User talk:OrangeDog/Archive 3

Thanks for your revision!!

Thanks for helping us consolidate our sources!!! This page is a project for a class and my partner was wondering how to do it so thanks so much!!! Lmcgee4096 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Your references could still do with some formatting work. See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners for help. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

AWB

Hi. Do you still use AWB 4.9.0.1? Please update to 4.9.0.3. Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 23:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Already done. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave-1900.jpg

Originally posted to commons:User talk:Jan Arkesteijn

What was the basis of your colour correction to this image? Unless you have seen the physical object yourself or have data on the camera and lighting conditions used when the photograph of it was taken then your modifications are misleading. Kindly drop a note at w:User Talk:OrangeDog. when you reply. Thanks. OrangeDog (talk • contribs) 21:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, the colors of the images from this serie are misleading from the start. From 1890 till 1905 the Detroit Photographic Company published handpainted b/w pictures from all around the world. They were used for picture postcards. The people that did the handpainting never saw the actual place where the photo was taken and had to make an educated guess for the colors. By removing the yellow colorcast caused by aging, the typical blues for the sky and the sea reappear. The color of the rock is probably not lifelike, but that is an artist impression. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My point being is that the image should show what the photochrom actually looks like, not what you personally think it used to look like. File:Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave-1900.jpg is a picture of a picture, not of a coastal location. The Commons image should be reverted to use the colours in the Library of Congress's copy. Your re-coloured version should go in a separate file if it is needed. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. Wikimedia is not a vault for originals that are not te be changed or modified anymore (the Library of Congress is in this case). Wikimedia should set a read only bit on files, if your explanation was the Wikimedia policy. In fact, the motto of Wikimedia or Wikipedia is to feel free and work on the material. That is why they facilitate the uploading of new versions. People who want to download the initially uploaded image can always go back in the history of the file. But if you feel that the Wikimedia policy should be changed, you will have a discussion with thousands of contributors. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The problem is in the usage of the file. In Photochrom it is used to show what a photocrom looks like. However, it does not currently show this, but insead what a photocrom would look like if you changed the colours to more closely match the subject of the photochom. If changing an image makes what articles claim about it incorrect, then a new File should be uploaded instead. Commons' primary purpose is to support other Wikimedia sites. Modification of Commons images should not be harmful to other projects as it is in this case. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I understand, but than the best thing to do is upload an image with a title and a description saying that it is an image that shows what a photochrom should look like. But I do not understand why a photochrom should look yellow. It did not look yellow when it was created. And that is the only thing I did, remove the yellowing of aging. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 13:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That would be fine, if you could be sure that the colour shifts you performed were exactly the opposite of what aging has done, which you can't know without information about its creation (what the inks were, the composition of the paper, where it was stored, etc.). The description does say it is a photochrom print, and there are plenty of modern photos showing what that bit of coast looks like, so I would say it is the responsibility of the uploader to check whether they are changing the meaning of the image based on the context in which it is used. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I do know from some examples in the database that managed to pass the time rather well that the photographs did not look yellow, so I don't understand why you would like to illustrate an article about photochrom, giving the impression that they did. Furthermore, the photo is used only on 2 photochrom pages and on 33 pages illustrating Staffa or subjects relating to that. So, I don't see why it should be reverted. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 14:34, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind if I list this at WP:3O to resolve this disagreement? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

No I don't mind, but I don't understand why you would like to revert a picture that is mainly used for purposes other than photochrom. By the way, I was looking for an example of a photochrom image that withstood the the ravages of time. It took a while but this is one of these images: http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.pnp/ppmsca.00241 Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Because even if it were used in 1 article about photochrom and 100 articles about other things, that would still make the one article wrong, while having the colours slightly off doesn't harm any of them. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That's your opinion, but I already suggested that you upload a photochrom image with a specific name and description for that purpose. By the way, shouldn't it be discussed on Commons? Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Third Opinion Request in progress:

I am responding to a third opinion request made at WP:3O and am currently reviewing the issues. I have made no previous edits on File:Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave-1900.jpg and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. (Please let me know immediately on my talk page if I am incorrect about either of those points.) The third opinion process (FAQ) is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes. Third opinions are not tiebreakers and should not be "counted" in determining whether or not consensus has been reached. My personal standards for issuing third opinions can be viewed here.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 17:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to Third Opinion Request:

Opinion: (a) The WP:OI section of No original research says, "Manipulated images should be prominently noted as such. Any image that is found to have manipulation that materially affects its encyclopedic value should be deleted from the article and a note should be posted at the file page informing users that the file contains Original Research." It is not, therefore, acceptable to recolor a Photochrom image to make the colors more realistic, in the sense of correctly reflecting the real-world colors of the place shown. (b) It can be acceptable to recolor a Photochrom image to restore it to its original colors and remove the effects of age or damage. Such a restoration is acceptable only if (b)(1) the restoration can be done with a high degree of certainty that the image is being restored to its actual original state and if (b)(2) there is no page already linked to the image which relies on the image remaining in an unrestored state. To fail to comply with (b)(1), such as by estimating or guessing at the proper color correction, also violates WP:OR in my opinion, since it takes the chance of changing the image into something that it never was before. It appears to me that this case falls under standard (b), but fails condition (b)(1) as something of a guess as to the proper color correction. Even if it is correct that the image has yellowed, it is a guess as how yellow the image might have been originally and even more a guess as to the effect that correction may have on the other colors in the image. (It also fails condition (b)(2), but in this case that's mainly because it fails (b)(1).) What's next: Once you've considered this opinion click here to see what happens next.—TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 19:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your contribution, TransporterMan. Your approach from Original Research is interesting, but there are some objections to make. First, checking several OR pages in different languages I came to the conclusion that the image clause is only present in the English OR page, and therefore is only relevant for images uploaded to the English Wikipedia. Since Commons is there for the entire community it should service the languages that do not have the image clause as well. (By the way, I suppose that is the reason why Commons does not have an OR-page.) Secondly, I can not derive the "standards" (as you call them) b1 an b2 from the English OR-page. The clause speaks about "try to distort the facts or position being illustrated" which I think, is something quite different. Thirdly, you say that there is no way to tell how yellow the image might have been. I already pointed to a picture of Oberammergau in the database of the Library of Congress that does show what a photochrom looks like without the yellow by aging. In the discussion I already proposed to upload a different version of the Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave image with a title and a description telling that this is a photo that shows what a 100 years old photochrom could look like, to make it clear not to color correct it. But since there is already an image File:Oberammergau 1900.jpg that better shows what photochroms did look like, I propose to replace File:Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave-1900.jpg on the Photochrom page with the Oberammergau picture. It prevents a lot of fuss, because if we are going to annul all those images at Commons that were restored in whatever way, it will affect a lot of images, even featured ones. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 09:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Any image used on a Wikimedia project should follow that project's image policy.

The distinguishing features of photochrom are the colours. If the colours are changed then the facts are distorted.

That one particular image used to have exactly the same colours as another is your own original research. Can you find a reliable source that says File:Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave-1900.jpg used to have the same colours as File:Oberammergau 1900.jpg? Besides this, you yourself changed the colours on File:Oberammergau 1900.jpg as well.

In the general case I think more discussion is needed, so I have started WP:VPP#Commons/enwiki policy interaction. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the Oberammergau picture, the comment hi-res version, removed yellow tone was a standard one when I was uploading hi-res versions. Comparing the image with the source at the Library of Congress, I doubt whether I made a color correction in this case, but I will re-upload it for you, just to be sure. As for this whole discussion, it seems to me that you are pursuing any solution except the sensible one. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 15:28, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification of 3O Opinion:

• The English Wikipedia OR page already applies to Commons: Go to Commons:Editor's_index_to_Commons#O and see "Original research" which refers you to the Commons:Editor's_index_to_Commons#Source section on Sources, which in turn refers you to WP:EIW#Source in which in turn refers you to WP:NOR which has the WP:OI section.
• The standards (b)(1) and (b)(2) are, indeed, merely my opinion and were not derived from WP:OR, but more from the general purpose and integrity standards of Wikipedia. My opinion is what was requested in the Third Opinion request. While I bring in policy and guidelines and prior consensus when I think that they apply - as in standard (a) - when I can find no clear guidance from those sources, I give my opinion. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'."
• My reference to the "yellowness" of the original image: I did not mean by that to refer to any yellowing due to age, but the amount of yellow tint (if any) originally applied to the image by the original craftsman. If the Oberammergau picture is, indeed, an example of an Photochrom as it originally appeared (about which I express no opinion one way or another), it shows how much yellow tint was applied to that image, but it provides little evidence for how much was applied to File:Scotland-Staffa-Fingals-Cave-1900.jpg without making unwarranted assumptions about the degree to which that particular manufacturer enforced uniformity upon the employees doing the hand-tinting.

Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 15:31, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the yellowness, I re-uploaded the Oberammergau picture, so if the Photochrom-article needs a reference picture it is there (as are many other pictures, but apparently the Staffa picture seems to be vital for some reason). As for the standards, it is good to see that they are a opinion. As for the goto, goto, goto, goto, goto OR page, you did not end it with a smiley... Most language OR pages do not have a clause for images, and we can not exclude them from using Commons. And I still think distort the facts or position being illustrated does not apply for modifications in the hue or luminosity of a photograph. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

But ignoring enwiki's stricter rules excludes enwiki (coincidentally the largest) from using Commons.

It does apply if it is the hues and luminosities that are being illustrated, as in this case. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, let's see how the discussion unfolds. In the worst case it will lead to many files to be deleted, unfortunately. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Please, invite Trialsanderrors, Sarfa, Durova and Scewing into the discussion. Their photo's are used on the Photochrom page to. Jan Arkesteijn (talk) 16:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Not deleted, just reverted and/or renamed. I have notified the above of the Pump discussion (hopefully on the project they most frequent). OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Microsoft Macro Assembler Page

{{howto}}

I understand that you are well intended with your insertion of the above graffiti but it is factually incorrect. Assembler programming is a complicated area and the method in explaining usage is to deliver PROOF, not second hand ill informed opinion. The alternative is to leave the proof out and have other Wikipedia non-technical editors put "lack of citation" graffiti on the page instead.

Issues of notation between different assemblers is highly relevant to an article of this type and the Usage section addresses these differences, same for the pre-processor, ditto object module specifications etc etc etc .....

Anyone who wants tuition in writing Microsoft assembler can BUY IT directly from Microsoft but Wikipedia is NOT AN ADVERTISING MEDIUM for commercial software education and should not be referenced in that manner.

Regards,

Hutch48 (talk) 01:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for "PROOF". We are an encyclopedia, and as such can only report what other sources contain. Our inclusion criteria is verifiability, not truth. Any attempt to prove things ourselves is original research and not allowed. Our only proof is citations to other reliable sources. Any editor who comes across statements lacking proof is entitled to remove it immediately, the use of tags is a courtesy to the authors or others, who may be able to fix the problems. The alternative is to provide citations to well-informed technical sources to verify the article content.

Anyone who wants tuition in writing Microsoft assembler should not come to an encylopedia for it, they should go to a teaching-based project, perhaps Wikiversity as suggested. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:36, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

OrangeDog,

Your response indicates that you do not know enough about the subject to comment on it and you are confusing ONTOLOGY (truth) with EPISTEMOLOGY, (how you know somewthing). Proof (inductive) is based on information and in this context the information is contained directly in the citations for the manuals published by the Intel corporation. Again, if you knew enough about the subject you would know that the examples to demonstrate the CAPACITY of the assembler is not tutorial material but PROOF based on reliable and objective published manuals by the processor manufacturer.

Specifics of Microsoft ML.EXE notation are referenced directly from the Microsoft Corporation website(s) and the original technical data supplied with earlier versions of their product.

In this context you need to re-read the Wikipedia policy of verifiability and not make the same mistake again, confusing some abstract and unverifiable notion of "truth" with objective published information that provides PROOF.

The original research on Intel mnemonics was done by the Intel Corporation, not contributors to Wikipedia. The original research on ML.EXE (MASM) was done by the Microsoft Corporation, not contributors to Wikipedia.

Hutch48 (talk) 14:57, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Just to be fair with technical matters of this type, here is the reference material for the technical explanation of notation used by the Microsoft macro assembler.

1. ^ ALANG.HLP standard installation Masm 6.11d
2. ^ http://www.intel.com/products/processor/manuals/
3. ^ http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/default.aspx
4. ^ MASM32 Main macro file MACROS.ASM
5. ^ http://download.microsoft.com/download/e/b/a/eba1050f-a31d-436b-9281-92cdfeae4b45/pecoff.doc
6. ^ http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/firmware/PECOFF.mspx

You will find after familiarising yourself with the reference material in the inline citations that none of the notation description is tutorial material. Tutorial material is both beyond the scope and capacity of Wikipedia. In particular the over 600 mnemonics in the Intel manuals are exhaustively documented and the multiply cited Microsoft reference material canoatins both the historical and current technical data.

Regards,

Hutch48 (talk) 15:44, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Your response indicates you are unwilling to neither assume good faith, refrain from personal attacks, nor recognise your own argument when it is repeated to you to point out its failings.

As such, I do find that Microsoft's freely-provided on-line reference manual of the usage of their product is indeed comprehensive and moreover, beyond the scope of Wikipedia. Therefore, the article in question does not need to contain this material in any form and should just link to the manual via a "further reading" or "external link". Compare with articles such as GCC and Assembly language that do not start giving finer points of brackets syntax, examples of macro definition, or unreferenced critical analysis of coding styles and features. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 20:43, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

OrangeDog,

Whether you point the finger of lack of good faith or personal attacks or not, the initial problem is your own actions plastering graffiti on a page that has taken a reasonable amount of work when it is evident that you do not have the technical expertise to make the comments that you have. Backing it up with unsound semantics and misquoting the Wikipedia guidelines for content simply sidesteps the consequences of the assumptions you have made that explanation of a detailed notation was tutorial material.

Now you are attempting to argue between two positions, lack of citation needs citation AND citation means no article is required.

You can establish all things by that technique by re-interpreting Wikipedia as a link collection which is simply nonsense. An encyclopaedia either contain referenced information or it does not, I will put it to you that simply providing a link to <www.microsoft.com> is not a substitute for any or all of the articles addressing Microsoft software in Wikipedia.

What I object to is this "Army Of Lamers" with automated software and no technical expertise tearing around Wikipedia slapping graffiti on technical pages that they have almost no grasp about with the consequence that the people who were willing to write the content abandon the page due to the graffiti and vandalism of Wikipedia editors that should know better. Check out the Visual Studios page to see its last edit date and you will understand why the page has not been updated for some time.

Now if you had useful suggestions based on your experience writing Microsoft Assembler, you would be more than welcome but in the current context your contribuions have been vandalism.

Regards,

Hutch48 (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Even if I had been programming professionally for a year and academically for two using MASM (which I have), my own personal suggestions would not be welcome because they are my own OR, much like yours. I do not suggest that you abandon the content you have worked to create, but to move it to a more suitable location and leave Wikipedia for encylopedic articles based on reliable secondary sources.

Looking at Microsoft Visual Studio it seems to be a pretty good article, covering most aspects of the subject in a neutral manner, with references to reliable sources. It's also been edited throughout the last few months at least. Note that it does not delve into the syntax for macro definitions, or what command line arguments you need to set a breakpoint, just that these are possible. This is a good example of the tone and style to adopt when writing an encyclopedic article on a compiler.

The two, disjoint positions I am adopting are that firstly, any encylopedic/factual content must be referenced with appropriate citations, and secondly, any how-to or reference content (including instances of WP:NOTGUIDE and other relevant sections of WP:NOT#Content) should only be linked to, and/or moved to an alternative location.

Now, would you like to continue calling people names and making unfounded assumptions about other editors, or would you like to discuss the content and appropriateness of the article in question? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I notice similar problems with JWASM, both in content and conduct, including a near-duplicate usage section. This leads me to further recommend moving content to a "how-to-program-in-assembler" guide on one of our sister projects, and to refrain from abusive and possessive behaviour. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:19, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

OrangeDog,

Whether you have a couple of years at school with MASM or not, I suggest to you that unless you are up to date with 32 and 64 bit code capacity you don't know enough about it. You may not be familiar with tutorial or "how to" technical data but there is a mountain of it out there for those who are interested. The problem comes in the distictions between different tools and it is here where an online encyclopaedia is useful in that it can be used to understand the difference between different notation systems and different pre-processors.

Now again noting that the reference material is both objective and exhaustive, this does not make the distinctions in notation between different tools accessible to readers and this is exactly the reason why the examples are shown to denote difference freom one tool to another.

RE: Your comments on the JWASM page and its discussion page, the bad manners, arrogance and ignorance of the author "elen" was made first up in bad faith and ignorance of the subject material to a total stranger so in fact my response was subdued in relation to her indiscretion. With a page less than 12 hours old she plastered junk on the page and set it for speedy deletion.

Form is no substitute for content and here Wikipedia is seriously lacking. You are watching the death of Wikipedia as a bunch of cyber cowboys tear around the remaining pages slapping junk all over them and "pissing off" even more content writers. Recent "grovelling for money" banners make the point that Wikipedia is in trouble but try and support something that was originally a good idea and the same bunch of cowboys come trampling aound with their automated software making a mess of what is left.

RE: Writing tutorial software for and flavour of Wikipedia, don't let me stop you from doing the work yourself as I will not write that information for Wikipedia, it is done far better in protected environments where the idiot fringe don't get in the front door.

RE: The notion of being "possessive" about either the JWASM or MASM pages, note the useful contribution of Wikipedia editor "rCX" who has been both helpful and well mannered in his suggestions. these are the type of people Wikipedia need if it is going to survive, not cowboys playing trivial power games with crappy automated software in subjects they don't know anything about. Useful suggestions are always welcome and decent technically competent contributions are even better, the way Wikipedia used to be before it started to turn to trash.

Regards,

Hutch48 (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Your continued assaults on myself and other editors as percieved brigade of graffiti-happy idiots will not be accepted. If I thought it were important enough I would direct you to my published thesis on optimising 64-bit intel assembly for multithreaded audio processing, but I do not wish to divulge my identity. This is your final warning to stop attacking my credentials and motivations, and to start engaging with the discussion on the content issues I have raised. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:05, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations but there are those of us who are not afraid to publish their name or interactively work with other assembler programmers and have been doing it for a very long time. Your willingness to support the original offender indicates that you do not respect the guidelines set up for Wikipedia but that you do support an irresposible group of cowboys tearing around Wikipedia slapping ill informed graffiti on work done by content writers.

My original reason for actually bothering to re-write a large amount of the MASM page is that members of our forum complained about how bady written and out of date the MASM page was on Wikipedia so I bothered to progressively re-write it to address its many shortcomings. Feel free to look at the version before I bothered to work on the page to see why I bothered.

RE: Engagement. Your compaint is that you HAVE been engaged and that you were mistaken in a number of your assumptions about parts of the content that you graffitied. It is as a matter of fact that neither Intel nor Microsoft publish tutorial material and this is exhaustively referenced in their cited reference material.

It may offend you but it is the arrogance and persistence of your assertions of tutorial material that lead to my response and here your assertion is simply WRONG. Dictatorial pseudo managerial arrogance is why you have received a hostile response and the intrasigence you have demonstrated indicates that you are not willing to constructively engage in improving the content of Wikipedia.

RE: Your suggestion about writing new content for related web sites, feel free to put your own suggestion in place by writing the content as I will not do it for you.

Regards,

Steve Hutchesson hutch@movsd.com
The MASM Forum http://www.masm32.com/board/index.php

PS: You are welcome at ther MASM forum and our policy will protect you from any form of abuse by outside influences.
Hutch48 (talk) 20:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can be assured that any abuse at the MASM32 forum will be conducted in an entirely internal fashion and with the utmost scrutiny.

SpooK (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations, you have just inherited a page to maintain.

Hutch48 (talk) 21:52, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't worry, I intend to do so. I would also draw your attention to the conflict of interest and external linking (WP:EL#ADV and WP:ELNO#10) policies with regards to links to your forum in the support section. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:02, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to remove all of the links to my web site and forum, I did not put them there and don't want them there but as an interested party there would be a conflict of interest in me removing them. While you are at it, feel free to put a notice of speedy deletion on the MASM32 page as I don't want it there either as it was subject to repeated vandalism and copyright violation.

Hutch48 (talk) 23:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism of the Microsoft Macro Assembler Topic

As you have chosen to butcher this topic and render it into an unintelligible mess, here is your error list for your current vandalism of the Microsoft Macro Assembler page.

Introduction.
"The Microsoft Assembler has been in production since 1981".
As you removed the copyright string with the correct dates for the Microsoft Assembler, you need to cite this statement.

1. [citation needed] You need to cite that Microsoft used the name MASM for their commercial product range MASM.
2. [citation needed] You need to cite that Microsoft assemblers target 16, 32 and 64 bit targets.

History
1. [clarification needed] You need to cite that ML.EXE has been upgraded by its owner Microsoft.

Usage.
You have referenced a location for calling conventions that contains incorrect information for the Microsoft Assembler. The stack frame examples are wrong and the notation is FASM/TASM which is different to the historical Intel notation used by the Microsoft assembler. This is an un-necessary introduced notational ambiguity that was addressed in the explanation that you deleted.

Syntax.
You have referenced a location that contains out of date 16 bit MS-DOS code and extraneous information from different hardware platforms that are directly irrelevant to the Microsoft Assembler.

1. [citation needed]

The following line of text is factually incorrect, the correct date for the release of the 64 bit Microsoft assembler ML64.EXE is about 5 years earlier.
"However, As of 2010-01-21[update], 64-bit versions of MASM do not support this feature."

"The Microsoft assembler has a powerful pre-processor that has considerable more functionality than modern C compilers. Macros can be defined by users, allowing a high-level programming style. In particular, C-style function calls and returns can be emulated."

As you have removed the explanatory examples, you now need to produce reference for this statement as it contains no citation.

Hutch48 (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The statements were never correctly referenced. The examples and copyright strings were not referenced to a reliable source so did not support the statements that were claimed. Just providing further explanatory text is not a valid substitute for correct citations. The [citation needed] tags refer to material that was already there and I have courteously not deleted, because I believe you and others have the resources to find an appropriate citation. If you prefer, I will remove all unreferenced claims from the article and not leave any "vandalism" remaining. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 12:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Too much editing at once

Sorry to disturb you, but I have reverted a large edit to the MASM entry. When you make too many changes, it is hard to evaluate the result. Please make fewer edit changes per edit. Thank you. -- spin^control 01:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for taking the time to voice your opinion at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people, which will delete the vast majority of 50,000 articles created by 17,400 editors, mostly new editors. You may also be interested in the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. You may also be interested in the WP:Article Rescue Squadron. We have been working hard to find sources for the 236 articles which were deleted with no notice by 3 administrators. Ikip 01:41, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

your name has come up

At a discussion re the JASWM AfD on ANI here [1]. Letting you know in case you want to chip in. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Robots in Disguise

Hi, OrangeDog! I agree, that the recent additions in the Robots in Disguise article (including mine) might have resulted in somewhat unencyclopedic content. But why revert all the changes, even the unrelated ones in between? Also, the facts could have been easily summarized in one or a couple of sentences instead. So, please, show more courtesy and don't blindly revert edits like that in the future. —Quibik (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah sorry, you made your edits between the time I checked the diff, and the time I clicked rollback (or I'm very tired and should go to bed). I only intended to undo this change. I think I've sorted it now. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 01:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning up the article and for the explanation! No hard feelings from me. :) —Quibik (talk) 01:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion invitation

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi OrangeDog/Archive 3, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

Ikip 05:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC) (refactored, thanks.) Ikip 02:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

By invitation only is a bit suspect for a project to "decide what is best for wikipedias future" don't you think? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 13:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

yes, I was naive to say what I did. Thanks, hoping to hear from you.Ikip 02:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)