controls from listbox which permantely affixed inside the main window as opposed to a floating window pallet.
Screenshots:
No surprise here - no actual pictures from online article, just picture some shill has uploaded!
Once again we see Wiki’s polcy of screenshots be broken. the article includes screenshots of both Mac and Windows so as to sell the product. Wiki states only show one operating system’s screen shots. The purpose of the new IDE was so the product looked the same on all operating systems so there is no justification for multiple screenshots with the new IDE.
I further object to their being any Windows screenshots - there should be Mac only screenshots as this was originally devloped as a Mac application, has existed for many years as a Mac only application, with Windows users late comers to this product.
And more interestingly the shills remove multiple screenshots of previous IDE’s when in fact Wiki’s policy about screenshots justifies the use of multiple screenshots for older IDEs because each WAS DIFFERENT - Windows versions of the product used MDI which Mac did not since the Mac has no concept of the (idiot) MDI interface, but of course the shills don’t want any such information here because reflects badly on the conduct of RS (i.e., willing to stab their Mac customers in the back by removing the original Mac interface and other features so as to sell copies to Windows users).
Example code:
No links to articles ocntianing such code, thus to verfiy this information the reader must download RB, which takes up 120MB of your hard drive when unstuffed/unzipped (not to mention additional MB for supporting documents). This is unjustified burden on readers and rather dangerous since anyone could post a few lines of code here which could actuually harm the reader’s computer if they didn;t know any better.
Summary:
Either fix this article by providing verfied information or remove it completely as it sntothing but free ad space for RS. The shills should have no problem verfifying the information if RB is a great as they claim for surely there are a multitude on online articles to back up their claims. Yet so far the only thing we have seen is continued misuse of Wiki to post unverified and false information about RB; the continued abuse of Wiki rules; the continued abuse of Wiki’s system by falsely censoring posters for the same actions the they have taken themselves, and total hypocrisy as they don’t practice what they preach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.73.24 (talk • contribs) 
#You are obviously concerned about this article, and thanks for providing some more detail, but please don't illustrate your points with disruptions like this or accuse everyone else who might be here of being hypocritical. You've violated quite a few Wikipedia policies. Wikipedia works largely by concensus, but you make it very hard for others to agree with you when you vandalize and make repeated accusations. I really think you should familiarize yourself with the main Wikipedia policies and remember Hanlon's Razor, and at least pretend to calm down a bit more. 
#Note that many of the other programming language articles have somewhat similar problems with verifying information, because there is not that much that gets published about programming languages in anything mainstream, and little that could be called unbiased.
#"...XML which you much parse yourself into a plain text if you wanted to print it..." - How does XML not also qualify as plain text?
#Which of the language features in particular do you disagree with being in the article? I don't think anyone would object to removing a few of them if they're not significant or easily verifiable.
#Information from a company's website itself is generally considered acceptable for use as a source of information in describing that company's product, except when other notable sources dispute the accuracy of that information.
–Tifego(t) 03:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Verify or Remove Article

message: "...XML which you much parse yourself into a plain text if you wanted to print it..." - How does XML not also qualify as plain text?
Are you serious?
Raw xml includes formatting tags like html, while plain text does not. Try dropping xml file into a text editor which does not parse xml and see what you get get when you try to print it - gee you get the text you want to print plus the xml tags - as opposed to simply taking a plain text file generated from RB and print that. This is a perfect exmaple of why people who know nothing about RB, or least those that pretend to know knothing about it, should have nothing to do with this article.
:First of all, stop being incivil. Secondly, XML is perfectly editable in, viewable in, and printable from a text editor. I know very well it has formatting tags. Those tags are human-readable, so I'm not sure what your problem is with XML per se. Perhaps RB transforms it into atrocious XML, but your complaint was about the fact that it used XML insead of the quality of its use of XML.  –Tifego(t) 20:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Links to articles have nothing to do with it, we're talking about external reference links here. Why do you expect others to add this information that you're suggesting you know better? That seems hypocritical. If you are saying that there is no such information out there anywhere to justify anything in the article, then you would do better to argue that more directly. –Tifego(t) 20:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Again, you're not being specific. If you think the article should be deleted as non-notable then put it up on AfD, there's a process for this and it doesn't involve insulting people and Wikipedia on the article's talk page. –Tifego(t) 20:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

text: See WP:V#Self-published sources in articles about themselves. That is what I was referring to. –Tifego(t) 20:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, I'm not denying the possibility that they may be outright lying about every single feature of RB, but I haven't seen anything to suggest that so far. –Tifego(t) 20:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove article or verify - totally biased article! 

message: “First of all, stop being incivil. Secondly, XML is perfectly editable in, viewable in, and printable from a text editor. I know very well it has formatting tags. Those tags are human-readable, so I'm not sure what your problem is with XML per se. Perhaps RB transforms it into atrocious XML, but your complaint was about the fact that it used XML insead of the quality of its use of XML.”
Are you really this dense? Prior to the introduction of RB2005 Rb could export a project as a plain text file - that means NO FORMATTING TAGS. You just take the resulting text file and print it as is - NO EDITING & NO WORK. Now drop the same XML into a plain text editor and try to print it - it will print both the text you want and print the tags. You really gives a damn if you can actually edit the tags - why in the hell I am many others want to edit the tags - we are not interesting in editing or viewing any tags what so ever - we want the project as plain text. Once again, anothe reason why people who openly say they know nothing about RS should have anything to do with this article. This is perfect example of the authors are trying to lie about RB - saying it has the ability to export projects as XML, but NOT mentioning that for most of its history it provided a much more helpful feature of exporting projects as plain text. This is is only one issue in a long history of RS continually adding new features so as to entice upgrades and new purchases, but not telling you that the said features which you’ve come to rely on and need may not be there in the near future (frankly rather unethical). An how does wiki reward Rs, by providing them with free advertising space in an article WITH NO EXTERNALLY VERFIED INFORMATION!
“Links to articles have nothing to do with it, we're talking about external reference links here. Why do you expect others to add this information that you're suggesting you know better? That seems hypocritical. If you are saying that there is no such information out there anywhere to justify anything in the article, then you would do better to argue that more directly.”
What are you even talking about? The authors of this article have provided NO independent EXTERNAL LINKS to verfy any information or claims they have made. No, instead, they just link to other Wiki articles about generic computer terms WHICH DO NOT VERIFY ANYTHING ABOUT RB.
So then is you are going to include statements and claims in a Wiki article it is YOUR JOB to provide external links to back those claims up. If you choose not to get off your but and do some Google searching to provide those links then the information should be removed.
“Again, you're not being specific. If you think the article should be deleted as non-notable then put it up on AfD, there's a process for this and it doesn't involve insulting people and Wikipedia on the article's talk page. “
At this point I don;t believe anything further you have to say. I am very being very specific. NOTHING IN THE ARTICLE, NONE OF CLAIMS, NONE OF STATEMENTS, NOT EVEN THE SCREEN SHOTS ARE VERFIED BY OUTSIDE EXTERNAL LINKS FROM A INDEPENDENT SOURCE (i.e., not Real Software OR any publication that gets ads dolalrs from RS).
Recently while looking at Wiki I found an article on Wiki with a framed warning box at the top stating that the article below the warning box was not based on any given sources. So then why has not such a warning been added to the top of this article? Neutrality - Yeah I really believe that is going on here.
I see the multi operating system screen shots are still there - or since you claim to know nothing about RS maybe you can't tell - the first one in the frame is Mac, and the additional one(s) are Windows. Of course if the real purpose of this article is to just sell Realbasic then I'll bet they'll stay. Hell why not include a Linux one also? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.0.72.110 (talk • contribs) 
:Look, you need to chill out. I'm done talking with you if you're going to keep acting like that. And this article does have that warning box at the top, I added it earlier. –Tifego(t) 05:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why don't you check the edit history to see when I added it? I don't even understand why you're arguing with me when I actually agree that the article is too much like an advertisement and needs to be cut down and verified. Stop being a troll. Bye. –Tifego(t) 09:48, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Same old shilling! 

message: This article still does not provide links to independent sources for tis material as such a warning needs placed on top for all potential purchasers of this product, unless of course if the sole purpose of this artilce is really to sell more licenses for this product.
:You again, "Boycotrealbasic"?  All you ever do around here is a push a clear anti-Realbasic POV. Warrens 04:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added No Sources Box