User talk:Robotics1

Welcome!

Hello, Robotics1, and

to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also
  Wikipedia:Topical index
  .

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!

-Poli (talk • contribs) 21:18, 2005 July 26 (UTC)

Hi David and welcome (from a novice)! Although there's lots to do here and you should definitely jump in, did you know there is a wiki devoted exclusively to LEGO topics? There is one called BLACK LISTED HYPERLINK (see below). The MindStorms articles could use some help from a technic head such as yourself so if you have an interest (in particular a detailed article on Forth and pbForth (and their relation to ROBOFORTH) would be most welcome!) come on over. Thanks! ++Lar 21:22, 26 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

 I did not even put in the above link to BRICKWIKI DOT ZAPTO DOT ORG which is now counted as spam.
 That's ridiculous. Consequently I can't even add to my own page. Sorry Poli.

It's a fascinating concept. I think I'll get mindstorms to work with my daughter then I'll be able to discuss it. Thanks to you, Robotics1 13:37, 27 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I finally uploaded a few paragraphs to the robot software page. Let's hope it sticks. I made reference to the Mindstorms NXT which I now have with my daughter.

I really hate the way the robot pages are vandalized. I'm glad there are some people and bots that pick them up quickly.

Hi, You say both editors agree no merge is possible. However I think the original person who suggested a merge had a good point. Robotics is the 'science' of robots and includes robots, industrial robots, mobile robots, robot software etc. Therefore it could easily assimilate all the other articles, merged into it. The task is to cleanly refer to specific issues by linking to them. The section on 'structure' is not really about robotics but is about the design considerations for robots. You will find a section in robot called 'Robotics' and the content is almost the same as the content of this section. Therefore a link to 'robot' from robotics might be worth considering. OR - remove the Robotics section in robot to the robotics article.

What follows is even worse: Common Uses of Robotics is not common uses of robotics at all but is common uses of robots - moreover common uses of Industrial Robots. The content of all these last sections could easily be distributed between

.

The article on robot is excellent but the article on robotics is weak and for a very good reason. There is, as yet no really good definition of the term 'robotics'.

Robotics1 22:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think merging the two articles is a good idea, then you should nominate robotics for deletion, stating in your nomination that you think the proper course of action is to merge the two articles at robot (or some other combination of articles). —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 23:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really have not expressed myself properly, sorry. When I said the original person who proposed the merge had a good point I didn't mean I agreed with it. See my post in talk:robot as follows:

Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. There should definitely be two separate articles. But we need to think about what belongs in what article. For example the very long article on robots contains a section called 'robotics'. Why is that there when there is a separate article called robotics? Then within the article robotics there is a section called structure which *might* belong in robots. On the other hand kinematics might properly be part of robotics and not robots. And then there is that section called 'common uses of robotics'. This really is not robotics IMO; it's common uses of robots.

I'm certainly not advocating a merge of robotics into robots, rather a bit of movement both ways.

It's now proposed that I make some small changes to see if they work.

Robotics1 20:16, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jean-Christophe Baillie of URBI wrote to me:

Hi David,

I've seen the edits you've done on the URBI wikipedia page.

You mention the fact that the links are all related to profit making websites, which is false since URBI is free: you can download it for Aibo, Lego or iRobot and the SDK is open source GPL.

I'm wondering if we should also consider deleting links and wikipedia pages to Microsoft Robotics Studio?

I'm available to discuss with you how to make the URBI page suitable for wikipedia and do the necessary changes with your help. URBI is a new programming language available for the community for 4 years now, with 25 universities using it in the world and thousands of community users. It's coming from the academic world and deserves a fair audience.

Thanks, Best Regards, Jean-Christophe Baillie

My answer is this: I agree that Microsoft get away with commercial links that exceed the boundaries set by Wikipedia. But they are so big and millions of people know who they are. I am not an administrator but links I and others put in Wikipedia have been deleted for two reasons: one is that external links are not allowed - "Wikipedia is not a collection of external links" - or at any rate not welcome, and the other is that there were so many links to Gostai which has products and services for sale or license. Commercial links are not allowed and in fact the whole of Adept Robotics was removed not long ago. If we can keep the URBI page as information and avoid falling into the trap of making it like a huge press release then I think it will survive. It needs to be more factual and less enthusiastic, with more explanations of the terms for laymen. You can see I have left in references to Gostai because that is a fact. But the links have been removed. It *might* be permissible to put a link to Gostai in the external links section.

I also have a software system called ROBOFORTH. This has hundreds of users so it seemed reasonable to me to mention it but you will not find any links to it.

An encyclopedia should be a collection of facts so what I think personally about URBI should not enter into it but for what it's worth I think it is a great system and way more useful than Microsoft Robotics Studio - which frankly I still have not figured out. The instructions for use just go round in circles. How my users will ever cope with it I can't imagine. But they are Microsoft! However I do intend to check it for external links.

Yes I would love to work with you to get an article which fully describes URBI without being too commercial. You may notice that I have added an explanation of what parallelism is in the robot software article. It's important to respect wiki users who will come to these articles without any understanding of the terms used. May I suggest a further edit?

Robotics1 08:44, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand the confusion regarding leaving me messages. You can either click "Edit this page", scroll down and leave a message, or edit the last section header and make a new section. Most talk pages (user or article) use the convention of leaving new messages at the bottom. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I can help do let me know - I am quite nice really :). Regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Robotics1. Sorry I hadn't seen your message earlier (I had a few things to take care of this week). Anyway, to answer your question, it looks like the page has already been sent into the deletion process, which is the way we get rid of it. If the deletion discussion shows consensus to delete, it'll be gone. After that, we could ask an administrator to

]

yes it was me who put in the proposal for deletion. From what I can see it has been attempted before but the badoo supporters/representatives block it. Robotics1 (talk)

No reason was given for the removal, except in the page history, where you claim that this compan does not manufacture industrial machines. I invite you to go on you tube and search for ANATROLLER robots, some industrial duct cleaning robots featured on youtube, or visit http://www.roboticsdesign.qc.ca/ for complete information on all Robotics Design's industrial robots. You change has been reverted, please notify me of an changes being made to my posts when doing so. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Canadiansteve (talk • contribs) 21:44, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I disagree. The article is all about industrial robots. The robot manufacturers listed make industrial robot arms like the ones described in the text. I went to your company's website and I must say I was impressed. Some fantastic products, innovative and useful but not the sort of industrial robots that are described in the text. If you disagree with me then post on the discussion page and let's see what other opinions are. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe we will need to elevate this to an administrator.

I would have discussed this with you but you don't have a page. Please go to the Industrial Robotics discussion page. Robotics1 (talk) 22:16, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a talk page I think everyone must... at any rate look at the links I sent you for our robot arm manipulator, I will be looking to expand the article's text, particularily on the subject of robot arm singularity points and how modularity used in robot arm architecture solves this. Please don't delete the listing. Canadiansteve (talk) 08:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must say I am really impressed with the ANAT modules. It is a super idea. Maybe is ok to mention in robot. But it does not belong in industrial robot. The ISO definition is clearly defined right at the top of the article. Robotics1 (talk)Robotics1 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

]

Christening and whatnot

I've replied on my talk page. — Dan | talk 21:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have just been looking over the Industrial Robot pages and found the edit warring and discusions on the head office of ABB robotics etc. Please see my note on that matter on the talk page. (Rhe ABB page needs a bit of a rewrite. The ABB page had 5 divisions and did not include the Corporate and Other division. - I have adde it with and expansion note)

My real problem is that I have demoted the Industrial Robot page from B class to C class due to the list style of the writing, mostly in the new additions, and the totally secondary fact that there has been so much edit warring with reverts and bad comments in the summaries. While I appreciate that you may not have been part of that I am asking for you to help get the article up to prose style that would merit reclassifying as B class again.

thanks Chaosdruid (talk) 16:48, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. I didn't write the article in the first place but I've been guarding it from vandals for years. The original editors seem to have lost interest. There were some edit wars before my time around the picture of George Devol which was supplied by his grandson and some minor ones in which I was involved. The list style was already there and I admit I did add to the list and expand on some items in the list rather than anything more ambitious, notably accuracy and repeatability and I also wrote the entire section on industrial robot software in the robot software article and linked to it from industrial robot. But I always felt that there should be examples of software in this article. I have just stuck a bit of prose in the middle of the list of "defining parameters" because it just *had* to be clarified. Frankly this article needs rewriting from scratch but I am not the one to do it. It's just too much work. When I look at articles about, say, a single drug (e.g. valium) they are full and complete. Industrial Robots is a major subject but there is b'all there. It will have to stay a cat C for a while..... Robotics1 (talk) 23:13, 3 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And it looks much better for your edits I must admit lol

I will look at it again tomorrow and try and get it into a more prose style

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much you know about robotics. Anyway if you could maybe design a new structure/format and delegate bits to me I can do a lot more. Robotics1 (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My personal knowledge of robotics is limited to personal research and a general overview of the subject. I do not have any experience of hands on working with robots or robotics. I know how the mechanics of the various parts work and have an interest in the social aspects as well.

I am still in discussion with the Jamesontai, who started the robotics project, as to where to go with things but as he is not available much due to work commitments it may be next weekend before we can start. We also need to wait a reasonable amount of time to allow for replies on the "are you active" messages I posted onto the enrolled user pages.

One of the things is to go through all the articles and assess and give importance levels to them. The obvious polace to start is the unassessed and un-importanced (for want of a better term lol) and then move onto the C class articles fairlyquickly as the project does not actually give C class assessments.

I know from your declaration that you would be invaluable as a member of the assessment team if that declaration is true. Please do not take this the wrong way - we have had people that claimed to be something it later turned out they were not !

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2010 (UTC) PS - your avatar needs a bit of a slap with a wet fish lol - some of the things she says are not quite right such as "click the prices to the left to see more information" which assumes you are on a specific page in the left side which you may not be looking at in reality[reply]

well that's strange - I added a note here and yet it didn't save, your comment about the avatar came up instead. (oh well, yes ok. points taken lol!)

But what I wanted to say was that I can't prove anything about my experience and knowledge but if there is anything I can contribute let me know. I'll do my best to back it up. Robotics1 (talk) 20:18, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can always just drop a note on the page saying "Left you a message at Industrial robot"

I always try and link to the page, article or chat, so that the person can easily go there without having to search :¬)

I am always open to comments on my user page - the more the merrier. As for butting in, he butted in as well lol. I like his bit about "punctuation Nazis"

Chaosdruid (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just went to have a look at Talk:Industrial_robot but I can't see anything new and the page history [1] just shows the last 4 were by me - did you have a problem saving it ?Chaosdruid (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no I didn't write anything at Talk:Industrial_robot only here. I don't have any proposals for Talk:Industrial_robot yet.....

I'm still doing basic clean ups of the robotics articles, such as typos - grammar - dead links etc., so feel free to slash away at it :¬)

I'm using a semi automated process thank (somtehing - I'm atheist lol) and I only have 2,234 articles left to do lol - about 5,750 done I think

I should be finished by the end of the week and then will have more time to go through things.

Normal style is History, definitions, examples of types, any social impact, future, see also, refs, external links. (of course most won't necessarily haveall of those)

Once I have finished this I can get on with assembling a list of articles to look at. If you have any spare time after fixing industrial robots then let me know ... theres plenty of things to do but at this stage they are boring like adding tags for the project to article talk pages or categories to the articles themselves.

Chaosdruid (talk) 16:01, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I had a similar debate with myself over the very same issues. It was to do with EMMA EMMA_(Easily_Manipulated_Mechanical_Arm) first which was notable enough it seems, judging from the articles and secondary coverage, and I checked it out to ensure refs etc were reliable. If it gets too much like an advert it can be tagged as such.

"If the product or service is notable, it can be broken out into its own article. If it is not notable, it should not be broken out into its own article but should have whatever verifiable information about it that exists presented within an article that has a broader scope, such as an article that deals with all of the company's products and services."

There was a merge tag on it but the product seems more notable than the company. It seemed more right to have an article on EMMA and a stub on the firm itself rather than merge the two. EMMA is going to be more known than the company basically.

As for the company itself, I think they do just about scrape in as the "primary criteria" says "notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage" and the criteria for notable companies Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) is quite clear on that matter - they must be mentioned in an article about them or similar works etc. They are discussed as such (although their products are EMMA related only it seems) in this one where there is an extra Equipment advances section which mentions EMMA and them (although I am pretty sure that it could be paid for we must assume good faith for now.) and Vacuum System Removes Dust, Particles. I really do not think it meets the major criteria though, deeper coverage roughly equates to bigger wiki article, and so the stub that exists is probably as big as it is going to get for now on the company itself.

It may also be advisable to point out COI policy now that they are more familiar with Wiki - I will try and find a suitable template for that. Rwk1 and I had a little Q&A session on EMMA and he seems a pleasant enough person - Rwk1 has a slightly more varied input than User:09ccc contribs and User:Thetubeman00 contribs. Best thing is to keep an eye on them and ensure that it stays more encyclopaedic than advert, as I suspect these are three guys from the company.

The policy is notability and sourcing - if they meet the criteria then they can be included. The next thing is COI which most often leads to things of

such as "an exciting new company at the forefront of advances in blah blah" and "an outstanding company who's products are of the highest quality known in the field/unrivaled by any competition" etc.

I have checked them both and they seem pretty encyclopaedic although the EMMA article did have some little gems in it to start with "highest quality" these have been toned down now. The last para could do with a little work though I suspect ?

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(Transcluded from Chaosdruid's talk page)

I have replied on your page to the EMMA and TA articles - they say it is not a robot but I pointed out that as it is remotely controlled it falls under the purview of the robotics project. I think this may have misled them into thiking that it also means they can include it on industrial robots. It is more suited to sanding machine or industrial machinery than to the industrial robots page. I will let you decide on what you wish to do on that matter. I see you already swiftly metered out judgement lol - and quite rightly so I might add. It does not have any automatic control.

I will also copy this to your user talk page. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that. I suspect there is a lot of room for interpretation. I don't know. My company has been around since 1986 and we are not mentioned. Someone did offer and I put a draft in my user page User:Robotics1. The articles you pointed to seem to have been removed - but actually you don't need to pay for such articles. They are just press releases. ST has a load - for example http://www.designworldonline.com/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=4913, Thomasnet, Robotic Trends, Automation.com and very many more, also in other languages e.g. http://www.jautomatise.com/newsletters/numero/220/news/2602. But they are still advertising of sorts so should not count towards notability. ST does have some independent articles, e.g. http://www.promega.com/geneticidproc/ussymp8proc/09.html which mentions the Hamilton R16 robot which was not Hamilton but ours (so I suppose that does not count) but at least does mention RoboForth which is clearly mine. RoboForth is also mentioned around the web: http://www.anf.nildram.co.uk/beebcontrol/arms/cyber/ (1984) Science Direct (1983) IEEXplore (1985 and 2003) http://hectorvictor.free.fr/index.php?page=oYGhHDMnpFsJ Spanish: http://www.uvg.edu.gt/boletin/bi/2007/seg-sem/ingenieria.htm. Sheesh I'm up to Google page 12 already and it goes on.

My point is that if Temple Robotics warrants a page then ST Robotics should. If EMMA warrants a page then certainly RoboForth should as there are simply dozens of articles that mention it. Why do I say this? Not to justify an article. ST is growing fast right now, orders are exponential. So we don't need to cheat. But RoboForth might well warrant an honest article. I did write one on my user page but obviously can't add it myself.

The above load of rambling might not make much sense, sorry, its 02.48 here in UK and I should be getting some sleep! Robotics1 (talk) 01:59, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No - don't apologise. I ramble much more than others do lol. Anyway lets get this put in perspective and hope that you can find the necessary coverage in secondary sources.

First of all I did searches for any references to your company on the web. Obviously this does not cover printed material. I could not find any mention of the company (ST Robotics) in any secondary sources (Electronics magazines, New Scientist etc). I think I asked you if you could provide any details of articles you may have been published in that you knew of, but it may be that it got lost during those strange sessions of saves on our earlier conversation on Industrial Robots ↑.

I did find these:

• [2] from the Trentonian but it doesn't really mention yor products in detail it should suffice for one ref.
• [3] a $ 4,450 PDF !!!!! which mentions the company.
• [4] Talking about the launch of the Firefly (any ref to the TV program ?) although this one appears self written (ie by the ST Robotics company)

However, if we can assemble refs for the earlier companies as well that would be even better.

I suggest you start by amassing as many of the refs you can and write them here User:Robotics1/sandbox (to create a pgae you simply add the desired name after User:Robotics1 and hit enter. A page comes up asking if you really want to create a page and you just click yes.

Give me a shout once you have done them all and we can create the pages necessary for ST Robotics and Roboforth. Once there are two of us it will be easier to defend against the new page patrollers and the COI trolls.

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the material from your page to sandbox1 and Roboforth to sandbox2 - I have put links on your user page so you don't lose them :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wow. Thanx. I'll get on it, er, today. Robotics1 (talk) 03:52, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS - I am also in the UK - If you are in Cambridge I am a little further north into Boudicca country :¬)

what?? I am based in Cambridge but live in (trumpets) Downham Market (sorry, getting the wiki habit of turning everything into a link). I guess you are further East, Attleborough perhaps. Ordo ab Chao! Robotics1 (talk) 03:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops ! I forgot it is not really north - I'm north east of you up in the "fine city" of Naarich (or Norwich for those without the accent lol)

I seem to have had a run in with User talk:Andy Dingley‎‎ so if there is any problem, I noticed he said he owed you copyediting so assumed prior involvement, I will back away and let him continue to help you on the articles.

Chaosdruid (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, please don't. Andy said he would that's why I wrote the drafts but he never came back to me in spite of a gentle reminder. I presumed he is busy. Yes I did see the run-in which I thought was sad. You guys put in your hours free for this huge project and both deserve medals. Yes I have found Andy to be a bit abrasive; he tends to shoot from the hip. But you have to bear in mind that text has this ability to cause offense. If he was at the same table as you with a beer in his hand and said the same thing it would probably come across as intellectual banter but in text, with no facial expression, no intonation it is so easy to cause (and take) offense. I'm not sure I followed the disagreement because I couldn't locate the edits but I would say Golem belongs in robot not in robotics. Maybe the same for RUR. It seems to me that robot is first defined and inspired by fiction then robotics is the science that evolved from it. Is that what you are saying or have I taken Andy's side? The whole set of articles is in a state of confusion frankly. The table in robotics should be in robot IMO. The explanation of robot software should be in Industrial Robot IMO. There needs to be some clear rules and agreements. Perhaps a panel of editors and a page for the discussion of what belongs where would be helpful.

so the long and short of it is I think you should please continue with the articles or they won't get done. At least it would be good to complete the RoboForth article because there really are several manufacturers who use it and it does have an interesting history and a user base. So can we continue?

I just put up a load of links in sandbox. What do you think?

Norwich is that big town over there somewhere. Too many speed traps between here and there! lol! (oops). However it is a wonderful city to be honest. Doesn't it have a statue of Nike there? I thought it did but the wiki page on Norwich doesn't mention it so I must be having a brain fade. That's the trouble with dynamic RAM! Robotics1 (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at the links you put in - any chance you can find some info on NASA mentioning the arms ? that would clinch the deal for sure !

Alas not in their technical document service. I have two pdfs on my own site: http://www.strobotics.com/downloads/maid.pdf and http://www.strobotics.com/downloads/parat.pdf. Not ideal.

I do not remember a status of Nike but then I do not go out much nowadays. I will do a quick copyedit of the articles after I have eaten - and post back here once done. Will probably be an hour or so

My fav is the camera on the A14 just after Cambridge heading East - I saw a BMW dirver lose a lot of rubber after he decided to try and overtake me as it was coming up - I braked and changed lanes but he thought he would impress me with his fast car - then he saw it lol so much swerving I thought he was going to lose it but he mangaed to not set it off.

Anyway - time for tea so back in a bit Chaosdruid (talk) 20:28, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

K - first run through done on St Robotics — although it did take a little longer than expected — a few refs included and quite a bit of an extensive rewrite. Hope you approve and will concentrate on the Technology section next.

The MoS (Manual of Style) sort of dictates an expected one ref per paragraph for a reasonable article though it is not absolutely necessary and that is what I am hoping I can achieve in the Tech section. THere was one problem with the refs used in the History section - but if you click edit you can read my hidden note there. Basically it is because the article is only shown in draft and I cannot see whether it mentions ST Robotics or its products in the rest of the text.

Anyway - have a read and tell me what you think - it took around two and a half hours so apologies for the delay in getting back to you :¬) Mainly due to trying to find good Wikipages links for things like the correct Atari and Apple series and refs for other items like the Armdroid etc.

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:52, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is awesome! I am gobsmacked! 2 and half hours? Thank you so much. Now I feel bad about involving you. Well I guess I had better pay back by helping you on the main robot project. Regarding Intelligent Artefacts arm XXX: I have racked my brains and I just can't remember what we called it. Regarding your hidden note I have a copy here: http://www.strobotics.com/articles/emeraldfulltextarticle0490330302.pdf. We shouldn't put that link in wikipedia of course but it shows you what's in the article. The ref for the handy1 is http://www.csun.edu/cod/conf/1999/proceedings/session0059.htm. I tried to put this into the article but I don't know the syntax and it didn't seem to work so I left it. There's an awful lot of brackets involved lol! Regarding Armdroid this link might be better: http://www.senster.com/alex_zivanovic/armdroid/index.htm, or the Nildram site http://www.anf.nildram.co.uk/beebcontrol/arms/armdroid/index.html. Ironically I have an Armdroid in Cambridge but I don't have a Cyber 310 because I gave it to the Cambridge museum of technology. It's a wonderful neat concise article. Not over the top, no wikipuffery. Great! Robotics1 (talk) 10:37, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first step ! I have made the article live. It is at ST Robotics

I will carry on using those refs you gave - I use the Wikieditor which has a handy tool for inserting refs. It gives a cite which, once clicked, shows a drop down menu and you can select the type of ref/cite (web, news, book or journal). If you click on "My Preferences" at the very top of the page and then the "Editing" tab you can see all the options. I have ticked "Show editing toolbar" and that gives a handy little tool above the edit window. I also have clicked on the opt in to beta, also at the top right of the page but on the left hand side of the writing (XXX My name MyTalk My Preferences - I out XXX as I have opted in so I cannot see exactly what the text is on the left), and this is what gives the extra tools in edit mode. Chaosdruid (talk) 15:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PS - Love the R20 - it looks really good and I hope that you are successful with it ! Also liked the little RoboDemo prog :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Finished for now. The article has at least one ref per paragraph. Thos last refs you gave were absolutely perfect for finishing off the necessary sections. I also amended the date of inception of STI from 1991 as the article quoted says it was 1992.

As usual I will take a break and come back to it with a fresh set of eyes in a little while to check for errors and other links that should be put in. I think more about the operationsin the technology section. There may also be a paragraph required for the Cartesian robots as they are a pretty interesting addition to the range. That said, there is a lot more on the website in terms of range of robots for sale and design that may need expanding upon - especially the R20 !

RoboForth next !! Chaosdruid (talk) 16:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I've been looking at the technology section and you have it summed up pretty well. I can't think of any way to expand it without adding unnecessary and boring detail. But I will think on it. But you are probably right about R15. The reason is that it's not a boxed robot, it's a special, and we've been trying not to sell it. We're pricing it high which loses us orders to the like of Intellitek but we don't care. If a client comes along with a meaty application, say another nuclear application, then we would go for it. Meanwhile it's in the background. Then comes R20. We are collaborating with a young man in Cambridge who has a design, met on the Cambridge Robotics group. Right now it's an up-turned biscuit tin on wheels and we are busy designing a proper chassis. Then a video on youtube etc etc... Robotics1 (talk) 16:56, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I was reading the article on Freddy_II (and FREDDY I which it also covers) and subsequently the Mitchie article. I soon got lost in there and an hour later I had downloaded a 90 minute copy of the Lighthill controversy debate from the ARTIFICIAL_INTELLIGENCE-APPLICATIONS¯INSTITUTE website Freddy Video on BBC Controversy 1973 - fascinating stuff! (well it was to me as it has Michie and McCarthy against Lighthill - I am pretty simple at times lmao). It took me hours to go through all the AI winter and related people articles - many of which I could have been studying under had things gone more to my liking at school and college.

I left sixth form in 82 and did not understand why there was such a terrible lack of understanding of computers - after all I had written software to do my homework on and a little moon landing simulator game where you had slight left/right control and main thrust to land your spaceship safely - it blew up if you got over 3 m/s descent and was pretty tricky to land lol. When I went to college to do an IT HND I was hoping to return to UMIST to study there but the situation in the UK was so terrible. After thinking that there was a chance of the UK being at the forefront of technology after going to UMIST during the 70s I naturally assumed things would be much more advanced by the time I got to college through the 80s. Those articles pretty much summed up why there was a dreadful shortage of possibilities and I was most enlightened after reading them all.

When I went to college in 82/83 they were refusing to teach anything new as they did not believe it would amount to anything and were still using COBOL as the main language and punchcards on an old HARRIS mainframe. We broke that several times and spent a whole year without an editor having to do it by ln commands blind. We used to have to wait hours for the printers so we could see whether we had it right or not lol. When I went back in 1988 they were still refusing to teach windows !

I would really love to have studied under Michie or McCarthy - would have been a wonderful experience. (Hope I didn't bore you with this lol) Chaosdruid (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We had a mobile robot called Freddie in 1989. At the time all our robots were named after Greek Gods. Since this one was destined to be a messenger it was named after the messenger god, Mercury. Freddie Mercury get it? It had ultrasonic ranging, flux gate compass and other goodies considered run of the mill today. It had trailing cables to a largish computer which kind of limited its range lol! Robotics1 (talk) 02:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The latest product, the R20, looks really great, well designed, simple and functional - You seem to have got around the problems of an attached brick of computers lol. I will be watching that with great interest! I was just watching a documentary on Frank WHittle - it is a shame that the British attitude seems to be to not get behind great inventions and inventors and we really have slipped behind - Damn you Lighthill, Damn you ! Chaosdruid (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's the British way, my friend. When I went to 3I 15 years ago for funding I was told "there is no future in robots". Yeah, right. That's why we are the only British company that makes robots and all the billion dollar companies are American or Japanese. Herman Houser was inspired by the 6502 and created the ARM microprocessor. He wrote "I gave my team two things that Motorola, Rockwell et al never gave theirs. The first was no money and the second was no people." (something like that.) Robotics1 (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see I was troubled in 2007 by the state of the articles and how content belonging to one article probably belonged in another. I would be interested to start a thread but which talk do I put it in? Robotics1 (talk) 17:03, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I am going to be around intermittently until probably 23:00 as I am catching up on documentaries on Roman Britain, Anglo Saxons and a few others. Best place is probably the Robotics Project so that we can discuss it there and then act on it once we have come to decisions. Once we have decided the next step would be to place a discussion on the talk pages of each article to let the interested editors discuss the plans. Once finalised then the edits could be made.

The other way is to be bold and make the changes - as long as no-one objects by reverting etc...

There is a list of Robotics articles and how they relate to each other there on the project page and I will try and get the links put in here for you in a little while, prob 30 mins or so. Chaosdruid (talk) 20:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have done a first run through copyedit of RoboForth

Couple of problems which will need looking at to ensure I got it right:

• The APPROACH is not really explained as it does not appear in any of the program examples. I have assumed (probably incorrectly?) that the command WITHDRAW uses the APPROACH position to withdraw from the PLACE.

yes that is correct.

• I assumed that the process was replicated to teach PLACE BIN and APPROACH BIN positions.
• If the LEARN function is used that should possibly be explained in the first paragraph of PLACE and APPROACH section. It is pretty vague as to how the robot gets from being sat on a table to the "Teach the robot to the belt". I assume this is a case of moving it and then using the LEARN function. It may be better to go through the whole process so that, if I am correct, there would be:

Example of a pick-and-place program using PLACEs to pick a part from a belt and put it into a bin:

Position the robot at the desired point on the belt using the control box and, once in position, press the LEARN button to memorise the co-ordinates.

PLACE BELT

No, you have it right in the sandbox. You don't press the LEARN button. Just writing PLACE BELT both creates the word and learns the coordinates. Then subsequently typing BELT sends the robot there. Having created BELT then you can move the robot to a suitable approach position and type APPROACH BELT to add the approach position into BELT. This is the part that was inspired by Doug Sneads's LISP based robot in 1984. (yes I know all this sounds like waking fossils but VAL also goes back that far or more. I see the VAL page has no history. I have an original VAL manual somewhere so may be able to correct that.) BTW I notice that in the VAL article it says "the unit of measure is the millimeter" so I guess we should do the same. BTW2 That VAL article is appalling. Grammar is so bad in one place it's incomprehensible. And the link to the PUMA 560 VAL manual isn't one.

In some ways it might be better not to mention RobWin. Robwin provides a GUI to make it easier to program and also organizes the program and data into projects. But it is not really RoboForth. The RoboForth can be used without RobWin. What do you think? Robotics1 (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LEARN is a command that is only used with a ROUTE. The whole process for a pick and place would be: move the robot to the target position of BELT (using the teach pad or using MOVE commands) once there enter PLACE BELT (now it's done, no LEARN) move the robot away to an approach position using teach pad or MOVE commands once there enter APPROACH BELT Now BELT is finished. Repeat the procedure for BIN. Does that make sense?!Robotics1 (talk) 10:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope all checks out ok so far :¬) Next step is identify where the refs need to go and then put the ones you already have sourced into the right positions.

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:38, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I got a bit lost as to what were the most recent comments or questions. But in answer to the vagueness I think it's best explained as 3 phases (I may have mentioned 3 phases). phase 1: just move the robot. You can use commands like TELL SHOULDER 1000 MOVE, or CARTESIAN commands like 0 500.0 0 MOVETO or you can use the teach pad. Anything to just get the robot there. If you use the teach pad to get it there then you escape from the teach pad for phase 2.

phase 2: create the place with PLACE BELT. Now it's created with the robot's coordinates included in the entry for BELT. All you have to do in the future is type BELT and the robot will go back to that same position it was in when you created BELT.

repeat phase 1 and 2 for BIN

phase 3: create some higher level word that includes those words in a sequence e.g. BELT GRIP WITHDRAW BIN UNGRIP WITHDRAW e.g. : TASK BELT GRIP WITHDRAW BIN UNGRIP WITHDRAW ; then just type TASK to do the whole thing.

There is never a need to press the learn key on the teach pad because simply creating the place name BELT automatically learns the coordinates. a place is self-learning and self-executing.

When it comes to a route, a route is a list of positions. When you create the route e.g. ROUTE A14 then it is empty. You then move the robot for phase 1. Then for phase 2 you type LEARN or click the LEARN button in RobWin or press the LRN key on the teachpad. Each time you do this one line is added to the route. You then move the robot, learn the next position and so on. Finally you can RUN the route which sends the robot through all the positions.

Any better or clear as mud? Robotics1 (talk) 22:05, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I have been involved in a problem with the Android (robot) page and the disambiguation - they have renamed Android as Android (robot) as they think that Android OS is more important. I must admit it got to me that one of the High Importance Robotics articles was changed without anyone even informing the project that a discussion was unedr way or requesting a page move discussion on the page move boards. Ah well - I will try and get on to the RoboForth in a little while once I have calmed down and watched the second part of this Darwin documentary.

Chaosdruid (talk) 22:54, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised you are miffed. Er which came first, Android (robot) or Android OS? I thought the latter was named after the former. Interesting to think that the article on Android (OS) will one day read something like "name of an operating system once used on mobile phones but killed off by legal action from Oracle", whereas the original defs of android will never change.

Ever so sorry - My brother is over for a week with his family and as they live in the USA I do not get to see them often. I will be on intermittently for the next day or two but will be properly back on the 25th. Apologies for not getting around to the Roboforth but I had too much to do preparing here. I have arthritis of the spine and moving all my belongings (well it is mostly tons of old PC parts and "bachelor" stuff lol) around ready for their visit did me in - lots of paracetamol and bed rest for a couple of days and have been unable to sit at the PC for more than 20 mins at a time.

I will try and get on in the evenings but my two nieces are at the age where they need lots of running around the countryside on long walks and entertaining which is not really helping my recovery :¬( I know - I sound like an old git lmao

Chaosdruid (talk) 00:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't apologize. It's not so important. RoboForth has been in existence for 25 years, whats a few days or weeks or months? I wondered why you said you don't get out much. Have you tried Celebrex? I can not recommend it enough. It is no cure but is really effective and safe in spite of the controversial history. It works by suppressing cox-2 which is anti-inflammatory without the destructive effects of cox-1 inhibitors. When it came out I bought some in the USA (wasnt available in the UK) for my dear friend with RA and it was dramatic. I use it for capsulitis. Robotics1 (talk) 10:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damn - I just read this after posting below - I have been taking Diclofenac for two days which I believe is a Cox-1 ! What destruction does it do ??Chaosdruid (talk) 02:38, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well my research found stomach problems to be the biggest danger - cox-1 removes the mucus from the lining. This is only touched on in the Wikipedia article. If you look at the risks with celecoxib ther are actually substantially lower than Ibuprofen. But I also found there were contra-indications with regard to the actual RA - removing mucus and lubricants from the joint is not a great idea. Celebrex leaves that alone and just handles the inflammation. Interestingly my PA has asthma and can not even take aspirin, yet can take celebrex. Robotics1 (talk) 11:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

more... I looked up Diclofenac and it is cox-2 skewed but still leaves a lot of the cox1 contra indications. Another bit of my research uncovered some additional info about Celecoxib (and Diclofenac) safety. It seems that Celecoxib and the other one Vioxx were used to treat intestine cancer. In that instance the doses were phenomenal compared to just being used as an NSAID. Some people had heart problems and died. Hardly surprising. Of course it would be better if we could take no drugs at all but we live in an age where taking medicines on a daily basis is something we have to do to avoid being cast out from the village and eaten by wolves. Robotics1 (talk) 11:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Just to let you know I got back a couple of days ago but have had to be lying down due to a little problem with my back.

I can sit at the keyboard again so will be back in action tomorrow. RoboForth is next !

Hope all is well with you :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 02:36, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the good Professor Bowen visited the st robotics article and made some very minor edits. He didn't throw a fit and mark it for deletion!! or even improvement :) Robotics1 (talk) 11:22, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK - cancel my last post !! lol

I was back, but then not again - unfortunately I caught flu and then my computer got a virus of its own. Once I had fixed that my ISP decided my two month internet connection failings (which was constantly causing dropped connections) were caused by my modem and changed it for one which failed again. Turns out that the second engineer spotted a problem in the box in the road which they said was "there were signs of lightning in the box" (I think they meant caused by lightning lol) anyway they replaced one of the hubs in there and everything seems to be back to normal now

Anyway I am on catch up after missing three weeks off (1800 emails lol!) so should be back to normal later tonight or tomorrow

Hope all is well with you Chaosdruid (talk) 16:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Sounds like you had a bout of BT.

apologies again - the flu turned into a chest infection which turned to plurisy and then I had some real life problems which meant downgrading my internet and some other things as well as trying to catch up on work at the factory - it is surprising how a manager can do without their PA for six months and then even more surprising (not) for the PA to return to find six months worth of "I will deal with that later" lol!

Anywaay I am back now as I am back to two days a week so should have more time to spend on wiki.

Next thing for me is to try and get a start on RoboForth!

Hope all is well with you and I should get to you in the next couple of days for a first run through to make sure I am on track and back up-to speed Chaosdruid (talk) 00:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

no please, you must have other priorities. It sounds like you have been through the mill. Just put it on the back burner. I wish you a full return to good health. Robotics1 (talk) 10:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have caught up on all the major tasks now, I would have joined the GOCE November backlog drive but prior commitments take priority.

I have done most of my backlog on projects and large pre-existing articles which leaves only some bits and pieces of articles that were being worked on and those I haven't started - and that includes RoboForth lol

I will probably start later tonight or tomorrow :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

unbelievable! (to quote a certain grumpy old man)

my motherboard has blown up and i am strapped for cash at the moment so unlikely to be back on over the next 2 weeks except for necessity

apologies for brevity but this is from my mobile and it takes forever to type

Chaosdruid (talk) 09:32, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just don't believe it! So much bad luck. What can I say - I'd give you mine except that would be a COI lol!

Hope to see you back soon!

Woohoo ! £500 latrer and I have a working PC again lol

Unfortunately had flu for a couple of weeks so once that has gone I should be able to get going again :¬)

Merry (belated) Christmas !

Chaosdruid (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Glad to see you are still editing :¬)

I seem to not be able to find the RoboForth copy in my sandbox, will try and find it more thoroughly later tonight - I was hoping to get you to assist in the last stages but you seem to have been too busy to get on here much recently.

Hope all is well and let me know if you are going to be around over the next week or two and I shall get back to it straight away.

Chaosdruid (talk) 20:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol! I keep checking for vandalism - just this one page and that's not too ambitious! It's just that nothing seems to happen - it's one of those pages that is so boring to most people that it rarely gets vandalized or mucked about with! Robotics1 (talk) 10:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ah that article is in my sandbox! Robotics1 (talk) 12:34, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lmao - that would explain why I couldn't find it :¬)

I probably should have looked in our talk pages more closely ("Roboforth to sandbox2 - I have put links on your user page so you don't lose them :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 02:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)") -- I can be a bit dim sometimes lol!

Chaosdruid (talk) 16:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

I have been on catch up this week and noticed the goings on at Industrial robot.

I realise that you are probably more qualified than most to understand what makes an article comprehensive, but it was a little naughty of you to assess the article yourself as you are the major contributor (go here [5], select en.wikipedia and type Industrial robot into the other field). Normally we ask someone else to assess, particularly annoying in many cases as people do not always respond, let alone in good time. I came across one article that was total shit, should have been a start class, and the other project had it as a B-class. I asked them to put to C or Start but they told me to "fuck off" basically!

Problem solved though, I agree it should be a B-class :¬)

Any chance you may have some time free in the next few months? It has been a year since I last asked you about joining the assessment team (basically you and me for now, maybe Danim also) and now I find you doing them you have no excuse!!!! lol Chaosdruid (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC) PS We should really get on with the RoboForth article. I need refs etc... Chaosdruid (talk) 00:55, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I hold my hands up about that. No-one was looking! It's a strange article - no-one reads it, not even the vandals! And wow, I hadn't realized I had done so many edits!

Sorry I didn't see your msg before. And yes I would love to join the assessment team. Something more interesting to do. Thanks for asking. More later... Robotics1 (talk) 21:32, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No probs, I am at work tomorrow so an early(ish) night for me, but will be around in the evenings and at the weekend (unless there is a Grand Prix ... Nope, next is the British in 10 days). There is GOCE copyediting drive starting 1 July, so will be on limited time if I am re-elected as a project co-ordinator, but really want to get my old committments off my chest so to speak. There are a couple of articles I started that need finishing, a couple I started that need updating, and some that I never got around to starting work on after promises I made - one of them is Roboforth!

Catch up soon :¬) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Welcome back, I was starting to wonder if everything was ok with you, though I did see you were still contributing every now and again.

I did toy with the idea of introducing even more ridiculous claims, or bad grammar, to those sort of entries; such as "and cost $500,000 million per end effector" or "Our robots best are as we talking in Enlgish do well."

Hope you are ok, unfortunately I have not had chance to pursue the RoboForth article, perhaps you could draft it and then we could work on it together? Truth be told I have been concentrating more on GOCE tasks since I was coopted as a coordinator in March(?) and then voted in as one in June. I was a Wikiguide, heping newcomers and editors, but had to drop that as well due to time restrictions. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cd. I must say I admire the time you put into Wikipedia. I have been swamped with so much stuff lately - always something to do - tech support, updating manuals, editing course notes - just no time for Wp except to keep an eye on the Industrial Robot article - and even then I miss a few days and it gets vandalized! (or should that be vandalised? - is Wp American English or British English like wot I is?

As for RoboForth: no hurry. You have enough to do. I will get a round tuit soon and that will help me edit the sandbox, especially the round kind. Then I'll get back to you.

Robotics1 (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I say go for it! There are so many external links throughout the robotics articles it is silly.

I recently created List of European Union robotics projects - if you know any that should go on there, past or present, feel free to add them.

I have started on an importance scale for the robotics project assessments, if you would like to take a look and maybe discuss how it can be improved? I was trying to separate the columns into the major components of robotics to give us the top 30 in each field, but got stuck on how best to do it. Wikipedia:WikiProject Robotics/Assessment/Importance scale

I was trying to go for top 15 people, top 15 companies, top 15 robots, top 15 devices that use robotics, top 30 concepts etc. giving 30 top in each category - then I started to think that perhaps the top people and events should be in the same column, leaving robotic devices and companies in the same column. Then the GOCE July drive started so I left it ...

I should be back on tomorrow or maybe later tonight depending on if I feel any better later. (no I'm not drunk, I had a stomach problem a couple of weeks ago and it came back two days ago - I think it is porridge related, seriously, haven't had it for years, then fancied some and had two bowls - maybe crones disease lol) Chaosdruid (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No it wasn't mistake. I was cleaning Category:Robotics (create subcategories etc.). Among other things, I've created Category:Robot, with an idea to divide articles about robot types (e.g. industrial robot, military robot) and articles about specific robots (Unimate, UWA Telerobot, ST Aero MAV-1, XM1216 Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle, etc). That's why I've moved Industrial robot to Category:Robot. But then I saw it wasn't a good idea, because we would end up with many parallel categories (Category:Military robot and Category:Military robots, Category:Medical robot and Category:Medical robots, etc). Finally, I've renamed those categories to Category:Military robotics, Category:Medical robotics, etc.

And now, for example, there is a category Category:Industrial robotics (where articles about companies and technologies, related to industrial robotics, can be placed) and Category:Industrial robots (with articles about specific industrial robots). Article Industrial robot is placed in Category:Industrial robots (at the top of this category, as most important), which is subcategory of Category:Industrial robotics, which is subcategory of Category:Robotics. So I don't see why this article should be placed in any other category than Category:Industrial robots - that's why I leaved only this category. You can of course leave this article directly in Category:Robots, but I doesn't see such need, because Category:Industrial robots is also subcategory of Category:Robots.. But it's up to you :)

This is a "short" story about reversion of my own revisions ;-) Danim (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad. I agree with you industrial robots is enough. But now Chris has changed category from robot to robots. Robotics1 (talk) 21:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think he changed it, because Category:Robot doesn't exist. I've just removed article from category Category:Robots. Danim (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	Seasons Greetings
	Have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year

Apologies, slight technical problem in the Christmas Cheer Distribution Network Automated Felicitations System (no electricity) meant a small delay in getting my greetings out this year ... Chaosdruid (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed that you have been instrumental in the deletion of the article on the European Robotics Research Network Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/European Robotics Research Network, with "Non-notable network" as a summary conclusion of the deletion discussion. I am very surprised that you have the knowledge to judge this. About all academic robot research groups in Europe are member of the network (there are 235 of them, as of today), and the network is very active, as you could judge from, for example, its mailing list at <https://lists.iais.fraunhofer.de/sympa/info/euron-dist>. it is very normal that you won't find citations or references to the network in the literature, but that does not mean it is "non notable". I kindly ask you to revert your decision, and put the article online again. Maybe add a "Rate this article" footer to it, so that the members of the European robotics community have the chance to show what they think about the value of this article? Bruyninc (talk) 14:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the first I have heard of European Robotics Research Network. I was not involved in its deletion. After taking a look I would say it is worth upgrading the article so it can be accepted. I see the dilemma, it seems a good organisation and we just need some evidence of it's popularity. I will talk to chaosdruid to see what he thinks. Robotics1 (talk) 18:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

update: I have been researching your organisation and it seems notable enough to me. There are pages after pages of google entries, newspaper articles, Amazon, and I see you received some funding from the EU commission. Reading the deletion summary it looks to me like it was powered by one editor who refused to read some of the evidence given to him, but I will talk to some others and see what the opinions are. It may be that we simply need more evidence of notability. Robotics1 (talk) 19:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was totally dismayed at this - there were a series of robotics related deletions headed by Crusio, who it seems to me may have some COI. Unfortunately I was unable to sway anyone and lost on a three to one vote - not surprisingly I sort of lost my cool towards the end. I do not know why those people were involved in the deletions discussion, but Sandstein had my support before that incident - now I have little respect for any of those other parties involved. A total whitewashing of notability rules and guidelines. I especially loved the way my atatement - "can be verified", not "has an article about them" - was totally ignored.

I suggest recreating it - it is probably somewhere in my userspace - ah, here we go ... User:Chaosdruid/European_Robotics_Research_Network

I also made a list that needs some serious expanding ... List of European Union robotics projects

As far as I am concerned it passed all of the Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria and in particular Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Non-commercial_organizations. Indeed one of the parameters is for "secondary" coverage, sandstein votes delete on tertiary, directly against policy and guidelines - I could go on but I feel my temperature rising again :¬)

I would indeed very much like to reinstate the article, perhaps once some refs and more info is added it can be put back into mainspace (and maybe stay there!)

I will be back online properly on Sunday and will have a look then. Chaosdruid (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you had contacted me at the time... ah well lets see what we can do. Robotics1 (talk) 22:06, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the reactions, guys! Putting it back online, with some explanation in its Discussion page, and with a rating footer at the bottom might be the best option. I can ask EURON members to do positive rating (and article improvement): if the article is indeed as valuable as we think, the community will help us with giving a positive ranking.... Bruyninc (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bruyninc, I'm curious. When the article was proposed for deletion in the middle of last year I didn't see anything from you against it. Just curious! Robotics1 (talk) 15:15, 10 January 2012 (UTC). update: I haven't heard from Chaosdruid yet, but I know I will. He's a good guy - he's from East Anglia! (citation needed) Robotics1 (talk) 22:07, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robotics1, you're right, I did not react. Since I do typically not login when editing articles on Wikipedia: too much hassle :-) And the discussion page is soooooo "pull technology", which is a practical threshold for me, who am a mostly email-using "push technology"-driven internet user. Lame excuse, but it's true :-) Bruyninc (talk) 14:58, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok, well let's go for it. I believe there is an email alert system now on wikiP. I need chaosdruid because I don't have the skills to do this by myself and anyway when it comes to a vote we will all be needed and more besides. I'll look into the email alert. Robotics1 (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry! I did make a start, unfortunately I came down with a little cold though. The current version is at the link I posted above, User:Chaosdruid/European_Robotics_Research_Network Chaosdruid (talk) 06:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe your email facility has been disabled, or not set up, so we cannot email you. Also note that there can be issues with asking people in to vote on matters, policy is at

WP:CANVAS

. To set your email status, go to "My preferences" at the very top of your page - email options are at the bottom of the "User profile" tab.

True, but I don't think it hurts to ask for more opinions. The last vote was just 3 people - 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on what's for dinner. Email enabled. Robotics1 (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did amalgamate the two versions, we just need to find sources(refs) and update anything that is not on there. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:31, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'll start collecting refs. Robotics1 (talk) 10:38, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I did get a list off the deletions notice, they are on the talk page User_talk:Chaosdruid/European_Robotics_Research_Network.

I am just going over a little problem with a BLP, I'll be onto the EURON article in an hour or so if you are about... Chaosdruid (talk) 17:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys! 94.224.120.65 (talk) 16:39, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am about to start on the EURON article, about 20 mins - just having a coffee, watching the end of a Channel 4 documentary on Carthage, looking at some Carthage pages, then -> EURON. I will begin by assembling everything onto the talk page @ User_talk:Chaosdruid/European_Robotics_Research_Network Chaosdruid (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

sheesh, thanx. I am out of time today but I will definitely be on this tomorrow. I am looking for evidence, now and will get back asap. Robotics1 (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AAAAHHHHHH! Bloody computers, I have only just got back online, problems with installing the latest drivers since just after tea-time. At least it is sorted out now, I won't have enough time tonight but will start tomorrow afternoon. Sorry, best laid plans etc... Chaosdruid (talk) 01:19, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Are you sure that is a public domain shot? I am sure you must have got the info from somewhere, but I can see three citations below it in the obituary: Taro Yamasaki/Detroit Free Press/UPI [6] Chaosdruid (talk) 02:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how to interpret it. But the 3 citations together made me wonder. They can't all 3 own the copyright can they? How can we get a better picture? Robotics1 (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Others simply attribute to Taro Yamasaki, perhaps searching down that line might be better. I will try and find us something tonight. Chaosdruid (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried, but cannot find anything that we can use that states it is copyright-free. We could look into the "one-off" specail circumstances, I will look over the weekend again, just in case. Chaosdruid (talk) 01:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I was just reporting them when they got blocked before I finished - some admin on the ball :) A 3 years, 6 hours, 32 minutes and 24 seconds ban - lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by KylieTastic (talk • contribs) 21:03, 16 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current

]

Autosign

This is a test. For some reason I keep getting auto-signed even though I am using the 4 tildes. FORTH LOVE = IF HONK THEN now I click the 4-tilde icon Robotics1 08:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Norman Heroux

Unfortunately I didn't log in enough and my notifications expired. Consequently I did not see the addition in Industrial Robot of Norman Heroux as being the inventor of the Unimate robot. I have searched the internet and his obituaries and I see he was a field service engineer at Unimation. George Devol holds (held) the patent so George Devol invented the industrial robot. Devol employed engineers and Heroux was no doubt one of them. Maybe Heroux *designed* the Unimate while working for Unimation and George Devol. That does not make him the inventor. The only references I can find to that connection are extremely vague, for example one link is 404, one link ends up with "pecfest15 Girl is gone rap in battle"; next goes to iq option trading; wikiomni is a page of code and pictograms; next goes to binomo trading; next is a link to hitchhikers guide to the galaxy but heroux has been edited out. Many other links such as wordaz simply refer back to wikipedia. It looks to me like a deliberate attempt to get google coverage to bring people from Wikipedia to these various trading sites. There is certainly evidence that Heroux worked for Unimation and the Bridgeport news mentions he gave a talk in 1972 but that is only genuine article and it does not mention inventor. Therefore I intend to delete all references to Norman Heroux and if anyone has any genuine evidence please discuss it with me. Robotics1 (talk) 14:05, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Having meet with Mr. Norman Heroux while he was living I will provide the following. Mr. Heroux and his late wife travel to every country except Russia and Cuba. Clearly the man made it rich and travelled the world rather than stacking his claim. I recall an exhibit in a museum on the North Eastern state naming him as the inventor on the sign nearby the exhibit. I recall him mentioning how the Queen of England gave him a call to have him work on a failing automotive line due to his achievements. I recall the History Channel having a black and white video of the factory showing him working on the robot. I recall him saying he invented the Unimate. I recall him saying he was a teacher - perhaps one of his students could provide more details and knew him better. I would like to get to the bottom of this unbiasedly. In either event, based on evidence so far brought into the light you are doing a disservice to omit his name entirely from the article. Mention of him as a designer and potential inventor would be far more factual given sources. Also, I would like to see someone follow up with the sources provided, if possible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.114.18.182 (talk) 22:46, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recollections are personal and not enough. Wikipedia needs references and citations. You haven't presented any evidence. All the links or so-called sources I followed were dead or frivolous or else linked back to Wikipedia. I can't mention him as even a potential inventor without evidence and no editor will disagree. Every scrap of evidence known by everyone in the industry shows that George Devol filed the patent and 'invented' the first robot which was later exploited in a collaboration with Joseph Engleberger. No-one has ever heard of Norman Heroux. That he and his wife traveled to every country does not prove anything and I am absolutely positive the Queen of England would never phone an engineer to work on anything. It's nonsense. Robotics1 (talk) 23:35, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]