Jump to content

Talk:3D printing/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

potential resource

  • Researchers at Washington State University develop an artificial bone "scaffold" which can be produced using 3D printers, potentially allowing doctors to quickly print replacement bone tissue for injured patients. (BBC)

from Portal:Current events/2011 November 30 99.181.136.135 (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Is this page turning into a WP:LINKFARM? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned myself over the entries under 'Vendors and Services'. I've recently removed a company listed there which doesn't even exist, and the others probably shouldn't be there either tbh; it boils down to free advertising for the companies listed there.
In particular if you look at the edits that 'Phaneza' has made, a lot seem to be touting a company called 'i.materialise'... Note that their user page says their job is 'writing about 3d printing, which sets of all manner of alarms for me... I'm not well versed in the procedure here, but take a look for yourself; https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Special:Contributions/Phaneza
-Joey- (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:43, 3 March 2012 (UTC).
I'm unsure if this article is legitimate. As a concept, 3D printing sounds interesting and brings to my mind images put together via lasers inside of chunks of plastic. There appears to be a lack of concensus on what 3d printing actually is.
I am taking out the Vendors and Services section per WP:LINKFARM. If anyone wants to retain it, please discuss it here. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

Merge?

Rapid prototyping is mentioned several times here, which leads me to believe that article should be looked at. The two ideas seem conceptually similar enough and from reading previous comments it sounds like the machinery is similar enough. This could be a case of two names for the same idea. Cjripper (talk) 01:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Does anyone else have an opinion as to whether this page and Rapid Prototyping should be merged? If so, which name should be retained? --Guy Macon (talk) 06:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be three articles: 3D printing, additive manufacturing and rapid prototyping which all seem to be the same thing. I think they should all be merged.GliderMaven (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Rapid prototyping is very different, although additive manufacturing is much closer. It's a mistake to take your definitions of anything from Wikipedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
It depends what it is you're defining. If you're defining what a Wikipedia article is about, then it's a very good idea to take the definition from Wikipedia. Although I agree that, for example, rapid prototyping could be about something other than, or bigger than, 3D printing during prototyping, it's not actually about anything other than that.GliderMaven (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

It's even worse than that. Not only do we have multiple articles that are about 3D printing, we have a bunch of articles that are about specific kinds or aspects of 3D printing (some compete, some stubs, some non-notable) and even two categories that list articles about 3D printing.

IMO, what we need is one top article about this topic. Some of these other articles should be merged into the top article, some should be mentioned in the top article with a "Main article:" link, and some should be left as is with a "See also" link from the top article. The question is, what title should that top article have? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't necessarily think that title is that important, you can move the article around and use multiple redirects fairly easily. My question is more what is the scope of the top level article?GliderMaven (talk) 04:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Most of the detail articles are fairly obviously distinct. The two top level articles are Additive machining (I see this as a clearer title than Additive manufacturing) and Rapid prototyping. These are clearly distinct, as rapid prototyping is a broader topic both vertically and horizontally: it includes integrated design processes as well as the machining, and it also includes subtractive machining processes, both traditional like CNC milling and also more modern ones like laser cutting or water-jet cutting.
3D printing should be on 3D printing: the additive construction of a workpiece, by some controlled deposition method. This isn't the only additive process around, and I wouldn't merge it with Additive machining. Nor should it be too narrow, it isn't just Fused filament fabrication, it covers the laser sintering and polymerisation processes too.
Fused deposition modeling should be an article that's far bigger and not named for one brand's trademark, and this should be the article for Fused filament fabrication that covers all of the RepRap / MakerBot / 3DTouch processes and machines.
WP's coverage of all of these modern manufacturing topics is poor. Personally I'd delete the lot, as being outside the remit of what WP's culture is capable of doing justice to (see also Semantic web). Anyone who knows the subject, or even worse is a researcher or innovator in the field, is hounded off the project for not observing some trivial policy and the broad field is too new to have the sort of hidebound references easily available that allow robust articles to be written without them being dismantled by the teenage admin wannabees. The only way this can really be done is through hefty legwork in a university library and citing conference papers, and there aren't many people who have both the subscription access needed, the technical nous and the spare time to waste it in the WP swamp. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
In the list above, rapid prototyping isn't like most of the other articles. It covers a specific use rather than a specific technology. It's akin to computer printers not existing and Wikipedia having an article about fast-turnaround printing of galley proofs.
It seems to me that the top article, whatever it is called, should be about the basic idea of having some sort of data in a computer and turning it - no matter what the method - into a physical object.
This would be akin to the difference between printing and computer printers. A printing press and a printer hooked to a computer both put text and images on paper, but each had a distinct and different effect on society. In this respect an old dot-matrix printer hooked to an Apple II has a lot more in common with the latest 1800 dpi color laser printer than either has in common with an offset printer.
As Andy points out above, this broad field is new. When it comes to printed material, I mostly no longer store it in my file cabinet. I store it as data and print copies as required. A bunch of folks are working on making that true of (some) physical objects. We should have an overview article on that, with short paragraphs and a "Main article:" link to specific technologies. Look at how Printer (computing) has sections on Dot matrix printer and Dye-sublimation printer. --Guy Macon (talk) 10:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to make sensible decisions, I don't like deleting all the articles, I'm sure that they'll improve over time, and I think that combining articles along easily-defined lines is a really good one; I think that 3D printing and additive fabrication is the same thing, at least right now. For example, I've never seen computer controlled milling machines described as 3D printers for example, since they're not additive. But even if they did start to become described as such, or radical new 3D printing was invented that didn't use layering, we could just subarticle them from here. So I think it's a defensible step.GliderMaven (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
The 3D printing article seems to be in the best shape, it also seems to be the most general idea, it's slightly wider than additive manufacturing, so I propose we merge rapid prototyping and additive manufacturing here and add redirects, and add definitions for the those specific terms here also.GliderMaven (talk) 12:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Protoyping isn't manufacture. Nor are all rapid machining processes additive. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Andy makes a good point. GliderMaven, could you address what I wrote above, starting with "In the list above, rapid prototyping isn't like most of the other articles..."? --Guy Macon (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
No, the term 'rapid prototyping' isn't used literally. In my experience it's essentially always used specifically to refer to additive fabrication techniques/3D printing, within prototyping scenarios, but not other CAM or other prototyping techniques not involving CAM. It's specifically a use of 3D printing, not a discipline in its own right.GliderMaven (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I mean it might seem logical that there could be such a discipline, but the main point of prototyping is that it's supposed to be faster anyway, otherwise you wouldn't do it(!) It's sort of redundant when you think about it.GliderMaven (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
I thought the purpose of prototyping was to create a model to test before making the final product. Cjripper (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but prototyping can be done with anything, you could use lego or wood, or milling machines or chisel it out of stone or mould it in clay or anything, or you could literally prototype with the first few things off the production line as you fine tune the production process. On the other hand, rapid prototyping essentially always (at the very least historically) specifically refers to one of the additive fabrication techniques, it's a very specific subset of prototyping; it's not prototyping done rapidly.GliderMaven (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
And I think the article says that anyway.GliderMaven (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
" In my experience ", which isn't how WP works.
Also rapid prototyping very often includes subtractive techniques, where these can be made rapid. Laser / water-jet cutting is one and even traditional milling too. The only consistent factor would seem to be a close integration of CAD/CAM/CNC Andy Dingley (talk) 09:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The fairly recently formed ASTM committee F42, created to produce standards in this area, spent their first meetings discussing what to call themselves, and decided that "Additive Manufacturing" was the best choice of those suggested. Given this I would suggest that the main page for this field in Wikipedia should be the same - rather than that topic not even existing apart from as a redirect to this page. (http://www.astm.org/COMMIT/COMMITTEE/F42.htm). They are also a good source of terminology, as anything agreed by them has had substantial discussion within the industry before acceptance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.91.31.51 (talk) 13:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

If we accept that the two topics are the same, then judging by the number of hits, the term '3D printing' is enormously more popular than 'additive manufacturing'. Also the use of the term 'manufacturing' tends to imply something that isn't true, namely that it's used during manufacturing, rather than it just being a fabrication process that can be used at different stages. But given that the article name is supposed to be one that is most familiar to the reader, I personally think that 3D printing is the best choice right now.GliderMaven (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
There is a section for terminology, and I would think that anything they produce on that could be linked from there.GliderMaven (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
"If we accept that the two topics are the same, " "We" don't. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The Engineer article says that they're the same thing.GliderMaven (talk) 15:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. It says "Additive manufacturing is often referred to as 3D printing,", which is far less dogmatic.
Additive techniques don't have to be 3D. There are plenty of niches where 2D, or 2.5D, is all that you need. There are also techniques for achieving 3D parts by making 2D layers and semi-manually stacking or egg-crating them - yet there is no "3D printer" involved. For some of these, they're not even additive (laser-cut egg-crate foamcore). Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly, so the article name should be what people most often refer to the topic by, but it's not what the article is about.GliderMaven (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
The article name is just a name (which is just a string of letters), but the topic here is additive manufacturing, and the layering/stacking example you give is still a type of additive manufacturing.GliderMaven (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Regarding ASTM committee F42, I think we may be missing an important distinction here. ASTM International is a standards organization that primarily develops manufacturing standards. Using ASTM's definition for all of 3D Printing would be a bit like taking a definition from the ISO 12467-2 standard for offset printing and using it to define "printing" in Wikipedia's laser printer or block letters article. It's not that ISO 12467-2 is wrong, it just doesn't apply. Likewise, ASTM International's use of the term "additive manufacturing" isn't wrong, it just doesn't apply to a home 3D printer or to a self-replicator like the reprap. Yes, the topic here is 3D Printing, not Additive Manufacturing, but no, they are not the same thing. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, ASTM seem to disagree with you and they are at least a reliable source. They seem to use the term very generally indeed. I think the term 'manufacturing' in its most general usage just means 'making something', and so you can manufacture things at home.GliderMaven (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Lead diagram

I think whatever the lead diagram is, it should be radically easy to understand. People need to understand things to properly absorb information. You should just be able to look at it, and have a high chance of getting it straightaway. A lot of the makerbot and reprap images we have at commons just aren't very clear, but the one on the right is at least fairly transparent as to how it works.GliderMaven (talk) 16:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I've no intention of edit warring on this, but this reprap image isn't very high quality as an image, it's very badly shot, and you can't see what's supposed to be happening. This article is getting a lot of hits, and I don't see that the quality is being maintained by using this image here.GliderMaven (talk) 16:16, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, the picture on the right above is clearly superior - higher quality, better lit, less cluttered. On the other hand, this article tends to be a collector of marketing information from various people who sell different 3D printers, and I hate to have one of them as the lead picture - not fair to the others. The ideal solution would be a better picture of an open source 3D printer.

This image is copyrighted, but it wouldn't be hard for someone here who is good at mechanical CAD to create a version for Wikipedia that is even clearer. (Double check which is X-axis and which is Y-axis). --Guy Macon (talk) 19:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Point of order: both the ORDbot designs are GPLed. The CAD files are linked on the front page of the wiki. It's only commercial in the sense that the creator sells kits.

Now, I'm not going to embroil myself in an edit war here, but both the design and the photo are completely free and open.Sbierwagen (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I totally missed that. Thanks! Does anyone have a compelling reason why I shouldn't put the ORDbot picture back in the lead? --Guy Macon (talk) 04:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
I see that GliderMaven made the change. Good call. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:17, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


Just throwing it out there, since a friend of me pointed me to this part of the talk page. I recently shot the two accompanying photos which might prove of additional value even though the 3D printer itself is closedsource as far as I know. You are free to use these two images if you see fit, I don't feel confortable enough with Wikipedia yet to decide whether these image are better or not. :) Jonathanjuursema (talk) 10:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

The printing head photo might be useful, if cropped in at the sides to approximately square. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:41, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Uploaded an additional cropped version.

Jonathanjuursema (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

History Section Needs Rewrite

The first paragraph in the history section describes the difference between subtractive and additive manufacturing, and lists a lot of methods other than 3d printing. The second paragraph is a qualitative description of the advantages of 3d printing.

What is lacking is any sort of timeline: the years different technologies were developed or adopted. A quantitative description of the timeline should replace what is there right now.

The lack of dates in the history section leads to other problems, such as the 'History of Printing' wikipedia series box listing 3d printing as from 2003. That is wrong, and is contradicted by this article with statements such as "Industrial 3D printers have existed since the early 1980s". But, you need to find that info distributed in other sections instead of described in the history section. IBrow1000 (talk) 15:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Fab@Home

I've added brief reference to Fab@Home, without having any particular expertise (or any axe to grind), after hearing about how it can print reaction vessels, print reactants, and create chemical compounds (a particular application of the printer). It prints using anything you can squirt through nozzles. I'm not sure which of the listed additive technologies it uses, or is it a technology that hasn't been named and described? Somebody more knowledgeable could say a bit more. Pol098 (talk) 07:30, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Political spam?

A brief well-sourced noting of President Obama's proposed public-private institute/initiative in 3D and the basic campaign context of the proposal was removed as "transparent politics spam" here. I will note also that the editor has a record of some other complaints about removals, from a quick review of his/r talk page. I think the removal represents a loss for the article and for the political dialogue proceeding in the country. Swliv (talk) 18:07, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for admitting that your edit was intended to be 'for the political dialogue proceeding in the country', after pressing 'submit' I had been worried that I had miss-characterised your edit as political spam, but looks like I needn't had worried.Teapeat (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I fail to see how the article has suffered loss in any way with its removal, but it's up to the consensus of other editors if they want to reinsert it or not.Teapeat (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Two issues. First "Thank you for admitting..." is hostile and sarcastic. You can make the same point (and it is a valid point) while being WP:CIVIL. Second, the edit in question was definitely transparent politics spam. This is an engineering / technology page. Speeches by Barack Obama don't belong here, and in particular pointing out that the speech by Obama was two hours before a campaign speech by Paul Ryan doesn't even come close to belonging here. That would be like mentioning a campaign speech about a new highway in the Interstate Highway System article. Also, this particular transparent politics spam isn't even from a reliable source -- blogs are are not reliable sources. See WP:RS. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:46, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Personally I see "spam" as "hostile and sarcastic", too, but I appreciate the nod toward civility. As to my "admitting" to "spam" -- or to conceding this is somehow an engineering / technology realm pristine from politics -- .... Well, you all can live in your bubble if you wish. For the record, the Republican campaign (and the probable role of it in the timing of Obama's proposal (no speech, you dreamers and posturers, may I say that civilly (fondly; teasingly; not meanly)?), for which I hold no brief one way or the other; just a campaign artifact, for me (on which merit others will hold sway, from my point of view)) was also mentioned in my contribution. Did PRyan respond in his speech? Would be interesting to know, doncha think? Maybe if the basic report were in the article somebody'd be moved to research it, or contribute it. Would we then have ... a beginning of insight into this arena of technology / industry / engineering as it relates to the array of national policy? Golly. (Yes, that last was (a touch) sarcastic.) As to the Interstates ...: Do I really have to answer that one? (That's a serious question.) Cheerio :-)`. Swliv (talk) 03:19, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I was infected too much by the sarcasm bug, in my recent comments. I'm sorry. Hope my points come through, for what they're worth. As to the "unreliable" blog: It's bylined. He's a regular on-staff journalist. It's ongoing. It's part of a major (News Corp.) news group. I don't think blogs of such standing are dismissed automatically. As to my sense of "spam", one can consult Spam (electronic). I think it's an insult to use the term for my serious contribution. (Yes. The heat returns. Yes, the heat led to the sarcasm. Not this time.) Finally, I do also, on this my third pass tonight, note the Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology header up top of this Talk page. Would I really find no politics in this project if I were to look? Do we really want technology to seem like it's not part of the national dialogue. How about Mars and Curiosity? I really am curious. Bubble? Poor choice of word, in heat. Some kind of firewall? Serious question. (And I can talk about the Interstates and the role of politics in them. If DDEisenhower isn't mentioned there I'll eat my hat metaphorically.) Cheers. Swliv (talk) 03:51, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Re: blogs, they do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources. See WP:USERG. You are entitled to your opinion that they should be acceptable, but until you get our policy changed you cannot use them as sources.
Re the rest of your argument, see WP:OSE, WP:OTHERSPAM and WP:SEWAGE. Any political spam found in other articles is reason to remove the political spam from those articles, not reason to add political spam to this article. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:33, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
My '"unreliable" blog' response above specifically addressed the "Some news outlets" criteria. Those criteria are somewhat misplaced, but I think still valid, in the "Self-published sources" section of WP:USERG.
In case I'm not adequately offended by "spam" you throw in "sewage"? Kidding. But seriously, I was relating the launch and promotion of a policy proposal by a politician. It emerged (not in a speech I repeat, for the record) in a particular one-two moment of non-coincidental geographical-temporal proximity. So far I can't cite a political exchange or debate on the subject and don't know that there's been such; I don't know what if anything Ryan said in his visit in response to the proposal. But you have yet to explain how the account as it stands is spam, transparent yet, or sewage. To me it's a moment in the political process and I don't see this tech sector as somehow sealed off from the role of government. Government's there, now thanks to the president a little or a lot moreso, just as multiple corporate and individual entities are there. The latter are well-represented in the article and I don't think you're suggesting they should be removed per OSE. Yes, my bit has little context. But I think it's better there as a glimpse of an awareness in the political world rather than being banished. I'm not promoting the president, if that needs to be said. If the president and his campaign have created the proposal in pursuit of their political goals, as they obviously have, does that make it untouchable -- of no interest to someone interested in the technology? If the opposition thinks it's worthless or worse, isn't that for them to say and for us also to note, again rather than us just banishing notice of the proposal? Don't we need to note the proposal in order to keep track, so follow-up on actual actions and results can then be added? I hope you'll try to answer my questions. I'm trying to understand. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 17:05, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that "spam" is prejudicial, (as are "vandal" and "sockpuppet) but that's the phrase everyone uses. Sorry about that. In this case I would prefer the phrase G.S.W.P., except nobody would understand what I am talking about (Good Stuff, Wrong Place).
Politicians make a lot of policy proposals. If notable, they have a place, but that place is not in an engineering article about highways, bridges, ICBMs, 3D Printing, or whatever else the politician talks about. We call that WP:COATRACKING.
The only time politics should be inserted in an engineering article is when a law or regulation (not just a proposal) has such a large effect that you need to understand the law to understand why the technology is the way it is.
An example of that would be our article on Intercontinental ballistic missile, which devotes one sentence to the the START I treaty but does not mention which politicians supported or opposed the treaty. Another example is Interstate Highway System, which mentions Dwight D. Eisenhower and Franklin D. Roosevelt (without those mentions you really can't understand why the Interstate Highway System is the way it is) but does not mention any political opposition to Eisenhower / Roosevelt, nor does it mention Lyndon B. Johnson, who had a far greater effect on the Interstate Highway System than Obama or Ryan will ever have on 3D printing. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:30, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your shift in tone, if I may call it that (you did after all come in on the civility horse), though I would note a bit of shifting sands too. For instance, you've for now dropped objection to my source and apparently moderated/demurred on spam/sewage but chosen to argue on other fronts.

I guess my biggest concern, which arose earlier but I missed addressing, is the idea that a story titled "3D printing" is somehow an "engineering article". I've had enough Wiki experience to appreciate that a well-crafted article about one aspect of a subject will seem to be "messed up" by editors from other fields who bring their worldviews (quite likely, then, "from afar") to the subject. I've encountered COATRACKING also earlier in my Wiki career and, I think, empathize some. But we're not "Engipedia" here and there's nothing to tell a reader or serious if far afield editor that politics is essentially banished from the scope of this article. (I know, in saying all this, I'm under-aware of the whole "WikiProject Technology" and the "WikiProject" series of initiatives generally. For now, I will note the designation appears only on the talk page, not on the article. And I will say I've now visited Wikipedia:WikiProject Technology/Assessment for the second time and see nothing there that talks to exclusion of, for instance, political considerations from project articles.)

Proposal v. action, and scale, are pretty fine (narrow) judgments (now) to base banishment on. Are you saying all proposals should be banned -- wait for approval, wait for history? Are you denying that large initiatives often start small and that we have no idea if this one will fizzle or blossom? I think my answers to the questions are obvious and not favorable to banishment. Another question on a different front: Are you willing to say you're not opposing the president in defending this edit? I said I was not favoring the president's proposal, above, and would feel more comfortable if you also were on the record.

Your wrong-place comment above, in the end, was perhaps the most telling. I can go and start my own or find a "Politics of public/private support of engineering" initiative, or the like, in Wikipedia, you're saying it seems. Eventually I may get around to 3D and then I'll link to the nice, pristine 3D engineering article and all will be happy. (Your willingness to continue to use nasty epithets in first defense of what turn out to be "go someplace else" comments (a) calls into question the depth of you civility commitment but mostly, well, (b) is just still unpleasant. So I've now fallen back to a little snideness. See how it goes? Sorry for my part.) For myself, I think if you want an exclusive territory you'd need a narrower titling protocol: "The engineering of 3D printing", for example. Then maybe you'd have a defensible case. But then to me, the encyclopedia would be weaker. I'd rather you just see that this addition won't inordinately mar your good article. If the institute/initiative does grow bigger it can easily be spun out into a new article of its own. If it doesn't, it's demise can be cross-linked to the Broken promises and/or Blocked by the opposition (or electorate) articles. Anything to that? I would really hope so. Swliv (talk) 14:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Please talk about the content of the article, not about othetr editors. Re "...you've for now dropped objection to my source..." I have done nothing of the sort. Please do not put words in my mouth. Blogs are not reliable sources. See WP:BLOGS. blogs.marketwatch.com is a blog. The fact that I don't repeat this basic fact every single time I interact with you is not "dropping objection to your source." Feel free to go to WP:RSN and try to get a determination that blogs.marketwatch.com is a reliable source. Until then, it stays out. If you want to insert political spam into this article, feel free to go to WP:RFC, read the instructions, and place an RfC on the topic on this talk page. Right now nobody agrees with you on this, but only three people have expressed an opinion, so an RfC would be a good way for you to get other opinions if you believe other editors may agree with you. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the routes of appeal. It's pretty clear we're not convincing each other here, you're right.
And now I've addressed you again. I'm sorry. It seems right. Was my statement on blogs trying to needle you? Perhaps. But since you'd ignored my rationale and now have cited back once again a policy which provides and supports my rationale to a good degree, I was and am certainly frustrated. Your assumption that you are the authority -- "it stays out" -- with limited deigning to engage well-reasoned arguments is frustrating. But you've hung in at some level and I appreciate that. May see you again around the block. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 00:43, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:3D_printing/Archive_2&oldid=622060770"