User talk:Rwk1

EMMA[edit]

Hi

Just a little question or two :¬)

The article says that EMMA needs no electricity but there is a switch between the two joysticks on the pic EmmaDeployment1.JPG that looks electrical in operation ?!?

Secondly the "belly" sander in the middle of the EMMAsystems.JPG looks as if there would indeed be fallout of material onto the operator - should the sentence "...plus vacuum connectivity to collect generated..." be changed to show that it has them as standard, as I read it the "connectivity" seems optional, even though the next section has it explained differently and implies it is built in.

Chaosdruid (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Chaosdruid,

1. The switch is used to turn on the pneumatically powered sanders that are part of the End-Effector component. 2. Generally, a vacuum is included per the request of the client. The majority of clients thus far have ordered their belly systems with a vacuum system. So while the vacuum connectivity is optional, in practice it is usually included with the belly systems.

Rwk1 (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you got the copyright problems sorted out on the images ? It is disapointing that we do not have a bot that can delete those messages above. You can archive them yourself though to clear this page if you so wish. Simply add "/Archive 1" after "User:Rwk1" so it reads "User:Rwk1/Archive 1" hit enter and click on "create page" then you can copy and paste from here to there using the edit tabs at the top of the page.

I really love the "Photoshopped" mask and goggles lol !

I added the Robotics banner to the pages as Robotics articles cover remotely operated arms - I also pointed out that it is not a robot :¬)

Chaosdruid (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see the Robotics banner on the talk pages but not in the actual articles, is that something I would have to approve?

Rwk1 (talk) 18:16, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - the banners sit on the talk pages. Categories go on the article pages.

If you look at the top left corner of the article you will see that the class shown is a reflection of the banner on the talk page. If an editor from one of the groups decides that the class (Stub, Start, C, B) should be changed they will make the change on the talk page and it will update the article page. You may notice that the titles on the article pages are different colours and this reflects the class from the banners on the talk page. Importance to each project (shown in the banner) is not reflected on the article page though.

Categories are for editors to put onto the article pages to group them together and are tree-like in function. FOr example the EMMA categories should probably be something along the lines of "Production and manufacturing" + "Machine tools" or anything else that more specifically categorises it.

Hope that answers your question :¬)

Feel free to ask any more though Chaosdruid (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Better source request for File:EMMAsystems.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:EMMAsystems.JPG. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact Web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talk page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:EMMAsystems.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:EMMAsystems.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 05:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:EmmaDeployment1.JPG[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:EmmaDeployment1.JPG. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-enwikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-enwikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 05:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Emma labeled.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Emma labeled.jpg, which you've attributed to Chris Chiang. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described in section F11 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. MGA73 (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Design 5 TAI Bold copy.jpg[edit]

The file File:Design 5 TAI Bold copy.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Logo of non-notable company. Not used anywhere.

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. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:47, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]