B2kguga

Re:RosAsm

A number of points. One, we are not democratic. Two, deleting rubbish is not anti-GPL. Three, the article went through the usual processes- it was prodded, the prod was removed, and it was then deleted via AfD. If you are "a user of wikipedia since years", then you would understand that. The article was not deleted as spam, it was deleted because it regarded a subject that was blatantly not notable, and so undeserving of a subject. Last point- calling me a vandal on your userpage is not going to achieve anything, except maybe a block should you continue to abuse me and/or other editors. J Milburn 21:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You're really pushing it continually suggesting I 'vandalised' 'your' article. It may well be also worth your while reading this. J Milburn 21:49, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

notable ?

So, if an article is not "notable" you discard it as non-existant ???

What kind of online encyclopedia you think that does not included every subjects or every possible articles ?

So, if i write an article on a variation of a "quagga" (A type of extint zebra) you would delete because it was not "notable" enough ?

The article was in wiki standards, and deleting it on this scope is simply absurd.

It was not within 'Wiki standards', and yes, should an article be on a non-notable subject, we delete it. Please have a look at our notability guidelines. We are not about 'everything', at all. For someone who claims to have been around for a while, you seem to know nothing about the way we work. J Milburn 21:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

RosAsm article was here singe a long time ago.

The only thing i did was edit it to improve the article

And also.. this is really weiord

Whenm i requested for help to keep the article on wiki standards, i got NO help at all.

The only ones that tried to edit the article to it fits the standards where common users.

Insetad deleting you should contact me to edit the artciel or even better,.,. help the edition to it fits to wikipedia.

The article was prodded for a few days and nominated for deletion after that for five days. You had all that time to improve the article or request help- it was deleted because, even after that time, there was no evidence that it could ever be a valid article. It was not because the article was badly written or did not meet our policies, it was because there was no evidence that the topic did. J Milburn 22:05, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

What do u mean with a valid article ? And what "evidence that the topic did" .. did what ?

I rewrote this article several times, and was accepting the edition of the common users. When i saw the article yesterday (or better the day before yesterday, it was simply gone). I didn´t noted any deleting message or anything like that.

Yesterday i wrote it again, to start editing this afternoon, and again.. it was gone.

The deletion notices were removed several times by anonymous users sharing your view that I was 'vandalising' the article. I swiftly replaced them. By valid article, I mean, as I have said, an article on a notable topic. If you are interested, the (rather bland and empty) deletion discussion can be found here. I nominated for deletion, several users agreed deleting the article was the best course of action, and the discussion was closed and the article deleted by another administrator. Nobody requested help or had any belief that the article could ever be a valid one. As for rewriting- it was decided to be non notable, and so the article could be deleted as a recreation, or, more likely, it was deleted because it was simply not about a notable topic. When articles blatantly do not meet our policies, they are speedy deleted. J Milburn 22:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

OK... but if anonymous users delete it...

How can i write it again ?

I´m not an editor, and do my best to make this article be on wiki standards or be notable. You are the 1st admin/editor that i´m talking in along time ago. Whenever i requested for help, some people was talking to me with the talk page and showing where were the links to the standards, or simply was helping to make the article be notable.

So, now that you seems to be someone that can help the editions, to keep it standards, how can i rewrite the article ?

Once you prove that the topic is notable, you are free to rewrite the article. J Milburn 22:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

When u talk in proof that it is notable you meant it to fits this, right  ?

• "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail, and no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than trivial but less than exclusive.1
• "Sources"2 should be secondary sources or otherwise provide objective evidence of notability. The number needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally preferred.3
• "Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media. Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability.4
• "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by those affiliated with the subject including: self-publicity, advertising, self-published material by the subject, autobiographies, press releases, etc.5

Yes- multiple, significant, independent, reliable published sources. J Milburn 22:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

ok

topic 1 and 2) - "Significant coverage" and "Sources" 12800 topics on RosAsm on google: www.google.com.br/search?hl=pt-BR&q=rosasm&btnG=Pesquisa+Google&meta=

articles containing examples of assembly files using rosasm: www.geocities.com/yeohhs2006

www.geocities.com/yeohhs

www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=113629 - Brasilian Assembly community in Orkut.

groups.yahoo.com/group/rosasm-users - Yeohhs's RosAsm discussion Group in Yahoo. Tutorials, Examples Guides.

groups.yahoo.com/group/guga_rosfiles Mine RosAsm discussion Group in Yahoo.

br.geocities.com/b2kguga - Mine site using RosAsm files, examples, and tutorials in assembly

www.szmyggenpv.com/RosAsm.htm

jfmasmtuts.blowsearch.ws

www.quanta-it.com/easbell

diego-fraga.com.ar/asm

nessie.emubase.de

web.utanet.at/schw1285/KESYS/index.htm

winasm.tripod.com

betov.free.fr

yeohhs.blogspot.com/2005_06_01_yeohhs_archive.html

forum.abril.com.br/info/topicos.php?area=266&go_to=0

www.AssemblerFan.DE

www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-murschpe2

www.chez.com/asmgges/index.htm

www.gamedev.com.br

topic 3 and 4 - "Reliable" and "Independent of the subject"

All of the links above where written by several different programmers, not necessarily assembly users and by several different programmers not directly connected with RosAsm, but also C programmers, Computer science students, or in the brasilian page in Orkut where teachers and students searches for reliable sources of information on assembly language - One of the reasons i rewrote the article was to help providing better documentation/articles in assembly languages that uses RosAsm assembler, since the goal of those students or teachers was exactly understand how assembly works, and how create their applications to enhance the school grade.

Read this and then show me a list of RELIABLE sources. J Milburn 23:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources.. ok.. i did that on the links.. but... here it goes some of them:

www.yeohhs.com

www.networkdictionary.com/software/r.php

www.mynetcologne.de/~nc-murschpe2

www.quanta-it.com/easbell

www.orkut.com/Community.aspx?cmm=113629

www.answers.com/topic/rosasm-1

www.chez.com/asmgges

alt.lang.asm

brasilian university

www-usr.inf.ufsm.br/~silveira/trabalhos/nasm/nasm.html

www.developpez.net/forums/showthread.php?t=16174

www.geocities.com/fine010010/Ingeneria_de_Sistema.html

known software links

www.programmersheaven.com/download/36086/download.aspx

www.soft3k.com/RosAsm-Guide-2-p8682.htm

programmerstools.org/node/437

www.experts-exchange.com/Programming/Programming_Languages/Assembly/Q_21299793.html

www.daniweb.com/forums/thread27032.html

www.freestuff.gr/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27429

www.hprog.org/fhp/CodingProjects

www.asmfr.com/codes/MODIFICATIONS-SUR-JEU-SNAKE-ASMGGES_42753.aspx

www.planet-quellcodes.de/forum/index.php?showtopic=719

As i told you there are hundreds of articles, examples of code, usage written by different people. In terms of articles and examples written it have more then others assemblers, as far i know.

Now.. how can i rewrite the article to it fits ? Can u help me writting it on a way that it fits the wiki standards ?

Best Regards,

Guga

Ok, here are where the sources stand.

1. Not an article about it, just mentions that it exists.
2. Again, not an article. Could be used as a source, but is not one of the needed sources to confer notability.
3. Not sure about this- site is badly formatted and I don't speak German. I guess this could be considered one of the sources, but I wouldn't count on it.
4. Unable to connect.
5. Require login, we generally don't allow that. In any case, appears to be a forum, which is considered unreliable unless it is a notable individual posting.
6. Answers.com is a Wikipedia mirror.
7. I don't speak French, but it appears to just be the program for download and a brief description.
8. Page cannot be found.
9. Connection timed out. (Check the URL, this might be a good one.)
10. Forums are not considered reliable.
11. Geocities, Freewebs etc are rarely considered reliable.
12. Too brief. Again, could be used as a source, but not as one of the sources.
13. The text here and the guide offered for download look to be reliable, this counts as one of your sources.
14. Another good source, just.
15. Forum.
16. Forum.
17. Barely a mention.
18. Appears to be user-submitted, making it unreliable.
19. Forum.

Ok, from the links you have shown me, I would say that this was just notable, but I can't speak for everyone. It is evidently in-use, certainly. If you would like to write the article with a little bit of freedom, not worrying about the initial wave of new-page patrollers, write it here, which is a subpage of your userspace. When you want me to review it, please message me on my talk page, and I'll come and take a look. J Milburn 10:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

i´ll get start editing from a backup i have. This needs editing, because i made it sometime ago while i was looking for the standards on wiki.

Best Regards,

Guga

Colours are to be avoided- they don't always look as you expect them, and don't print too well. See this, for instance. Colours in the background on the article would not be acceptable. I will take a look at the article now, and try and clean it up a little, if any cleaning needs to be done. J Milburn 15:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have done a few things, but you are going to need to remove some of the information about the features- there is just too much there about it. J Milburn 15:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

ok

tks, i see we are editing at the same time :)

I´ll stop removing some topics i posted and let u edit it. (I was removing the "Ongoing projects and future")

Best Regards,

Guga

No, you edit it for a bit- try and cut it down a bit. Compare it to Mozilla Firefox- that is a featured article about software. You don't need so much information about the features. J Milburn 15:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi J

Excellent article. It is good to use this to base RosAsm article too. So i can adapt it to it be good and clean as mozzila´s.

Best Regards

Guga

Proposed deletion of RosAsm

The article RosAsm has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Written like an advertisement, uses primary sources from the vendor, etc.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Blelbach (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of RosAsm for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RosAsm is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RosAsm (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Rwessel (talk) 06:23, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

August 2024

Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit(s) you made to Eva Vlaardingerbroek, did not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use your sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Ogress 23:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)