Talk:Bromcom

This article was nominated for deletion on 7 November 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

I wish to contest this page being deleted. It is not meant for advertisment purposes. In order to ensure that it wasnt deemed as advertisment I posted it on a practice page for over 4 days, and created a talk page inviting other editors to help advice me if it was ok. I would like any feed back on what i can change so that this article is not deemed as advertisment.

Various points. The internal links need to be formed by [[foobar]]. The tone needs to remain factual throughout. Further external references are really required. I've done a quick copyedit. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Im not sure how to form the links using foobar.. I am trying to edit the article now to make it as factual as possible, and I am adding more links. Any other feedback would be great! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lt06097 (talk • contribs) 13:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1999 Referral of Capita SIMS to the OFT

This article's statement that "In 1999 Capita did not cooperate with Bromcoms (sic) request for improved interoperability in order to write back to Capita’s database... The OFT agreed with Bromcom that Capita was obliged to cooperate with Bromcom to provide the necessary interoperability" (italics mine) seems to be at variance with http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Schools_Information_Management_System which says "Bromcom have referred Capita to the OFT on three occasions. The first complaint in 1999 was not upheld and the OFT in their concluding letter to Bromcom stated “it emerged that the information which you claimed Capita had refused to supply, had never in fact been requested by you”. However, I cannot find the original OFT ruling on-line (a later(2003) ruling is at http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/ca98_case_closures/2003.pdf) Does anyone have a source so that one or the other of these pages can be edited to bring them in line? Doctorguitar007 (talk) 16:07, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request it's removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.cbronline.com/news/bromcom_system_threatens_short_sharp_shock_for_school_truants
Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.cbronline.com/news/bromcom_to_put_unix_on_qc_386_as_part_of_major_attack_on_uk_schools_market
Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:57, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 00:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 23:45, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Bromcom. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier history of Bromcom

I searched for Bromcom in the hope of being able to find its earlier history, from the early 1980s or before. The claim being made here is that Bromcom was founded in 1986. This is not so, or there was another company called Bromcom, because I'm familiar with the company as a Bromley-based micro company which made high-spec Unix boxes based on the 68000 CPU in the early 1980s. Can anyone clear this up? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nineteenthly (talk • contribs) 15:16, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]