Hi B235R! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hi there B235R, as I am looking for sourcing on the Actin article, I am noticing that you have made some errors. This is okay, you are a beginner, errors are expected, but some are fairly serious and lead straight to deletion of the content. In particular, you have uploaded some imagefiles as your own work, but you have included the Energid logo in them, which is almost certainly citation needed going to be a trademark violation. Wikipedia *can* have a trademarked logo, but it has to be uploaded using WP:FFU and a proper fair use exception to the copyright laws. However, wikipedia cannot have imagefiles which are NOT logos that utilize a trademarked logo, such as the cool animated GIF you uploaded as your own work, with the moving virtual robot arm. So here are the problem-areas:
This is almost certainly trademarked, and thus needs to be re-uploaded *to enWiki* (not Commons) as a low-resolution version with a fair-use exception. See WP:FFU and WP:NFCC for the gory details, ask a new question in a new section -- something like "please help me upload a company logo under fair use -- if you get stuck.
This one has the trademarked logo (down in the righthand corner), which is the primary problem. However, it is also a screenshot of the software product, which means it might have trade dress and plausibly even copyrighted look and feel stuff. There are some helpdocs about uploading screenshots of computer software, I've never done it, please see WP:SCREENSHOT for details. If any of the stuff is NOT your actual own work, as in you created all the content not just you took the screenshot, then it is very important to note that. Wikipedia can get into a lot of legal hot water, hosting copyright-infringing material, so please fix these problems ASAP.
And the same goes for other imagefiles you may have uploaded, but those are the two that jumped out at me. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 20:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Here are some of the sources I've come up with, to help improve the article. Some of these are accessible to me directly, others are behind a WP:PAYWALL which makes things more complicated. (But we will figure it out.) If you can find similar journal/magazine/newspaper/tvNews/book/etc coverage, which helps Actin pass WP:GOLDENRULE, that will be helpful, please post the URLs to Talk:Actin_(software)#sources along with the ones I found. Or if you don't know the URLs, then just post the title/author/date or whatever metadata you do know, and I'll see what I can do.
You please need to remove anything (the source as well as the sentences it was backing up) that is sourced to press releases -- no matter where they are published -- and also to the company homepage, or the product homepage if that is distinct, as well as to subsidiary homepages like Robai. (*One* link in WP:EL section is allowed but not as a reference.) Similarly, WP:BLOGS are not useful. Wikipedia is supposed to summarize books, scholarly articles, newspapers, magazines, television news, that sort of thing, see WP:RS. Of which there seem to be plenty -- but we need to use those and not the stuff published by people with a financial stake in the success of the product. Make sense? 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 20:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
While I thank you for doing the work to come up with some new sources, it is important that they be relevant to the Actin_(software) article about the software product, as distinct from the Energid Technologies article about the corporation. I'm not finding Actin specifically in either of these sources:
Can you explain why you think the sources are talking specifically about Actin, please? 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 02:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've tried to summarize the factoids from the 2010/2011 NASA cite, in this change. [4] Here is the text which was added, stripped of headers and such:
That is derived from the following quotation-snippet found in the NASA / International Astronautical Congress source:
I've struck all the WP:PUFFERY which needed to be removed, so as to aim squarely for WP:NPOV-style neutrality. The only slightly-puffery-like portions I retained were the goals of the Actin software package: to provided a user-friendly environment for design-optimization. And note that I did not say "Actin is user-friendly" but rather the more circumspect "with an emphasis on user-friendly" to indicate that this is Energid's goal rather than an objective claim of truth in WP:WIKIVOICE. This is okay for me to do, since I have no financial stake in the company. For you, on the other hand, if you are attempting to summarize something neutrally yourself, just err on the side of caution, and strike out ANYTHING which might be perceived as WP:PROMO or WP:PUFFERY. Like the old television show says, Just The Facts.
Also worth noting -- usually when you summarize a ref, you will go from 10 sentences in the ref down to ~1 sentence in the wikipedia body-prose. This was an exception to that norm, because the NASA prose was chock full of factoids, and also because some of them were technological jargon that I wasn't sure the average reader of wikipedia would easily understand, so per WP:Readers_first I was careful to explain the concepts involved. I also heavily wikilinked, arguably too heavily, see WP:OVERLINK, but that is the best way to keep a technological-article simple without being simplistic: just link to kinematic chain, and interested readers will be able to find the gory details. No need to explain kinematic chains in the article on Actin, just stick to explaining Actin-the-software, and let the wikilink carry most of the weight. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 19:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Here is the
Cnet article from 2012. It does not have much about Actin specifically, but it does have a couple factoids worth pulling out, and writing neutral sentences about for the
Actin_(software) article. Here is the URL,
[6] see if you can write up some neutral sentences, and then save them here on your user-talkpage. I'll critique, and once we are both happy, we can get it into mainspace. Follow the same process I showed you above: cut out everything irrelevant, cut out everything promotional, end up with just the cold neutral facts, in as dry of an encyclopedic tone as you can muster. Also, please see
WP:Indentation, when you reply on talkpages it helps readability if you indent your replies. Wikipedia runs on the latest 1996 technology, as you probably have gathered by now :-)
47.222.203.135 (
talk)
19:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |deadurl=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |deadurl=
(
help)
References
Philadelphia-based robotics firm Robai... latest of its Cyton robot arms is the Cyton Gamma, and it's designed [for non-roboticists] ...Gamma's seven joints are 'kinematically redundant,' Robai says... This gives it [the robot arm] more dexterity. The increased workload on the control system [caused by the seven degrees of freedom] is handled by Actin, software from Energid Technologies that was developed for robots at NASA. The [control] system uses a simple 3D graphical interface. ...connects to Linux, Windows, or OS X systems via USB. Aside from programming with the GUI... tested in applications such as remote inspection, manufacturing, and healthcare, according to Robai.
Notes
...how to configure a Cyton robot [arm] for remote inspection applications. That is, applications that require real-time positioning of a camera by a human operator not collocated with what is being inspected. The operator [of the robot-mounted camera] might be in the next room or in a different country (connected through the Internet)... Through custom camera end-effectors [robot 'hands'] available through Robai [at additional cost] and the included network interface [robot arm operation-interface]... One application... is troubleshooting and testing electronic components ... at a remote manufacturing facility ... A growing area for remote inspection is the field of remote healthcare (or Telehealth) ... remote medical diagnostics... robotic system allows doctors and other medical personnel to move the [remote-controlled] camera to the patient ... Undercar Inspection ... military organizations use vehicle checkpoints ... check for hidden explosives within the chassis [inside the undercarriage of the vehicle] ... remotely controlled robotic camera that can look around structures in a serpentine fashion...
according to CNET gives the arm "more dexterity"because it is a direct quotation and because it is attributed to an financially-independent third-party reliable-source, in this case a magazine journalist. I could also have retained the "simple" quotation about the 3D GUI, as long as I attributed it to CNET, but I didn't see it as a crucial factor, since it was not clear to me (from the CNET article alone) whether the operator-GUI was in fact written *in* Actin and therefore directly relevant, or was a separate software component that merely interfaced under the hood with Actin. (The "simple" quotation, attributed to CNET, would belong over at the Robai article however.)
Okay, you have updated your userpage, now please insert the following additional stuff onto your userpage at User:B235R. Here is the magic incantation, for you to cut-n-paste onto your userpage just this once but update with names of articles as needed:
<!-- remember to add other articles here, if you edit them in mainspace or (MUCH preferred!) make suggestions about suitable edits on their article-talkpages. -->
{{UserboxCOI| Energid Technologies <!-- employer
-->| Robai <!-- subsidiary of employer
-->| Actin (software) <!-- product sold by employer
-->}}
Additionally, I've inserted the proper 'connected contrib' template thing for you, at the top of the Talk:Actin_(software) page, can you please edit Talk:Robai and also Talk:Energid Technologies to have the following thing *after* any existing templates like {{ talk header}} but *before* any discussion-sections? Same as I did with the Talk:Actin_(software) page, but you need to know the steps so you can do it yourself, if Energid releases a new product next year which ends up with a dedicated wikipedia page for instance. Here is the magic incantation, for you to cut-n-paste onto article-talkpages as needed:
{{Connected contributor (paid)
|User1= B235R |U1-employer= Energid Technologies |U1-client= Energid Technologies |U1-EH= yes |U1-banned= no |U1-otherlinks= [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:B235R&oldid=759896532 Declaration.]
}}
If you want the details of how these things work, or if you need to give somebody else at Energid or Robai or something the helpdocs on how to do this for their own personal username (one wikipedia usernames per human that edits please), here you go. Rules about listing the articles where COI exists, per helpdocs at WP:DCOI and also WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY, "maintain a clearly visible list on your user page of your paid contributions...." Template:UserboxCOI for the userpage helpdocs, and Template:Connected_contributor_(paid) for the article-talkpage helpdocs.
And since it came up, per WP:NOSHARING please note well that usernames cannot be the company-name, nor can any wikipedia-passwords be shared amongst multiple people -- this is for copyright reasons, when you click edit there is clickwrap legalese before you click save, which assigned copyright of your original work (whatever you just typed) to the wikipedia CC-BY-SA license. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 20:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you still on your weekend? Or are you back to the grindstone yet? I'm a little busy with WP:TIAD on another article, but if you are wondering what to do and worried about clicking the 'edit' button I do not want to leave you hanging in limbo.
Of course, if you are just busy enjoying the weekend and/or busy with other off-wiki tasks, THAT is no problem, when you have time to get back into the wikipedia-groove, just drop me a note on my User_talk:47.222.203.135 to let me know you are active again. I will caution you that unless you make a habit of editing wikipedia (for at least a few minutes) every other day or at most every third day, you will forget the gory details of WP:PAG and make some beginner-error. Better to build good habits into a long-term behavior pattern, and edit regularly in small bursts, at least for your first year or two. (Once you've been editing every-other-day for a year you tend to have your habits... good or bad... ingrained into long-term RAM as it were). Lemme know how you are doing please, and whether you've forgotten what step we are currently supposed to be hammering away upon collaboratively :-) 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 16:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear B235R, you recently made the following change to an article in mainspace, I'm not really sure it was an improvement...
Because, looking at the wiki-markup....
As you can see, your change has inserted the plaintext phrase 'controlling' as one of the MAIN purposes of the software toolkit. Which is not factually wrong, necessarily (see problem#2 below which discusses sources). And also not necessarily POV editing, either (see problem#3 below). But you have introduced problems, one of them explicit and obvious-in-hindsight (dupe wikilink), but also two more subtle problems which are implicit in the actions you took. In reverse order, from least serious to most serious, the three problems are:
for robot control and robotics simulator[s of] robots...whereas your WP:BOLD change now makes it say
for robot control and robotics simulator[s of] and robot control [of] robots...which is redundant. Maybe we can come to a compromise, and say something like this alternative phrasing: "...for designing (specifically controlling) and simulating robots, created by..." Note the wikilinks please, not all of them are what you might expect on casually reading the prose! Wikipedia tends not to wikilink to the *obvious* places every single time. For instance, in political articles, there might be a sentence like "Trump opposed Clinton's tax plan" and while it is certainly not ILLEGAL under the wikipolicies to have the following wikilinks, "[[Donald Trump|Trump]] opposed [[Hillary Clinton|Clinton]]'s [[taxation|tax]] plan" that is considered to be a fairly crappy weakly-supported use of wikilinks. It is not very helpful to the readership. They don't want a link to taxation, they already probably KNOW what taxation is, as a general concept, they are reading the political-article in question because they want to know more about the difference between Clinton and Trump, specifically. Or so one might surmise, from such a sentence. Therefore, usually I will wikilink to some 'strange' places which the plaintext does not necessarily support, as a means of helping the readership (link to what they WANT to read more about), but also because it is hard to read blue-black-blue-black-blue text generally... which means every wikilink needs to be there for a Good Reason. See what I did there? So here is the way I would write such a politics-sentence, not every wikipedian does it this way, but you should be aware that lots of wikipedians do this sort of thing: " Trump opposed Clinton's tax plan". And I *might* even rework the prose so that I could wikilink from ' opposed' to the most relevant article. Readers of the sentence might just care that Trump opposed Clinton's plan, and might not want to know the details of their stances on taxation specifically... but any reader who clicks on 'tax plan' in THAT sentence is going to want a rundown of Clinton's tax plan, and *very* likely any reader who clicks on 'opposed' is going to want a rundown of Trump's reasons for opposing, which we can illustrate by linking to *his* stances on taxation. So in this hypothetical sentence, because it is bad writing to mash a bunch of different bluelinks all together in a row, instead of saying the potentially-confusing " Trump opposed Clinton's tax plan" I would rework the prose and the wikilink-layout slightly to separate each bluelink by at least a wee bit of black plaintext, like this: " Trump opposed Clinton's tax plan with his own" or something like that. So although it is a bit of a boring problem (you inserted a wikilink that is a duplicate of a wikilink two (plaintext) words earlier in the same sentence), there are actually some fairly complicated prose-construction considerations that go into the balance of wikilink-versus-plaintext thinking. Once you get the hang of 'abusing' wikilinks by pointing from words like 'designing' to articles like roboticist... whatever will help readers most depending on context... then you will find that you can REALLY cut out the fat in your prose. No need to explain and over-explain, just wikilink to the place which *does* explain-in-context. But it can hurt readability if you abuse wikilinks, please see the relevant guidelines including WP:SEAOFBLUE, WP:OVERLINKING, MOS:DUPLINK, WP:LEADLINK, WP:COMMONWORDS, WP:LINKCLARITY, WP:SPECIFICLINK, and friends. So in the context of Actin, I linked from 'designer' to robot control since Actin is *used* by robot-designers to design robot-control-systems. But I think that your well-intentioned correction was heading in the right direction, so I suggest this, it will be clearer if we instead use the compromise-language I mentioned above, and say "...for designing (specifically controlling) and simulating robots, created by..." on that particular sentence. However, before we change the sentence in thataway, there are two very important issues that need discussion! Is the change impeccably sourced? Is the change impeccably neutral? Per WP:BRD, no more changing mainspace, until we figure the exact wording out.
So: I'm coming down like a ton of wiki-bricks, on top of your small and seemingly-minor change, which was a bit silly (since we already wikilink there two words earlier) but definitely a good-faith change that was an attempt to improve the article... and likely motivated because you noticed intuitively that I violated MOS:SUBMARINE with my surprising 'designer'-to- Robot_control wikilink jiu jitsu move... and I'm sure after some discussion we'll figure out an agreement aka consensus that DOES in fact improve the prose, perhaps my compromise-wording suggested above that avoid the MOS:SUBMARINE problem I created... but I'm mostly trying to use this as a teaching moment so that you get a very bleeping clear idea that you need to be walking on eggshells, when you are even THINKING about touching articles where you have a financial conflict. You need to WP:BEBOLD but never reckless (such as making unexplained changes to sourced sentences without providing any sources yourself). Remember WP:TIND here on wikipedia. Better to have the article be slightly incorrect/awkward/whatever, for a few hours/days/weeks, than to get yourself into hot water LATER by forming bad habits NOW. Get in the habit, and stay in that habit, of thinking hard first, discussing with a non-COI wikipedian if there is ANY POSSIBILITY HOWEVER REMOTE that your change could be seen as spam or as POV pushing, and then only editing iff and when you are positive you are ImprovingTheEncyclopedia. In other words, don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes. Lemme know if you are understanding the wavelength I'm trying to transmit here, please. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 16:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Actin Software Image.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Codename Lisa ( talk) 07:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Energid Technologies, Corp Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Actin (software) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actin (software) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn ( talk) 09:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
Hi B235R! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. We hope to see you there!
Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC) |
Hi there B235R, as I am looking for sourcing on the Actin article, I am noticing that you have made some errors. This is okay, you are a beginner, errors are expected, but some are fairly serious and lead straight to deletion of the content. In particular, you have uploaded some imagefiles as your own work, but you have included the Energid logo in them, which is almost certainly citation needed going to be a trademark violation. Wikipedia *can* have a trademarked logo, but it has to be uploaded using WP:FFU and a proper fair use exception to the copyright laws. However, wikipedia cannot have imagefiles which are NOT logos that utilize a trademarked logo, such as the cool animated GIF you uploaded as your own work, with the moving virtual robot arm. So here are the problem-areas:
This is almost certainly trademarked, and thus needs to be re-uploaded *to enWiki* (not Commons) as a low-resolution version with a fair-use exception. See WP:FFU and WP:NFCC for the gory details, ask a new question in a new section -- something like "please help me upload a company logo under fair use -- if you get stuck.
This one has the trademarked logo (down in the righthand corner), which is the primary problem. However, it is also a screenshot of the software product, which means it might have trade dress and plausibly even copyrighted look and feel stuff. There are some helpdocs about uploading screenshots of computer software, I've never done it, please see WP:SCREENSHOT for details. If any of the stuff is NOT your actual own work, as in you created all the content not just you took the screenshot, then it is very important to note that. Wikipedia can get into a lot of legal hot water, hosting copyright-infringing material, so please fix these problems ASAP.
And the same goes for other imagefiles you may have uploaded, but those are the two that jumped out at me. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 20:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Here are some of the sources I've come up with, to help improve the article. Some of these are accessible to me directly, others are behind a WP:PAYWALL which makes things more complicated. (But we will figure it out.) If you can find similar journal/magazine/newspaper/tvNews/book/etc coverage, which helps Actin pass WP:GOLDENRULE, that will be helpful, please post the URLs to Talk:Actin_(software)#sources along with the ones I found. Or if you don't know the URLs, then just post the title/author/date or whatever metadata you do know, and I'll see what I can do.
You please need to remove anything (the source as well as the sentences it was backing up) that is sourced to press releases -- no matter where they are published -- and also to the company homepage, or the product homepage if that is distinct, as well as to subsidiary homepages like Robai. (*One* link in WP:EL section is allowed but not as a reference.) Similarly, WP:BLOGS are not useful. Wikipedia is supposed to summarize books, scholarly articles, newspapers, magazines, television news, that sort of thing, see WP:RS. Of which there seem to be plenty -- but we need to use those and not the stuff published by people with a financial stake in the success of the product. Make sense? 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 20:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
While I thank you for doing the work to come up with some new sources, it is important that they be relevant to the Actin_(software) article about the software product, as distinct from the Energid Technologies article about the corporation. I'm not finding Actin specifically in either of these sources:
Can you explain why you think the sources are talking specifically about Actin, please? 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 02:32, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I've tried to summarize the factoids from the 2010/2011 NASA cite, in this change. [4] Here is the text which was added, stripped of headers and such:
That is derived from the following quotation-snippet found in the NASA / International Astronautical Congress source:
I've struck all the WP:PUFFERY which needed to be removed, so as to aim squarely for WP:NPOV-style neutrality. The only slightly-puffery-like portions I retained were the goals of the Actin software package: to provided a user-friendly environment for design-optimization. And note that I did not say "Actin is user-friendly" but rather the more circumspect "with an emphasis on user-friendly" to indicate that this is Energid's goal rather than an objective claim of truth in WP:WIKIVOICE. This is okay for me to do, since I have no financial stake in the company. For you, on the other hand, if you are attempting to summarize something neutrally yourself, just err on the side of caution, and strike out ANYTHING which might be perceived as WP:PROMO or WP:PUFFERY. Like the old television show says, Just The Facts.
Also worth noting -- usually when you summarize a ref, you will go from 10 sentences in the ref down to ~1 sentence in the wikipedia body-prose. This was an exception to that norm, because the NASA prose was chock full of factoids, and also because some of them were technological jargon that I wasn't sure the average reader of wikipedia would easily understand, so per WP:Readers_first I was careful to explain the concepts involved. I also heavily wikilinked, arguably too heavily, see WP:OVERLINK, but that is the best way to keep a technological-article simple without being simplistic: just link to kinematic chain, and interested readers will be able to find the gory details. No need to explain kinematic chains in the article on Actin, just stick to explaining Actin-the-software, and let the wikilink carry most of the weight. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 19:19, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Here is the
Cnet article from 2012. It does not have much about Actin specifically, but it does have a couple factoids worth pulling out, and writing neutral sentences about for the
Actin_(software) article. Here is the URL,
[6] see if you can write up some neutral sentences, and then save them here on your user-talkpage. I'll critique, and once we are both happy, we can get it into mainspace. Follow the same process I showed you above: cut out everything irrelevant, cut out everything promotional, end up with just the cold neutral facts, in as dry of an encyclopedic tone as you can muster. Also, please see
WP:Indentation, when you reply on talkpages it helps readability if you indent your replies. Wikipedia runs on the latest 1996 technology, as you probably have gathered by now :-)
47.222.203.135 (
talk)
19:43, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |deadurl=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |deadurl=
(
help)
References
Philadelphia-based robotics firm Robai... latest of its Cyton robot arms is the Cyton Gamma, and it's designed [for non-roboticists] ...Gamma's seven joints are 'kinematically redundant,' Robai says... This gives it [the robot arm] more dexterity. The increased workload on the control system [caused by the seven degrees of freedom] is handled by Actin, software from Energid Technologies that was developed for robots at NASA. The [control] system uses a simple 3D graphical interface. ...connects to Linux, Windows, or OS X systems via USB. Aside from programming with the GUI... tested in applications such as remote inspection, manufacturing, and healthcare, according to Robai.
Notes
...how to configure a Cyton robot [arm] for remote inspection applications. That is, applications that require real-time positioning of a camera by a human operator not collocated with what is being inspected. The operator [of the robot-mounted camera] might be in the next room or in a different country (connected through the Internet)... Through custom camera end-effectors [robot 'hands'] available through Robai [at additional cost] and the included network interface [robot arm operation-interface]... One application... is troubleshooting and testing electronic components ... at a remote manufacturing facility ... A growing area for remote inspection is the field of remote healthcare (or Telehealth) ... remote medical diagnostics... robotic system allows doctors and other medical personnel to move the [remote-controlled] camera to the patient ... Undercar Inspection ... military organizations use vehicle checkpoints ... check for hidden explosives within the chassis [inside the undercarriage of the vehicle] ... remotely controlled robotic camera that can look around structures in a serpentine fashion...
according to CNET gives the arm "more dexterity"because it is a direct quotation and because it is attributed to an financially-independent third-party reliable-source, in this case a magazine journalist. I could also have retained the "simple" quotation about the 3D GUI, as long as I attributed it to CNET, but I didn't see it as a crucial factor, since it was not clear to me (from the CNET article alone) whether the operator-GUI was in fact written *in* Actin and therefore directly relevant, or was a separate software component that merely interfaced under the hood with Actin. (The "simple" quotation, attributed to CNET, would belong over at the Robai article however.)
Okay, you have updated your userpage, now please insert the following additional stuff onto your userpage at User:B235R. Here is the magic incantation, for you to cut-n-paste onto your userpage just this once but update with names of articles as needed:
<!-- remember to add other articles here, if you edit them in mainspace or (MUCH preferred!) make suggestions about suitable edits on their article-talkpages. -->
{{UserboxCOI| Energid Technologies <!-- employer
-->| Robai <!-- subsidiary of employer
-->| Actin (software) <!-- product sold by employer
-->}}
Additionally, I've inserted the proper 'connected contrib' template thing for you, at the top of the Talk:Actin_(software) page, can you please edit Talk:Robai and also Talk:Energid Technologies to have the following thing *after* any existing templates like {{ talk header}} but *before* any discussion-sections? Same as I did with the Talk:Actin_(software) page, but you need to know the steps so you can do it yourself, if Energid releases a new product next year which ends up with a dedicated wikipedia page for instance. Here is the magic incantation, for you to cut-n-paste onto article-talkpages as needed:
{{Connected contributor (paid)
|User1= B235R |U1-employer= Energid Technologies |U1-client= Energid Technologies |U1-EH= yes |U1-banned= no |U1-otherlinks= [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:B235R&oldid=759896532 Declaration.]
}}
If you want the details of how these things work, or if you need to give somebody else at Energid or Robai or something the helpdocs on how to do this for their own personal username (one wikipedia usernames per human that edits please), here you go. Rules about listing the articles where COI exists, per helpdocs at WP:DCOI and also WP:COIDISCLOSEPAY, "maintain a clearly visible list on your user page of your paid contributions...." Template:UserboxCOI for the userpage helpdocs, and Template:Connected_contributor_(paid) for the article-talkpage helpdocs.
And since it came up, per WP:NOSHARING please note well that usernames cannot be the company-name, nor can any wikipedia-passwords be shared amongst multiple people -- this is for copyright reasons, when you click edit there is clickwrap legalese before you click save, which assigned copyright of your original work (whatever you just typed) to the wikipedia CC-BY-SA license. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 20:53, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Are you still on your weekend? Or are you back to the grindstone yet? I'm a little busy with WP:TIAD on another article, but if you are wondering what to do and worried about clicking the 'edit' button I do not want to leave you hanging in limbo.
Of course, if you are just busy enjoying the weekend and/or busy with other off-wiki tasks, THAT is no problem, when you have time to get back into the wikipedia-groove, just drop me a note on my User_talk:47.222.203.135 to let me know you are active again. I will caution you that unless you make a habit of editing wikipedia (for at least a few minutes) every other day or at most every third day, you will forget the gory details of WP:PAG and make some beginner-error. Better to build good habits into a long-term behavior pattern, and edit regularly in small bursts, at least for your first year or two. (Once you've been editing every-other-day for a year you tend to have your habits... good or bad... ingrained into long-term RAM as it were). Lemme know how you are doing please, and whether you've forgotten what step we are currently supposed to be hammering away upon collaboratively :-) 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 16:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear B235R, you recently made the following change to an article in mainspace, I'm not really sure it was an improvement...
Because, looking at the wiki-markup....
As you can see, your change has inserted the plaintext phrase 'controlling' as one of the MAIN purposes of the software toolkit. Which is not factually wrong, necessarily (see problem#2 below which discusses sources). And also not necessarily POV editing, either (see problem#3 below). But you have introduced problems, one of them explicit and obvious-in-hindsight (dupe wikilink), but also two more subtle problems which are implicit in the actions you took. In reverse order, from least serious to most serious, the three problems are:
for robot control and robotics simulator[s of] robots...whereas your WP:BOLD change now makes it say
for robot control and robotics simulator[s of] and robot control [of] robots...which is redundant. Maybe we can come to a compromise, and say something like this alternative phrasing: "...for designing (specifically controlling) and simulating robots, created by..." Note the wikilinks please, not all of them are what you might expect on casually reading the prose! Wikipedia tends not to wikilink to the *obvious* places every single time. For instance, in political articles, there might be a sentence like "Trump opposed Clinton's tax plan" and while it is certainly not ILLEGAL under the wikipolicies to have the following wikilinks, "[[Donald Trump|Trump]] opposed [[Hillary Clinton|Clinton]]'s [[taxation|tax]] plan" that is considered to be a fairly crappy weakly-supported use of wikilinks. It is not very helpful to the readership. They don't want a link to taxation, they already probably KNOW what taxation is, as a general concept, they are reading the political-article in question because they want to know more about the difference between Clinton and Trump, specifically. Or so one might surmise, from such a sentence. Therefore, usually I will wikilink to some 'strange' places which the plaintext does not necessarily support, as a means of helping the readership (link to what they WANT to read more about), but also because it is hard to read blue-black-blue-black-blue text generally... which means every wikilink needs to be there for a Good Reason. See what I did there? So here is the way I would write such a politics-sentence, not every wikipedian does it this way, but you should be aware that lots of wikipedians do this sort of thing: " Trump opposed Clinton's tax plan". And I *might* even rework the prose so that I could wikilink from ' opposed' to the most relevant article. Readers of the sentence might just care that Trump opposed Clinton's plan, and might not want to know the details of their stances on taxation specifically... but any reader who clicks on 'tax plan' in THAT sentence is going to want a rundown of Clinton's tax plan, and *very* likely any reader who clicks on 'opposed' is going to want a rundown of Trump's reasons for opposing, which we can illustrate by linking to *his* stances on taxation. So in this hypothetical sentence, because it is bad writing to mash a bunch of different bluelinks all together in a row, instead of saying the potentially-confusing " Trump opposed Clinton's tax plan" I would rework the prose and the wikilink-layout slightly to separate each bluelink by at least a wee bit of black plaintext, like this: " Trump opposed Clinton's tax plan with his own" or something like that. So although it is a bit of a boring problem (you inserted a wikilink that is a duplicate of a wikilink two (plaintext) words earlier in the same sentence), there are actually some fairly complicated prose-construction considerations that go into the balance of wikilink-versus-plaintext thinking. Once you get the hang of 'abusing' wikilinks by pointing from words like 'designing' to articles like roboticist... whatever will help readers most depending on context... then you will find that you can REALLY cut out the fat in your prose. No need to explain and over-explain, just wikilink to the place which *does* explain-in-context. But it can hurt readability if you abuse wikilinks, please see the relevant guidelines including WP:SEAOFBLUE, WP:OVERLINKING, MOS:DUPLINK, WP:LEADLINK, WP:COMMONWORDS, WP:LINKCLARITY, WP:SPECIFICLINK, and friends. So in the context of Actin, I linked from 'designer' to robot control since Actin is *used* by robot-designers to design robot-control-systems. But I think that your well-intentioned correction was heading in the right direction, so I suggest this, it will be clearer if we instead use the compromise-language I mentioned above, and say "...for designing (specifically controlling) and simulating robots, created by..." on that particular sentence. However, before we change the sentence in thataway, there are two very important issues that need discussion! Is the change impeccably sourced? Is the change impeccably neutral? Per WP:BRD, no more changing mainspace, until we figure the exact wording out.
So: I'm coming down like a ton of wiki-bricks, on top of your small and seemingly-minor change, which was a bit silly (since we already wikilink there two words earlier) but definitely a good-faith change that was an attempt to improve the article... and likely motivated because you noticed intuitively that I violated MOS:SUBMARINE with my surprising 'designer'-to- Robot_control wikilink jiu jitsu move... and I'm sure after some discussion we'll figure out an agreement aka consensus that DOES in fact improve the prose, perhaps my compromise-wording suggested above that avoid the MOS:SUBMARINE problem I created... but I'm mostly trying to use this as a teaching moment so that you get a very bleeping clear idea that you need to be walking on eggshells, when you are even THINKING about touching articles where you have a financial conflict. You need to WP:BEBOLD but never reckless (such as making unexplained changes to sourced sentences without providing any sources yourself). Remember WP:TIND here on wikipedia. Better to have the article be slightly incorrect/awkward/whatever, for a few hours/days/weeks, than to get yourself into hot water LATER by forming bad habits NOW. Get in the habit, and stay in that habit, of thinking hard first, discussing with a non-COI wikipedian if there is ANY POSSIBILITY HOWEVER REMOTE that your change could be seen as spam or as POV pushing, and then only editing iff and when you are positive you are ImprovingTheEncyclopedia. In other words, don't fire until you see the whites of their eyes. Lemme know if you are understanding the wavelength I'm trying to transmit here, please. 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 16:57, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Actin Software Image.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Codename Lisa ( talk) 07:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Energid Technologies, Corp Logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Ronhjones (Talk) 00:00, 30 March 2017 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Actin (software) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Actin (software) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn ( talk) 09:25, 9 February 2020 (UTC)