User talk: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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.