Robot Scratch Page - working on Current Developments
- Hi Rocketmagnet! I left some comments for you on my talk page. Feel free to entirely ignore them! -- ' T a l k 14:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question for you about the Radiosity images. I think the room with the red floor demonstrates radiosity much better than the image currently in use on the Dutch Wikipedia page. Can I upload that image to the Dutch Wikipedia, or could you (or I) upload it to Commons? Thanks in advance for your reaction. -- Sander 12:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I have uploaded it to the commons under the name Radiosity_Comparison.jpg Rocketmagnet 13:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I also uploaded Radiosity_Progress.png to the commons. Rocketmagnet 14:00, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Excellent, thanks a lot! -- Sander 16:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Our company makes an optical tracking system that is used by Honda Research to train and calibrate Asimo and track X10 and other NASA Robots as well as do some teleimmersion. Let me know if you want info.--Tmcsheery 07:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your work on the article Robot. You may be interested to know that you can stuff all this testing in a subpage (link above) so it doesn't interfere with other people communicating with you. You don't have to, but it's a very useful thing to use for testing pages in development. bibliomaniac15 22:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'll try that. Rocketmagnet 10:24, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello Rocketmagnet, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:Versatras150.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:Rocketmagnet. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Please note that it is possible that the image on your page is included vie a template or usebox. In that case, please find a free image for the template or userbox. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 06:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
"removed untrue statement claiming a ball nosed cutter is a type of end mill"
- Whether it's "untrue" depends on whose definition you're talking about.
- What about the Fanuc and/or Mazak engineers who have notated it under tool type as "B-E-mill" (ball-nosed endmill)?
- What is a ball-nosed mill but a radiused endmill with radius equaling cutter diameter?
- Are you going to remove the photo at the top of the article? It includes a ball-nosed endmill. It will not be an improvement to the article if you do.
- See my question at Talk:Endmill re possible 19th-c. etymology of term. If that hypothesis is correct, it only adds to the idea that ball-nosed mills are properly considered a species of endmill.
— Lumbercutter 03:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Lumbercutter. Thanks for the comments. I did see what you wrote about end mills, and it makes sense, but I don't know if it's true or not. As far as I'm aware, whenever someone says "end mill" they are refering to a flat bottomed cutter, with no radius. A radiused cutter is refered to as a "bull nose" or "torus" cutter, and a fully radiused one is a "ball nose". So it seems at least weird to use a ball nose cutter as an example of an end mill. However, I'm quite willing to be wrong about this.
- Besides, I'm not sure that there's much point in the article Endmill at all. I think that much of the information would be duplicated on Milling_cutter. -- Rocketmagnet 16:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
- You're right. "Endmill" and "Ball-nosed cutter" could then be headings under main entry Milling cutter. I guess the classification issue would then be moot. I know you're right about "endmill" usually referring to a flat-bottomed cutter. I think the merged article could say something like "ball-nosed cutters are sometimes categorized as a type of endmill, but most often are thought of as a different category of cutter." Sorry I got so defensive. The above would cover both kinds of classification. Thanks for your reply. — Lumbercutter 03:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. The Robot article wasn't the reason that I was put off WP; it was spurred on by some tendentious editors on other articles, such as Essjay controversy and Jimmy Wales, and a realisation that more eyes doesn't equal better written articles. Best, --LeflymanTalk 01:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
- OK. That's good to hear. But if you ever feel like pointing out the mistakes of the robot article, I'd love to hear them. Positive feedback is nice, but negative feedback makes for a better article. Rocketmagnet 08:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
License tagging for Image:Capek play.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Capek play.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.
For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot 15:06, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
Controversy and Mediation in Archive 4 of Robot:Talk 4
Hi Rocket, I hadn't read the archives before. As the kids say, ZOMG. If we have that level of tension every time someone wants to define a word or add a picture, then WP:WikiProject Robotics would be in big trouble. I may be under some false impressions, it's late and I'm writing quickly, but let me just throw out what comes to mind after reading all that:
1. I think everyone understands that there are different rules, depending on whether there are a few pioneers creating a whole new section of Wikipedia, or we've got an established, balanced group of editors who know what they're talking about. In general, I've been following WP:COI at Robot: if somone adds an argument in favor of a position, or a link, or a graphic, and it might serve to promote their own status or their company, then I revert it without thinking twice, and leave them a nice message explaining that WP:COI requires that someone else post it and make the argument for why it's notable. (The exception was Dr. Michel's post, but I gave reasons on the talk page...if I had deleted it for COI reasons, I simply would have added it back in myself, which is silly.)
2. Therefore, if someone's grandson makes an edit of any kind on a robotics article saying how great his grandfather was, my understanding is that I'm supposed to revert it immediately. The WP:COI issues were argued long and hard, and the consensus eventually was that if that rule isn't followed, you get the kind of fight you got over at Robot. But please tell me if I'm misunderstanding WP:COI.
3. In the pioneer days, you were quite right to mention your company and post the picture of your robotic hand...I mean, who else was going to write the article? And that image is a huge hit. However, going forward, we are trying...and just now starting to succeed...to pull in new editors. I think, I hope, that eventually it will be a great big pile of new editors, talking intelligently about who's done what and what it means. In that environment, strict enforcement of WP:COI would probably be best...no one promotes their own interests in any way, they must argue their case to the community and let other people do the edits.
4. I saw the line about some claim by PBS about Tesla's early "robot", but I couldn't find what they said in the history...was that the "You have created a race of robots" fiction? (Or at least, I'll believe it's fiction unless someone gives evidence otherwise.) -Dan Dank55 (talk) 05:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi Dan. I'm not quite sure what's the thrust of this, but I'll tell you my thoughts on each point.
1. Generally, I consider COI to be less important than creating a good encyclopedia. If I see someone make an edit, I'm not bothered whether or not it furthers their interests, I'm only interested in its value to the Wikipedia. The same goes for edits I make. When I started adding to the Robot article, I spent a long time trying to find better images to illustrate it. There were not many suitable ones on the Wikipedia or the Commons. It was also basically impossible to get permission from owners of other robots to agree to upload their images to the Wiki. Of six people I contacted, only one led to an image upload. Naturally, I uploaded some of our own images. COI didn't even occur to me.
2. So, my problem with the 'grandson' edit was nothing to do with COI. My only problem was with the removal of information which I considered to be correct, and the attempted enforcement of one, narrow definition of robot.
3. I certainly wouldn't consider myself a pioneer. I turned up quite late in the game, and just worked on an article I thought was sub-standard. Again, I think that COI is less important than the value of content. As you said about Dr. Michel's post, you'd just have added it again. If I see people adding their own stuff, I'll only be judging it on it's value and quality, and notability. Personally I welcome it.
- The thrust is that I'm having success with bringing in people who are new to Wikipedia and who want to edit robotics articles, and I'm guessing that the one thing that is most likely to trip them up is COI. I wanted to kind of wander around and get thoughts, especially from you and Jameson, so that we can present a consistent story to the new guys. I was thinking that the easiest way to keep them from making "newbie" mistakes is simply to quote COI to them: you can't edit or create articles that you have a personal stake in, you should be honest about your angle on the talk page, and then talk to the community and get someone else to do it for you. My point about you being a "pioneer" was that I think that's the thing the newbies won't understand. Every subject area in Wikipedia went through a time when there really weren't enough people to get the whole job done, and Wikipedia owes a huge debt to the people who shouldered most of the burden back when they didn't have a lot of help. That doesn't mean that the next guy who wanders in can delete half of the Robot page because he thinks he has a better idea. He can't say "RobotMagnet wrote half the stuff there, why can't I write half the stuff?", because the state of robotics on Wikipedia is more mature now. - Dan Dank55 (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)