Talk:JWASM

This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page:
• Open Watcom Assembler
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Open Watcom Assembler

This article was nominated for deletion on 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect.

untitled

I wonder as to the purpose of preparing to trash an article that is less than 12 hours old when its contents are simply a technical matter. I started the page, added the minimum description of the new assembler and made REFERENCE to the authors own site which contains the technical data supporting the minimum level description. Then I bothered to look up the technical data that comes with the assembler to do the versioning history.

The notion that an encyclopaedia can only be constructed on seconds hand opinion is flawed in technical terms, there is no reason to assume that there is a body of second hand opinion that knows enough about the subject to say anything useful.

Almost exclusively the PROOF rather than nonsense notions of citation to external data that has no garantee of reliability is written in assembler code. Now this generates yet another problem in that the formatting capacity in Wikipedia is designed around formatted text which makes posting code example PROOF difficult to do properly as the results look appalling on the release page.

I made the effort to try and suppoort Wikipedia in an area where it is seriously lacking and the result is someone slapped a pile of FUCKING GRAFFITI all over the page when it was less than a day old. A page of this type takes a reasonable amount of work to get it all up and going and having to shovel through a mountain of sh*t is the best reason I can think of to not bother.

My approach is simple, if someone here deletes it, you can write the FUCKING THING yourself.

Hutch48 (talk) 00:10, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No need to use foul language. You've been around long enough to know (a) that you could have got the article together in userspace (b) all Wikipedia articles need to demonstrate notability under the Wikipedia definition and (c) all you had to do was add the info and take the prod notice off. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:28, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Magioladitis,

I appreciate any help in getting a technical page of this type up and going but it is the second time that a person with no technical experience in this subject has graffitied the page in the short time it has been displayed. While as a matter of fact the page is linked from 2 other assembler related topics, the subject material is not exactly consumer market trivia so you cannot reasonably expect that it has thousands of links to it. Wikipedia is seriously deficient in technical articles of this type and as long as it has non-technical members interfering with or trying to delete technical matters that they simply are not competent to comment on, it will remain this way.

Playing Wikipedia policeman may have its place but the price of interfering with technical articles is an ever increasing number of people abandoning Wikipedia as is in fact the case with the last month or so of top banners trying to raise money and support.

Hutch48 (talk) 05:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removal of deletion notice

Reference is made to a notice of proposed deletion originating from editor Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC). The grounds for the proposed deletion made less than 12 hours after the article was first started was that it failed to satisfy the criteria of notability.

I submit that the notice was issued in error from a person who does not have sufficient historical or technical knowledge to comment on an article of this type.

1. Watcom is an old product easily predating Wikipedia and fully satisfies the criteria of notability.
2. Sybase is another old company that predates Wikipedia and fully satisfies the criteria of notability.
3. Sybase made the Watcom product line open source after it aquisition of Watcom which fully satisfies the criteria of notability.
4. Various Watcom components are now upgraded in accordance with the Sybase Open Source EULA which fully satisfies the criteria of notability.
5. The topic of the page JWASM is independently supported by a number of locations.

   (a) The MASM forum.
   (b) SourceForge.

6. The author's own site provides detailed reference material, source code and multiple version.
7. The topic JWASM has an independent user base.

I propose that the speedy deletion notice be immediately removed and the page be protected from editing or deletion by non technical editors.

The bad manners, arrogance and ignorance of the original deletion notice is unacceptable conduct and seriously damaging to an online encyclopaedia like Wikipedia. Wikipedia is dying through years of vandalism by anonymous editors and now deliberate vandalism by non-technical editors scuttling around Wikipedia using automated software to slap graffiti on topic they simply don't understand. The number of crippled or abandoned pages is growing at about the rate that Wikipedia funding is collapsing.

Hutch48 (talk) 23:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

(Comment moved from article --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC))[reply]

Note: The GeneSys SDK which was created and is supported by myself (Paul Brennick) includes JWASM in the package. As a rule, all assemblers included in the package undergo extensive bench testing so as to determine its suitability. JWASM meets this criteria on many levels but what makes it most notable from my viewpoint as the developer of an SDK is the fact that the developer of this assembler is approachable on a one-to-one basis to discuss poosible changes/fixes/additions to the package. This, as far as I am aware, is unheard of before and makes this assembler stand apart from all others.

Paul E. Brennick

User:PBrennick

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM would be the place to discuss the subject's notability. However, the argument presented here does not address how JWASM meets the criteria of notability on Wikipedia. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

Is original research allowed in the external links section? I know that Ellen re-added the link, but does that mitigate the fact that the article is nothing more than User:SpooK's original research? Unit Anode 22:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you think about it, the external links section should always be original research - ie it should be secondary sources which someone has researched and put together. The question for an external source isn't it's originality, it is its quality. It's obvious - if I'm writing an article about "Cats in Ancient Egypt", I'm going to cite Jaromir Malek, because he's the expert on the subject, and he did all the research. If he isa wikipedia editor, the external source is still good, although it might be considered better if I quoted it in the article than if he did (COI and all that). In Malek's case, the source is of excellent quality as it is published by the British Museum Press. The issue with SpooK's source is the quality (and it is definitely better if he's not the guy adding it to the article), not the fact that it is OR. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unit, you are simply mistaken here, original research relates directly to the content of Wikipedia, not to external information referenced by Wikipeia. Japheth's work is original research, a user writing original code is conducting original research but a technical review on an independent website require the author to execise the appropriate expertise to test the object and this SpooK has done. WHat you are angling for is a chain of citation going back to infinity on the basis that you are assuming any expertise exercised outside of Wikipedia is subject to the same limitation on original research.
Hutch48 (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the future

This page is still in reasonably rudimentary form reflecting the quick sketching out of the current stub with a number of categories and the reference material I could find at the time of creating the page. It does need to be developed into a form where people who continually use JWASM can continue to update it and keep abreast of changes made to the tool in its continuing development cycle. Before the last tagging for deletion an anonymous editor has already updated the version information and altered the order of the links at the bottom of the page so this capacity is available. I have a number of recommendations for the page in its current forum.

1. The copyright string needs to be buried in the reference section via ref tags.
2. The Usage section needs a leading reference to both the Microsoft technical data and the Intel manuals so that the reader knows where the example notation is sourced from. The use of assembler notation for the examples is conventional in much the same way as mathematical notation is conventional, if you can accomodate "1 + 1 = 2" as not being original research in arithmetic then you can accomodate,

   mov eax, var

as being conventional using assembler notation.

3. JWASM is capable of producing binaries for non-Mirosoft operating system versions and explanatory notation may be applicable here to distinguish JWASM from other Unix based assemblers, GAS, FASM, NASM and possibly others.

Hutch48 (talk) 09:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]