Talk:AVR Butterfly

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Mediation

RE: SPAMMING? I THINK NOT.

Please note that I have in no way spammed anything and resent the accusation. I have not added a single NEW LINK, I have mearly restored OLD LINKS and sections that have been rudely deleted.

I took it upon myself after reading complaints from other users below. If given a choice between repression or freedom-of-speech, I'd much rather err on the side of freedom. - Vwollan

Reverting an old version is not Spamming but adding inappropiate links is. Please read WP:EL. Would you agree to mediation on this matter? --Rehnn83 10:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Is Wiki abandoning the open source concept? How can I make a complaint about massive deletions?

Unbelievable! Who is the immature idiot that keeps removing useful links and reducing (rather than expanding) the article?

Answer: Two of the culprits seem to be Egil and Rhenn83 for what it is worth. One of the main problems with an open source project like this is that these "little-hitlers" assume ownership over it and feel it is their god-given right to censor at will what others have access to. I say leave ALL the information there, it is a group effort, and anything that is not useful can simply be ignored without the constant censorship.

UNEQUAL TREATMENT OF LINKS MAY POINT TO SELF-PROMOTION.

- I've noticed that when one of the above people deletes most of the links, that certain links are allowed to remain. Is this some sort of self-promotion scheme? Has this small group of people hijacked this wiki for their own personal gain? For example, claims are made that links to discussion forums are to be discouraged and yet all forum links are deleted with the notable exception of one. And certain projects and commercial products are allowed to remain while others are wiped-out each time. Someone needs to check their motives and until such time I think that ALL links should be retored and maintained equally. I might be more apt to believe thier weak excuses if ALL links were deleted equally.

Hi all,

First I ask that you remain civil. As the majority of concerns relate to links, please read Wikipedia:Links in deciding what links are appropriate. If you would like to mediate this dispute, please respond at Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-10_AVR_Butterfly.

--Jon Cates 04:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jon, thanks for the advice. Personally, I am not very clear about the nature of this dispute, the mediation-cabal case indicates that Bushing wrote most of this article, but clearly none of us own articles. In this context, would Bushing like to go into more detail explaining his concerns... Addhoc 11:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As the requestor has not replied, I am closing this case in MedCab. Please feel free to re-request. --Jon Cates 00:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the lapse in attention -- I'd thought that somehow I'd get an email notification when this page was updated, but I see that that MediaWiki feature has been disabled in Wikipedia. Oops. (Anyone know of a good way to get email notifications, then?)

Addhoc, thanks for the advice below re: sock-puppetry -- I'll look forward to your guide in case I ever need one :) FWIW, that wasn't me.

I'm not trying to claim an issue of "ownership" of the article. Let me try to be more clear. I made some non-trivial edits to this article. I was later frustrated when I found out that someone went and reverted / deleted most of my edit, for reasons I could not understand. I tried to communicate with the person who made those edits to understand why they had done so (see MedCabal link for specifics) so that I could address them. I did not receive much of a response.

Concern: I would like to help make this a good article. I tried to do so, with some objection. That's fine, I don't mind rewriting it -- but how? I've read the policies and don't see how I violated them ... but I don't want to just re-revert the edit. What do I do? --Bushing 03:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advertisement?

This article still looks like an advertisement. If an article on this subject is warranted, it needs to be rewritten. -- Egil 18:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough -- I'll chime in because I rewrote a lot of the text recently. I don't mean for it to look like an advertisement -- if anything, Atmel may actually lose money on selling these things because the price is so low. The importance or relevance of this device is that it is one of the cheapest ways to buy a preassembled device that A) has a full microcontroller plus input and output built into it and B) is very easily modifiable and programmable with free / open-source tools. Together, those mean that many people have bought it and modified it to do neat things -- it's grown far beyond what they may have intended it for.


With that in mind, do you have any specific suggestions about how how I could rewrite the article? -- Bushing 00:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You deleted most of the article right after I wrote it and said you'd move it to the talk page -- so here it is:

== Projects based on the Butterfly ==
The Butterfly is popular among hobbyists for its low price (around $20 US), its flexibility, the availability of free development software and the ability to reprogram it without using special hardware.
Many fully-usable projects have been built using the Butterfly as a base platform, often with few or no additional parts:
== Development Software ==
  • AVR Studio, Atmel's free software for creating programs in assembly language and loading them onto the Butterfly
  • WinAVR, a free port of GCC to the AVR platform, allowing code to be written for it in C
  • AVRDUDE, an open-source, multi-platform, which may be used to reprogram the Butterfly using a wide variety of interfaces (including RS232 and several "homemade" parallel-port-based designs)]
== Butterfly Specific Sites ==
== Documentation ==
== Distributors (US) ==
== Other Resources ==

I would sincerely like to address your concerns about the tone of the article, but I'm not sure where to start. Was your objection just to the text you deleted, or do you feel that the current version of the page is still too subjective? I can try to tone down / rework / remove the most, er, "effusive" parts.

I'd also like to remove the "importance" tag, but the links you removed were my attempt at showing importance. The importance of this device is that it is an inexpensive introduction to a hobby. I don't mind removing the two links there that were to places that sell it, but the rest of the links were to

  1. specific projects that show the flexibility of this device
  2. official documentation on its use
  3. open-source software that allows it to be used inexpensively
  4. enthusiast community sites

How can I better integrate some of that content into the article? --Bushing 07:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

———————————————————————————————————————

UNBELEAVABLE! A good information over the cheapest microcontroller devboard you can get, why this should be an advertisement? This good device advertises by itsself! Instantly DISABLE any concerns about an advertisement character of this very good and informative article! --Yewie56 13:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad someone else feels the same way I do. :) I found another Wikipedia article that I see as being somewhat similar to how this article was -- yet nobody has accused it of being an advertisement: WRT54G --Bushing 02:40, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I am planning to write an essay "How to ensure your sock puppets are plausible", which I will post to you. In the meantime, I suggest you give Yewie56 more than one contribution to Wikipedia. Addhoc 12:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)