User talk:Goitseu

Welcome!

Hello, Goitseu!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Getting Started

Tutorial
Learn everything you need to know to get started.

Introduction to contributing

The Teahouse
Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center
Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips

Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers, The Banner talk 12:37, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of EDA software

Thanks for your edits on Comparison of EDA software. Unfortunately, I had to remove four programs that have no Wikipedia-article as they are deemed non-notable and fail the inclusion criteria. The Banner talk 08:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What do you not understand from must have its own article? The Banner talk 09:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have deleted two entries, while only one had not its own article; that's probably just an oversight of yours. Removing is simple, while adding is difficult: it takes a lot of time and effort from people. I invite you to be more careful in the future. Concerning your rule about the existence of an "own article" we discussed that already (unfortunately quite unsuccessfully) here. Please continue the conversation there. Thank you. Goitseu (talk) 09:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You point to Chisel (programming language), not to an article about FIRRTL.
Removing of the selection criteria is often called vandalism
Do not edit in archived pages
Spamming is not allowed.

Please be more careful in the future. The Banner talk 12:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1. FIRRTL is part of the Chisel workflow. Don't you agree?

2. Can you point to a WP rule?

3. Sorry, I should have unarchived it indeed since it was prematurely archived prematurely -my mistake. I continued the discussion in your talk page. Please don't archive it again before the discussion is settled.

4. I totally agree. Again, what do you consider spam exactly? Goitseu (talk) 20:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1) No.

2) WP:N

3) My talk page is archived following the rules I have set. That is 72 hours after the last edit.

4) Amongst others, plain advertising and adding non-notable packages.

And now I want an apology and retraction of the accusation directed to me personally. A personal attack has nothing to do with the present content dispute. The Banner talk 13:20, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I answer using the same numbering:

1. This is unfortunate. I disagree with you and I think most people skilled in the art would disagree too. FIRRTL is an integral part of Chisel, as you can verify for example here or with a quick online search. How do you suggest to proceed in this case?

2. I do not understand what your link to WP:notability has to do with vandalism. Could you please elaborate on that? I really can't follow you here. They are two different concepts.

3. I think you should wait longer, especially for unsettled discussions. I have already sent you a link about the archiving policy (here it is again), have you seen it? Some people suggest at least 14 days. Others say, quote: For many pages, 14 days is far too quick because they don't get many discussions and issues can sometimes take years to be resolved. Do you disagree?

4. It is unavoidable that anything which appears on Wikipedia can be considered as an advertisement. According to you therefore is everything spam? Or are you differentiating between "advertisement" and "plain advertisement"? In this case, what do you consider as "plain advertisement"? Please kindly make some examples.

user:The_Banner, I would like to invite you leave aside any possible personalism. The goal is to write a better article. This means in particular entering into technical discussion whenever necessary. Thank you, Goitseu (talk) 14:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be enough when you stop with personal attacks, apologize for and retract all prior accusations. It is you who is making this personal. The Banner talk 14:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I really can't follow you here -could you bring some examples?

Can I instead kindly ask you to answer to the questions in points 1, 2, 3 and 4 above? Thanks! Goitseu (talk) 14:58, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is useless to discuss any further with you because you either do not understand, not accept or blatantly ignore even the most basic principles. Please read [[WP:CIR]. The Banner talk 16:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aldec

Yes, I removed the link to Aldec. Did you check the link? It goes to the company, not to the program. The Banner talk 10:13, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, thanks, you are right. Still, the "Aldec company" article contains a paragraph about the Aldec-HDL software. Aldec was there before the discussion started, please kindly wait for a consensus before banning entries from the article further. Removing Aldec means also removing an entire subsection.

As a side note, also the industry standard Synopsys, Cadence, and Mentor Graphics software have "only" a company article and not a software article: would this be a reason in your opinion to ban them from the list as well? Goitseu (talk) 10:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just upheld the present standing consensus. Do not claim thing based on your personal wishes before a consensus is reached. The Banner talk 11:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And about the three examples: they are not in the list of packages. The Banner talk 11:18, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EDA comparison alternative

The editor consensus is forming for keeping the status quo, as expected, leaving the article in it's incomplete form. With its misleading title, which should really be "Comparison of EDA software that happens to have a wikipedia article" (I mean which casual, non-editor reader would go and do the research to figure it's not a comparison of EDA software that are notable on the field?).

I've seen some EDA listings elsewhere, but they were rather narrow and about as arbitrarily chosen as wikipedia's at the moment. I haven't seen a real good list that tried to:

1. cover all fields: sch, layout, synthesis, simulation (not only spice!), IC, PCB, autorouting (both IC and PCB!)

2. all stages of the process properly (the current setup especially lacks details at the end of the process, e.g. CAM level viewers, like gerber viewers, external DRC software, BOM/inventory management, etc)

3. handle the bundled-packages vs. modular packages vs. ecosystems properly (the current setup handles closed bundles and stand-alone single-purpose tools)

4. have an effort to have at least a somewhat detailed info page per software

5. and list everything that are actually notable, with accurate details

For the few software it covers, wikipedia is good for 4, but with its hostile policy against small time editors/contributors and with editors seemingly not familiar with EDA, it's very unlikely it would ever come close to 5. Your edits lately started to address 1. and 3, but I don't think you will be able to fully complete these without bumping into wikipedia policy limitations again and again. For example the gEDA side of things would need a major rework, probably some splitting, which would then probably trigger notability-re-evaluation, which could lead to more deletions instead of sorting out details.

In general, I still think a proper listing that meets all above requirements and relies a bit more on contribution from experts who actually know anything about the subject matter could be real useful. I also think wikipedia will be unable to provide the environment for such effort.

In case you decide to work on such a system of articles/writeups/posts on another platform, please let me know here on or my IP's talk page, I'd be happy to help/contribute on the PCB workflow side. 80.99.88.182 (talk) 13:16, 25 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Xyce moved to draftspace

Thanks for your contributions to Xyce. Unfortunately, it is not ready for publishing because it needs more sources to establish notability. Your article is now a draft where you can improve it undisturbed for a while.

Please see more information at Help:Unreviewed new page. When the article is ready for publication, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 17:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I formatted better some citations and added a couple of references. It is hard to believe that Xyce is not notable. If you check the Comparison of EDA software many of the tools listed there have far less references than this draft. I submitted it for review now. Goitseu (talk) 20:10, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Xyce (February 19)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by AngusWOOF were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

This draft's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article. In summary, the draft needs multiple published sources that are:

in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject)
reliable
secondary
independent of the subject

Make sure you add references that meet these criteria before resubmitting. Learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue. If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.

The comment the reviewer left was:

Is it extensively used outside of Sandia?

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Xyce and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Goitseu! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 13:00, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Xyce

Hello, Goitseu. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Xyce".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 23:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]