Well if you consider my series a reliable secondary source I would be
honored but I don't feel like they are.
My series starts here: http://www.prodevtips.com/2008/03/28/pico-lisp/
I know you reviewed the 3-5 first parts in the series but not the ones
at the end so that's where the reliability might lack, the code
examples work like expected at least but the explaining texts might be
On Sat, Jan 2, 2010 at 8:13 PM, Alexander Burger <a...@software-lab.de> wrote:
> Hi friends,
> a happy New Year!
> Now it looks I need some help or advice. I'm having trouble with
> I wrote an article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picolisp) around the
> 12th of November last year. Everything seemed all right, someone did
> minor changes, added links etc., and then the article stayed there
> untouched, until New Year.
> Now, because Mansur had written a translation to Esperanto
> (http://eo.wikipedia.org/wiki/Picolisp), I felt obligated to write also
> a German version. I did so (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/PicoLisp), but
> immediately some vice squad at the German Wikipedia considered the
> article against the guidelines, and marked it for deletion. Moreover,
> this process triggered also the deletion of the original English
> The claims for the English article are are that it lacks "reliable,
> secondary sources". The German side even argues that the article is
> commercial advertisement.
> Both claims are rather funny. Of course, I never charged anything for
> PicoLisp, and the article includes links to www.picolisp.org and to the
> download page etc. What other "reliable sources" should be possible?
> Isn't the downloadable system itself the most reliable source?
> Should I include some links to the pages Henrik (prodevtips.com) and
> Tomas (logand.com) made? If so, which ones?
> Does anybody have experiences with such a case, or any ideas?
> - Alex
> UNSUBSCRIBE: mailto:picol...@software-lab.de?subject=unsubscribe