Talk:Gumstix

message: It appears as though the principal editing of this page has been performed by the corporate officers of Gumstix, in violation of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest.  Gumstix officers:  Please read and pay attention to Wikipedia:Suggestions_for_COI_compliance since you clearly wish to participate in the evolution of this article about your company.   The subject has potential encyclopedic merit and does not meet the "Blatant advertising" criteria for speedy deletion.  However, the article is presently written in the style of an advertisement masquerading as an article, and has severe linkspam that needs to be removed immediately.  The notability of Gumstix has not been established in the article. Since Gumstix probably is notable, I have tagged it with Template:Importance rather than Template:Notability. Regardless, the article should be proposed for deletion if notability cannot be established within a reasonable period of time. Oskay 22:21, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gumstix article needs improvement; conflicts of interest. 

message: http://gumstix.net/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page --Emesee (talk) 06:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  another wiki - gumstix user wiki 

message: I've added the neutrality dispute flag because almost all information on this article has been written by a Gumstix Inc employee, and now, after i made a contribution, i see it has been removed and replaced by, in my opinion, misleading information by Dvescovi (please, do not mess with my edit again, leave this to someone neutral). I've asked Oskay if he could help, as he is a neutral party. We should make a list of facts/contributions here, on the discussion page, to let that someone neutral takes the information to the article. Iunaw (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality Dispute 

message: Dvescovi: your (undone) "contribution" after deleting mine is in my opinion misleading: "Most Gumstix documentation, schematics and Printed Circuit Board layouts are online and made available under the Creative Commons ShareAlike license"
You are telling that most documentation is online, which is considered a feature, but omitting that there is no printed documentation, something that any customer would expect, even for a toaster. You say that most schematics are available in CC license, but omit to say that motherboard schematics are proprietary/closed-source. We are not here to say if that is good or bad, but to give complete information. If this article is only here to explain how wonderful Gumstix is, that is, to promote Gumstix (aka SPAM) it should be proposed for immediate deletion.
You have deleted:
* Gumstix products come with no documentation at all, this is a fact
* Customers have to search themselves on the mailing list archives or on the user wiki, this is a fact
* Information is split on different faq's, articles and mailing list posts that sometimes contradict each other, this is a fact
* Some parts are not documented anywhere yet, but users can ask on the mailing list where most questions are answered, this is a fact
I consider this information as very useful to any potential customers/interested persons. Usually this kind of products come with lots of printed documentation, schematics, examples and application notes, and Gumstix comes with NONE. Only part of them are online, and spread on their wiki/web servers and mailing list archives with some contradictions. I've never seen a product documented this way
Iunaw (talk) 01:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Facts/Contributions to the Gumstix article (Discussion) 

message: lunaw obviously has an ax to grind and this should not be a forum for his opinions. This is quite apparent from his over use of the words “I” and “in my opinion” in both his comments on this and his edits on the main page. Everyone in the community is quite aware that Gumstix does not release their motherboard schematics. My original edit stated, “Most schematics and board layouts are available” which is absolutely true and should have not been deleted. In any case, I reworded to state “peripheral interface ..” to make it clearer.
Also, my original edit clearly stated that the “Windows CE” development was not associated with Gumstix Inc. I am aware of the legal implications and there is a disclaimer at the top of the page if you care to follow the link and in the original edit..
Gumstix software development is very much “community” driven, much like this web site. As such, we are use to getting most of our information online. Wikipedia is a testament to this. I restated to say no “printed” documentation is available, to say, “Gumstix comes with no documentation at all” is just plan wrong and only shows your obvious frustration.
Dvescovi (talk) 13:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Dvescovi: No opinions have been added to the article, please don't lie as it's very easy to check the article's history. And you still don't know how Wikipedia works: I don't care if the Gumstix comunity is quite aware that motherboard schematics are proprietary, this is an encyclopedic article that has to be as accurate as possible, including all relevant information, not only what you think that should include and omit the relevant parts you don't like. I repeat it to you in case you still do not understand it: You are deliberately deleting parts of this article to change it with incomplete/incorrect and biased information. This is not tolerated on Wikipedia and i recommend you to read the Wikipedia policies before you make any new edit. I have moved the information of your project to a newly created 3rd party section with a link to the website. And that gumstix products come with no documentation at all is true, as no customer has received any user manual, product brochure, specifications, warranty information or any documentation at all, as you would expect. Parts of this information is online, as stated on the article, but Gumstix products still doesn't come with them. Stop removing content and adding misleading information instead. If you can't be neutral, do not edit on Wikipedia or ask for help to a neutral party, as i have done. This discussion is to seek consensus, and i won't participate in an edit war. Iunaw (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the discussion page, you should learn first how Wikipedia works, this is not a "product description page" Iunaw (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: When you buy a product you expect it to come with documentation, product brochures, specifications, warranty information, and in this kind of products even application notes and examples, schematics, etc. and Gumstix comes with none. Part of this information is online, as it is stated on the article, but this products come with no documentation at all. You are not correcting anything, but removing content and replacing it with missleading information, omitting parts you don't like, it seems. Iunaw (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No you don't. You only have to see the history page of the article. You are removing information without discussion, only because it does not represent your point of view. You are adding misleading information (removing facts to replace them with incomplete and biased information). You haven't talked about other improvements to the article, you do not seek consensus, you don't have any interest in collaborating with Wikipedia. You are abusing it to represent your point of view.  Iunaw (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Gumstix products come with no documentation, the only resource you have is to search the mailing list archive and the wiki, but in your universe online information isn't needed either because "This is only true if you do not have any electronics, computer background or are a novice." so it's pretty intuitive, and all other companies documenting their products are wasting their time because it's not really needed. Well, this is an encyclopedic article, allow me to give complete and accurate information in case someone does not see it like you do. And for your information, in some counties it's illegal to sell products without any documentation (online documentation is a *feature* printed is *mandatory*) Iunaw (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Simply stating that information is available in all forms. Your use of the statement "..waisting their time because it's not to really needed" is a grose mistatement. I have purchased several products with no documentation. Even products from top tear manufacturer. Online is my, and probably most everybody elses, first source now a days. Dvescovi (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm happy you don't expect any documentation with your products, but as i said it's not what an ordinary user would expect. I even told you that it's illegal to sell electronic products without documentation in a lot of countries. This is your point of view, and i'm trying to be objective and give accurate and complete information, while you are doing the opposite. Iunaw (talk) 14:29, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: This is not only community development, it's the only documentation source that exists for this product. And any new customer will have to deal with it because there is no other option. I don't want your sympathy or form anyone else, we are here to give complete and accurate information. If gumstix has no official documentation it's because they don't care. If information is split and some parts contradict each other it's because Gumstix Inc hasn't corrected it. It's not the job of gumstix customers to reverse engineer and document the products that Gumstix Inc sells, it's something that some users are doing voluntary with their best will. Iunaw (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: This is not the only documentation, and there are another option. For example, Windows CE (who's information and link you deleted) is also available. It has seperate documentation and is a viable alternate source of information. Your comment "no official documentation it's because they don't care" is just an obvious emotional characterazition which is just a reflection on the author. How does he know the intentions of Gumstix Inc.?
Dvescovi (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are free to mention it here so we can add it to the article. And i haven't deleted the information of your project, i've created a 3rd party section and information is there (even more complete), you only have to read this discussion page and the article's history. And read the whole discussion page, as i'm saying that the comment you cite is subjective. And BTW why do you think that there is still no official documentation after years? Iunaw (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Sometimes yes and sometimes not, great.. It seems you agree here, but you have removed it because you think this information is not useful to potential customers or interested persons, right? That some parts of a product are not documented anywhere is normal in your universe, and does not deserve to be mentioned on Wikipedia. Iunaw (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: I never said it was normal, just becomming more common place. This is just a "fact of life" (and more so in our "online universe") that should be debated elsewhere, not on a product description page.
Dvescovi (talk) 12:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nobody is going to believe this, sorry. And in any case it's relevant information you're removing with bad faith. And i repeat it again, this is not a "product description page" but a discussion page of the Gumstix article on Wikipedia. Iunaw (talk) 14:42, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed opinions, restored Windows CE links 

message: Dvescovi's deletions have been restored, a warning has been added to his talk page and discussion continues here. We'll try to seek consensus and avoid an edit war. We could need a neutral party for a final check for biased information after discussion ends and consensus is reached. Information on the article has to be complete and not misleading, and no relevant information can be omitted deliberately. Iunaw (talk) 03:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting Dvescovi deletions and other updates 

message: I have asked for page protection until dispute is resolved as Dvescovi keeps removing content ignoring the discussion page, the neutrality dispute and the uw-npov3 warning on his talk page. Has no interest in seeking consensus and has no appreciable interest in expanding the article with any contributions. He doesn't even know what a discussion page is and how Wikipedia works (i'll add some links to his talk page)
Dvescovi: You are removing information ("Some parts are not documented anywhere yet") because you consider it's negative for Gumstix, but this is not your private place to make SPAM, i have told several times that we have to seek consensus, give accurate and complete information and to avoid omitting relevant information deliberately. I even told you we should ask for help to a neutral party, but this doesn't seem to interest you (no comments on this issue so far) Iunaw (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Protection declined, content in the article need to be attributed to reliable sources. I recommend that editor take a break an obtain sources before making any further alterations. Gnangarra 15:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the article's history you'll see i added references on the first edit, but the contributions and citations were removed without discussion (this first deletion leaded to the beginning of the neutrality dispute) Iunaw (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: You have removed information without discussion, even after i set the neutrality dispute flag to attract your attention, you even keep doing it yet and it should be believed that you are doing your best to stay neutral? and after i told you to not remove relevant information. this is really shocking. and please don't consider it an attack, there's nothing wrong with it, but you are saying that opinions should not take place on the "product description page" and we are discussing on the talk page and not on the article (what you call product description page) ??   Iunaw (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Why are you trolling now? I was talking about neutral third party help one week ago, and you haven't said *anything* until yet that you are blocked. I have been waiting, but you have been removing relevant information you don't like to replace it with your misleading POV. And you say that you have done your best to stay neutral and that you are not affiliated in any way with Gumstix? Why don't you want that some aspects of Gumstix are documented here if they are relevant? You don't seem to have any conflicts with the Gumstix's CMO edits here, you are only vandalizing my contributions because they are the negative part, the points that should be worked out by the company. You are trying to do advertising here, censuring anything that is negative to that company, no matter if i'm here trying to reach consensus and contributing relevant information with references that could be usefull to potential customers/interested persons Iunaw (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Please stop trolling and pushing the discussion in the wrong direction. Most information on this article has been added by by a Gumstix employee (COI). I have made contributions to balance a bit, and because i wasn't sure if it could be considered biased i have asked kindly a third person for advice *on my first edit* to check my own contributions. In the meantime you, a person that sells products/services based on Gumstix, have started an edit war, making COI edits and poisoning this discussion with false information. Sorry but i believe you are acting on bad faith the whole time. I really wish that more persons would participate on this article, and not only persons that have commercial interests and try to push their POV violating Wikipia policies Iunaw (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for page protection 

message: Dvescovi You have changed on your project description on the article "closed source" with "open source" , adding (again) misleading information to the article. The source code of your project is not openly available as described on the open source article but is only available when you sign an NDA and for a 300$ fee (according to the information on the website of your project ) so it is considered closed source. I'll quote it from the article pages for you:
* Open source: Open source is a set of principles and practices on how to write software, the most important of which is that the source code is openly available.
* Closed source: The source code of such programs is usually regarded as a trade secret by the owner. Access to source code by third parties commonly requires the party to sign a non-disclosure agreement.
STOP! Your COI edits with false and misleading information do not benefit Wikipedia in any way. This is not the place to promote your products/services Iunaw (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right here. Done. Iunaw (talk) 12:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: ??? Iunaw (talk) 18:20, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Open source vs Closed source 

message: This article has been included in the COIN. You can follow the discussion here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Gumstix Iunaw (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Archived discussion is at WP:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 24#Gumstix. David Spector (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict of interest Noticeboard 

message: While by today's standards, the gumstix are fairly small (smaller than so called micro atx, for instance), Microcomputer is a term from early computing used to refer to what we would call a desktop computer today.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.30.0.26 (talk) 04:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree somewhat with you. On the one hand Gumstix could fit in the Microcomputer category like any microcontroller/microprocessor device considering the definition on the Microcomputer article, but there are on the other hand other categories that would fit better in current nomenclature conventions. I've changed the article to be included in the Embedded Linux and Embedded systems categories instead. Iunaw (talk) 12:34, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization as Microcomputer questionable 

message: As far as I can tell, Gumstix computers do not feature "out-of-the-box" support for traditional VGA/DVI displays, support for traditional input devices like keyboards or mice, or plug-n-play support for usb peripherals since the usb port is only for connection to a desktop PC.  As such I question the use of the term "full-function" as this leaves the impression that Gumstix can be used as a desktop computer.  If the Gumstix lacks support for certain functions it logically follows that one should not describe it as "full-function".  
Rather than simply removing the words "full-function" from the article, I decided it would be better to solicit suggestions for a better term.  My preferred alternative is "user-configurable headless computer" to acknowledge that describing Gumstix as a "computer" is perfectly accurate, but that Gumstix is not at this time appropriate as a desktop computer.  Further support for this terminology can be found at the Wikipedia entry for "headless" that includes the following definition: 
"In computer hardware, headless refers to a server with no monitor, graphics card, or keyboard attached. Interaction with it depends on the use of a network connection, serial communications, or the use of a "crash cart."
  I have not edited the Gumstix entry myself yet because the Gumstix is not limited to functioning as a server so it doesn't meet the Wikipedia description for "headless".  As such I would like to get other people's opinion on the most appropriate term to use.  
correction - newer overo gums do have video output, and even verdex versions had touchscreen LCDs we use! If only all this discussion effort had gone into creating a useful page rather than bickering Bravekermit (talk) 22:22, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categorization as "Full-Function" questionable 

message: I made some edits before I checked the (riveting) talk page. Now I'm questioning the rewording/re-ordering of the 2nd paragraph I was considering.  I'm going to go ahead and save the changes that don't affect factual content.  However I'm not really sure what to do with the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph.  It seems like it says the same thing as (or very similar to) the last sentence of the 1st paragraph, but I don't know enough about the topic to fix it. WarEqualsPeace (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: untitled

message: I'm surprised to see that this article has so many troubles, but on reflection it is obvious: The Gumstix is not notable enough to be on wikipedia.  Let me disclose that I think the notability requirement is generally lame.  I also think the Gumstix is pretty cool.  But it seems as if all of the contributions to the article either come from people who sell Gumstix or people who bought it.  There is precious little reviewing going on in the tech media, and I suspect that when it happens those writers use Wikipedia as a reference.  So I can't suggest a remedy (though it seems I am implying removal).  I just think all of the issues with this article are dancing around this severe notability problem. 67.175.146.68 (talk) 14:05, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability??? 

message: I have made some pretty significant trims regarding content that was unsourced or sourced to primary sources like the company website. Most of it was about individual products, their features and technical specifications, which was out-of-compliance with WP:NOT a product directory, buyer's guide, or a mirror of the company website, etc.. A proper article should be built on credible, independent sources, like EE Times, InformationWeek, and EDN. 
I notice that notability has been raised before and I haven't seen anything yet to confirm whether the company qualifies for an article under the requirements at WP:CORP, however I prefer to stub rather than delete articles on marginally notable topics if we can get a solid 2-3 paragraphs together from properly independent sources.  CorporateM (Talk) 23:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: There are a lot of good sources here for a proper article. I may work on it later this week. CorporateM (Talk) 15:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comments 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gumstix. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080419133703/http://www.nabble.com/Gumstix-f22543.html to http://www.nabble.com/Gumstix-f22543.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:16, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified