Some rrr is trying to get the BB entry removed from Wikipedia. Go sic 'em Puki.......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitz_BASIC
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blitz_BASIC
Help save Blitz from deletion!
Miscellaneous Forums/General Discussion/Help save Blitz from deletion! Keep in mind that this is only about Blitz Basic(Amiga), Blitz Basic2(Amiga) and Blitz Basic(PC)
Maybe someone could confirm or deny whether the Nether Realm Software book was 'independent'.
http://www.cucug.org/amiga/aminews/1997/971209-neather.html
Reviews should be obtainable, but would propably lack depth, and be easy to attack as being paid for advertising, since this was common back then.
The best angle is to promote Blitz Basic(PC), using the books written about it(Maneesh Sethi and the one I can't remember the name of).
Andy
Maybe someone could confirm or deny whether the Nether Realm Software book was 'independent'.
http://www.cucug.org/amiga/aminews/1997/971209-neather.html
Reviews should be obtainable, but would propably lack depth, and be easy to attack as being paid for advertising, since this was common back then.
The best angle is to promote Blitz Basic(PC), using the books written about it(Maneesh Sethi and the one I can't remember the name of).
Andy
Why get anything removed from Wikipedia?
Unless an article is getting in the way of something else, is a blatant spamming attempt or is horribly written, I see no reason to reduce Wikipedia's function as a ginormous directory containing all manner of information that conventional encyclopedias do not document.
Thus far, none of those unnecessary articles have gotten in my way. They have, however, helped save me a lot of time on numerous little queries (such as the difference between an Add-on, an Extension and a Plugin).
The fact is, if Wikipedia was just like a normal encyclopedia that only talked about "serious" things, there would be nothing obviously special about it beyond how it's run; I would probably use another online encyclopedia.
However, it is not, and that is why Wikipedia is such a great thing. You can find full articles on puny war veterans (the kind that nobody fusses over; just your average soldier), predictions of the future, days of the year...
The only reason why the professional encyclopedias have this to worry about these things is because they are written by people with salaries and because they are often printed on expensive paper.
Britannica can't afford to have unnecessary articles. Wikipedia can. Or must we pretend to be on salaries now, in order to appeal to a wider audience? (Because, as we all know, people are so much more generous with their donations when they know that the people they are giving to are already being payed).
Anyway, must add sources for information...
Unless an article is getting in the way of something else, is a blatant spamming attempt or is horribly written, I see no reason to reduce Wikipedia's function as a ginormous directory containing all manner of information that conventional encyclopedias do not document.
Thus far, none of those unnecessary articles have gotten in my way. They have, however, helped save me a lot of time on numerous little queries (such as the difference between an Add-on, an Extension and a Plugin).
The fact is, if Wikipedia was just like a normal encyclopedia that only talked about "serious" things, there would be nothing obviously special about it beyond how it's run; I would probably use another online encyclopedia.
However, it is not, and that is why Wikipedia is such a great thing. You can find full articles on puny war veterans (the kind that nobody fusses over; just your average soldier), predictions of the future, days of the year...
The only reason why the professional encyclopedias have this to worry about these things is because they are written by people with salaries and because they are often printed on expensive paper.
Britannica can't afford to have unnecessary articles. Wikipedia can. Or must we pretend to be on salaries now, in order to appeal to a wider audience? (Because, as we all know, people are so much more generous with their donations when they know that the people they are giving to are already being payed).
Anyway, must add sources for information...
Mmm, I'm not sure I understand what is going on here.
What are they talking about - what's with all the bentness?
I don't see where it just plainly tells you what the offending thing is.
I say we just delete whatever it is and replace with an article about me.
An editor has expressed a concern that the subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline or one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines.
If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand the article to establish its notability, citing reliable sources. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for deletion, as per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. (See also Wikipedia:Notability)
This article has been tagged since October 2006.
If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand the article to establish its notability, citing reliable sources. If notability cannot be established, the article is more likely to be considered for deletion, as per Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. (See also Wikipedia:Notability)
This article has been tagged since October 2006.
What are they talking about - what's with all the bentness?
I don't see where it just plainly tells you what the offending thing is.
I say we just delete whatever it is and replace with an article about me.
@Andy - as far as I can see this is about all Blitz languages, all platforms.
The article doesn't look bad to me. If you believe what it says, it was a 12 year old by the handle of MadCowPoo that recommended deletion. I have had a look around and there are articles on far more obscure flavours of basic that haven't been attacked.
The article doesn't look bad to me. If you believe what it says, it was a 12 year old by the handle of MadCowPoo that recommended deletion. I have had a look around and there are articles on far more obscure flavours of basic that haven't been attacked.
"I say we just delete whatever it is and replace with an article about me."
Thanks for the input... let's just put that one on the back burner for now, eh. : ) So, any volunteers willing and able to fill out the artical a bit?
Blitz must not suffer the wrath of a preeteen on a powertrip!
Blitz must not suffer the wrath of a preeteen on a powertrip!
Well, in honesty, I don't know what it is all about.
I say we just delete whatever it is and replace with an article about me.
I knew you were gonna say that! ;)
Just make sure it goes in the csame category as Computer Programming Languages.
is going to get deleted because of lack of articles or lack of citations?
the subject of the article does not satisfy the notability guideline or one of the following guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia: Biographies, Books, Companies, Fiction, Music, Neologisms, Numbers, Web content, or several proposals for new guidelines.
Seems to me a small section (or new article) describing Blitz Research Limited should do it.
If you believe what it says, it was a 12 year old by the handle of MadCowPoo that recommended deletion.
Hillarious. Well done Wikipedia, you useless cretinous morons. Looks like it is no longer tagged for deletion.
Excellent. Someone did something right!
Some rrr is trying to get the BB entry removed from Wikipedia
Hangon, I was under the impression that NOTHING was ever to be deleted. Archived maybe, but never deleted. (ok so spam and the like yes, but any "information" page was to stay for ever)
Surly the whole point is that noone can delete them, and that they are going to be there in like a billion years time, data that only the sun ghosts and Joan of arc can access.
The "Games written using Blitz Basic" section really needs to be filled out with more games. :-)