If you want to leave a message, please do it at the bottom, as a new section, for better formatting. You can do that by simply pressing the plus sign (+) or "new section" on the top of this page. And don't forget to sign your messages with four tildes, like this: ~~~~
Attention: I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented. If you leave a comment for me here, I will most likely respond to it on this same page—my talk page—as an effort to keep the entire conversation in one place. By the same token, if I leave a comment on your talk page, please respond to it there. Remember, we can use our watchlist and topic subscriptions to keep track of when responses are made. At the same time, feel free to send an alert to me on this page about a comment you have left elsewhere.
Hello MrOllie, I hope I made a message correctly. You reverted my edition and left the article is the same.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industrial_robot
Here.
It is not correct and not correct written. Material handling / or workpiece handling if it goes to manufacture is most percentage of robots use. So manufacturing intself process (like welding) is much less.
You can take process of palletizing. There is no manufacturing as well. Or packing of furniture in IKEA factories.
I believe the revertion you made is wrong. D-lotti-pt-xxi (talk) 11:04, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The opening sentence should be as short as possible, and your change created redundancy. 'Manufacturing' is understood to include many activities including such handling, and the opening sentence should not be bogged down by such a list. MrOllie (talk) 13:19, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but it is not a true.
According to wiki: Manufacturing is the creation or production of goods with the help of equipment, labor, machines, tools, and chemical or biological processing or formulation.
Packing of already created goods is not a manufacturing. In the nature of manufacturing is the piece transformation.
Typical applications of robots include welding, painting, assembly, disassembly,[2] pick and place for printed circuit boards, packaging and labeling, palletizing, product inspection... D-lotti-pt-xxi (talk) 13:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I need to prove to you that handling could be not a manufacturing process? And that handling process is more used for robots that the real manufacturing? I mean what is the contrary argument? To leave as it is because already written? D-lotti-pt-xxi (talk) 13:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The contrary argument is that the article should follow MOS:LEADSENTENCE and not get bogged down in making lists of things in what is supposed to be a short and simple sentence - doing so is bad writing. MrOllie (talk) 13:42, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The onus is on you to get consensus support for you changes, which have been reverted by several editors last time you tried to edit war this in on your last IP MrOllie (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You changed "Mrs. Randall" to "Helen" with the note "fix a bit of lingering vandalism", but it looks like you were actually the one who swapped the names in the first place? This is the diff of the change. The character is referred to as Mrs. Randall on Silent Night, Deadly Night, but I personally don't have much preference which one we go with - just that it would be cleaner if the two pages matched. Cheers! NekoKatsun (nyaa) 23:56, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
We can have our disagreements on Wikipedia, but don’t shit talk me. I haven’t done anything to antagonize you and yet you’re mentioning how I got blocked out in public over an edit. I hope we can reach an agreement on the talk page, but try not be such an asshole. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 19:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You've been edit warring across a half dozen articles and refusing to discuss. You got blocked for that, then resumed doing exactly the same thing. And when I point this out, you come on my talk page to make personal attacks. Are you trying to get blocked again? MrOllie (talk) 19:12, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not making a personal attack, I’m asking you to not be so damn antagonistic towards me. I am willing to talk, in fact, I made a talk page specifically on the Austria page to discuss the issue with you. I got mad one day and said I didn't want to talk one time and you used it to get me blocked. I am willing to talk about edits so don’t accuse me of just editing and not discussing them over. ErickTheMerrick (talk) 19:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're actively edit warring across multiple articles right now as you're on my talk page saying you'll discuss. You've got to discuss - with everybody on every article. Calling people an 'asshole' absolutely is a personal attack. I did not get you blocked - you did that yourself by flagrantly ignoring policy even after people warned you about it. MrOllie (talk) 19:46, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All links used in the chapter "The ancient Greek seven - string Lyre nowadays" are not promo, as stated, but a proof of evidence supporting the article. More specifically all links are proving that:
- A solist of the instrument that has a huge contribution of it's revival (Dr. Nikos Xanthoulis) exists.
- Growing repertoire written specificaly for this instrument.
All above are vital parts in order to revive the ancient Greek lyre and must be included in the wikipedia article to provide information to any user interested on the topic. Διήων (talk) 10:22, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is blatant promo, including inappropriate external links. See WP:NOT - Wikipedia is not the place to 'spread the word' about such developments, certainly not based on primary sources. MrOllie (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly academic studies on the top of the ancient Greek lyre, the existence of a learning method after almost two millennia and the revival of the instrument is blatant promo? Διήων (talk) 15:02, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The text was plainly added to promote Dr. Xanthoulis and the program in question 100% of the sourcing comes from those entities. Wikipedia needs independent, secondary sources - materials written by people entirely unassociated with Xanthoulis or the University in question. You appear to be associated with this program yourself - you are likely in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use as explained at WP:PAID and WP:COI. MrOllie (talk) 15:13, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean the university in question? Do you say that the university is a not existing foundation or you are assuming that the research provided as a verification of the article via academia is not an acceptable source??? I think you underestimate the importance of the revival of the instrument after 1600 years. Διήων (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with there is no conflict of interest here. You are using the term wrong. my only interest on the subject is as a musician and i recentrly discovered the existence of such academic curiculum and I find it exremely important for the instrument and it's story that's why i made the addition. According to WP:COI article that you were kind enough to share what i posted is not violating anything. No financial or any other benefits are coming from the publication of the existence after 1600 years of academic studies on the ancient Greek Lyre and the story behind it. I really don't get why you keep editing and removing such an important part of the article, even though several links of verification have been provided. You say that the article is promoting the work of Dr. Xanthoulis but it is not doing such a thing, it only recognise his contribution on the revision of an ancient instrument. If you took some minutes to review the links assosiate with this part of the article you could see yourself that they are coming from different sources and all verify the informations i posted. Please consider what I said above before re-editing the article. The revival of this instrument is big news in the musical world. Διήων (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found them from facebook posts in a group about the Greek lyre, I asked permission to post them here and I got it. I did not take the pictures myself. Διήων (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if this is 'big news in the musical world' that does not explain your use of primary sources. Also, Wikipedia is not a place to spread 'big news', see WP:NOTNEWS. You're simply trying to get Wikipedia to do something it is not designed to do. - MrOllie (talk) 16:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have a personal reason for not wanting the informations regarding the ancient Greek lyre in the modern world to be on wikipedia... It is interesting information and there is no reason to not have them in the article. Διήων (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You got me, I have been editing Wikipedia for years in preparation for this moment, keeping your promotion of somebody's musical career and classes off of Wikipedia. MrOllie (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also interesting that you keep bringing up this view on the matter. The edit was about the revival of the ancient Greek lyre. We did not know absolutetly anything about the instrument apart from archaelogical finds. A recreation of the instrument was made possible due to the reaserch work of Mr Xanthoulis (I provided the links from academia with his pappers on the subject as verified proof) and I will say it once more.... after 1600 of silence the ancient Greek lyre is now sounding again and this should be part of the article too. Now regarding the "classes" its an academic program and know that in Greece several universites are public, like the Dimocritus University of Thrace, and they are non-profit institutions. Your arguments are invalid and extremely curious. Διήων (talk) 17:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They might seem curious if you completely fail to engage with their substance - which is that adding material like this based on primary sources is counter to Wikipedia's content policies. It isn't just me - other editors have noticed the same thing, and you are edit warring with them as well to try to force this into Wikipedia. It simply does not belong here. MrOllie (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just googled your wiki name and several articles and post came up saying you are really into edit wars and some even said you are a "paid contributor". The fact that you are bold enough to say that the revival of the ancient greek lyre, the fact that people are again studying it, music is composed for it and even academic studies on the subject exist proves that you are either stubborn or serve your own agenda. I already answered to several accusations of yours and there are no evidence to your claims. My edit is truthful and I have documented it enough to support it. 2A02:1388:14A:DB17:D8CB:40FF:FEA3:4371 (talk) 17:20, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
