From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Electronics (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Electronics, an attempt to provide a standard approach to writing articles about electronics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Leave messages at the project talk page
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.


i really doubt the suggested development connection between Arduino and Fritzing. The two are completely seperate. The 'reference' also doesnt say anything abt that: it merly suggests that stuff like the arduino and Fritzing have made it easier/user-friendlier for people to step in. Fritzing is a circuit/breadboard/pcb-design program and has nothing to do with Arduino — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)


Removing cleanup tags form article without addressing the expressed concerns is against wikipedia rules. Please address the concern as clearly explained in the template. Lorem Ip (talk) 00:20, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Complaints about other editors should be expressed on that editor's talk page, not on an article talk page.
You are again invited to discuss your notability concerns here and seek consensus before making edits to the page in violation of WP:CONSENSUS. Guy Macon (talk) 00:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Please do not remove tags without fixing the article to address the concern. This is a disruption of wikipedia. The notability concerns are clearly explained in the template. DO you want me to copy it into the talk age as well? If you remove it again I will complain elsewhere. Lorem Ip (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

What is your answer beyond personal attacks? Lorem Ip (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: "beyond personal attacks" above and "I am going to file a complain against your uncivilized behavior" in the comments, again I remind you that Complaints about other editors should be expressed on that editor's talk page, not on an article talk page. If you believe that I have acted inappropriately, please be advised that Requests for comment on user conduct is the main avenue for disputes about user conduct and that I welcome any such examination of my conduct. Please be aware that requests for comment on user conduct have minimum requirements that need to be satisfied.
Re: "What is your answer" Andy Dingley aalready answered that with his comment "Notable, covered in several textbooks." I am familiar with Andy Dingley's history of contributions, and I do not believe that he made that up. Why would he?
  • I've removed the irritating template on this talk page. I've also removed the "unreferenced" tag on the article, after adding two references found using Google Books. It was not hard. Now that we've gotten that over with, perhaps the two of you can keep some distance. Lorem, please stop complaining; Guymacon, please stop baiting with RfCs and please stop with the warning templates. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 03:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
    As it was explained to me, I was complainig in the wrong place: I had to go to "user conduct" page. Sorry for wasting your time here. All I wanted to bring an attention to unreferenced article, using standard wikipedia tools, until Guymacon started harassing me. Now I am satisfied with the state of the article. As for behavior of Guymacon, I don't see any use of complaining further; obviously he is not going to change his opinion that the address "POV pusher" is offensive. Since I am an infrequent editor, I don't think I will meet him elsewhere (unless he makes his life goal to track me just to prove his opinion about me (bad) and himself (righteous)). Lorem Ip (talk) 17:17, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Minor correction: it was Lorem Ip who posted the RfC. Other than that, no disagreement. Guy Macon (talk) 06:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Drmies; Guymacon didn't seem to understand that the point of the "irritating" template was to get this to happen. Dicklyon (talk) 03:36, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Dicklyon, I have the feeling that I saw your name pop up in connection to this article/discussion. Was I wrong? At any rate, do you agree with my removal of the unreferenced tag and other editors' removal of the notability tag? Your work is in this kind of stuff and your opinion is appreciated. Thanks! Drmies (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course. Once the evidence of notability is cited, the notability tag goes; if someone disagrees that those those sources do the job, they can put it back and it can be discussed. I didn't have anything to do with this article except for trying to explain to Guymacon what the notability tag was for; he didn't get it. Dicklyon (talk) 03:54, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Please place criticisms of other editors on their talk page. Article talk pages are for discussing improving the article. Also, you seem to be confusing the purpose of the notability tag with the purpose for the unreferenced tag. Guy Macon (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
The clear and polite text of the notabilty tag requests to fix the article content to demonstrate notability by providing references, not by making lots of noise in talk pages and harassing other editors. In other words, it is a specific case of reference request templates: it has the same purpose of begging "references, please". And my request is not covered by the generic "unreferenced" tag, since one may easily add hundreds of references from the marketing and user's guides for any dorm-generated warez. Lorem Ip (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Please place criticisms of other editors on their talk page. Article talk pages are for discussing improving the article. Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Your double standards are remarkable. The text of a notability tag is "clear and polite", yet similar messages on your talk page are "a rude term" and "harassing". You consider WP:ANI to be a suitable noticeboard to "That's was my goal: to attract attention of experts ", yet when you receive a critical response it becomes "this silly bickering thread", a thread that you started. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:26, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Please confirm that you consider the addressing "POV pusher" as polite and that the repeated use of this term is not harassing. Please explain why my insistence of adding proper references to the article should be scorned and tagged as "POV pushing". Please notice that I have plenty of warning messages, some of them are pretty nervous, but I accepted them in their face value without any fuss, so I see no permanent problem with my standards. Finally, please explain, how come in the end the article was changed according to my request, namely, the notability was established from good references, yet somehow I am a guilty disruptor. Yes, I was in error about deletion of this page, but I admitted the error and merely requested to prove notability (and "Third Opinion" agrees with me). But it seems now I am forever bad guy, and everyone may flog me without fear and doubt in any disagreement. Lorem Ip (talk) 22:37, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Please place criticisms of other editors on their talk page. Article talk pages are for discussing improving the article. Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
But you didn't request references, you just tried to delete the article immediately, having also removed all links to it. None of your edits have been aimed at improving content, you're too busy raising a simple issue at every noticeboard you can, looking for support from others that still isn't forthcoming. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:58, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Obviously you have short attention span and lack of desire to understand what other people say. I have already admitted that the first edit as error in judgment. And I don't need any support: as I have already written, I am satisfied with the outcome of the discussion about article content. As for your opinion about me, as I wrote I don't care. Lorem Ip (talk) 00:40, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
The above is a personal attack. I have placed a warning on your user page (again) If you do not stop this behavior you will be banned from Wikipedis. Guy Macon (talk) 23:32, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Third Opinion[edit]

Hi there, I found this through WP:3O. From WP:NRVE: "Once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface." The only non-blog/non-forum mention I was able to find of this software were a few passing mentions in books about the Arduino platform. I would say this does not amount to "significant coverage", unless someone can cite a textbook that has a large amount of content devoted to the subject. See also WP:NOTGUIDE; if there is not enough info to go beyond simply describing the function of the software, it probably doesn't merit its own article. Mildly MadTC 03:07, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Also, this was already brought up at WP:ANI, but both your time would be better spent trying to improve the article and find sources than WP:WIKILAWYERING about which templates should go where and what does and doesn't constitute a personal attack. Mildly MadTC 03:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
I just added two references from books. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. That's was my goal: to attract attention of experts who can dig a reasonable reference. Doing this by myself was quite difficult: to filter out a good one among tens of thousands of hits from blogs and download sites does require understanding of the industry in question. Lorem Ip (talk) 17:21, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
Next time, you may wish to consider the unreferenced tag (a request for citations) rather than the notability tag (a request that the page be deleted). Guy Macon (talk) 23:44, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
A notability tag is not a request for deletion, and is an appropriate tag for a topic whose notability is not obvious. Dicklyon (talk) 23:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)