Talk:Solid modeling

message: Those short articles:
*Parametric feature based modeler
*Change state
*Transmigration operation
*Euler boolean operation
all try to explain some (I guess very basic?) capabilities of solid modeling (or even narrower, of CAD); they fail to achieve this, as far as I am concerned, so maybe it would help to include them in the proper context here, per WP:NOT#DICT. Some very simple, very concrete ("brick") examples would help to make them comprehensible for a layman. --Kubanczyk 21:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Schwarrx. Your wholesale replacement of the entire article with content of your liking (via this series of 67 back-to-back edits), is a bit too WP:BOLD and does not seem to be at all in keeping with the collaborative-writing spirit of Wikipedia. Your contributions have been instead added as a new section to this article. I suggest you take your time to discuss things further with other editors, who also labored greatly to contribute content to this article and shouldn’t see their efforts entirely expunged from existence. Greg L (talk) 22:32, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I waited 15 hours after you posted to reply. On Wikipedia, that is more than enough. Accordingly, I can’t possibly help it you think I “did not give” you “a chance to finish” what you had to say. Moreover, I used no “ad-hominem attacks” against you. I simply wrote that the material is far beyond most reader’s comprehension and readers can’t possibly be expected to become conversant in advanced math concepts by clicking on links.I further wrote that you may feel that , but clearly, many editors feel that the subject of solid modeling is properly broader than that. Wikipedia is ruled by consensus. I can’t see that you are abiding by consensus when you replace an entire article with your own content dealing strictly with the arcane mathematical underpinnings of the subject. Your contribution belongs in this article precisely as that: a “contribution”. I suggest you exert greater effort in abiding by the rules of Wikipedia and its collaborative-writing environment.And finally, (with regard to “ad hominem attacks”): Quoting you:  You should know that on Wikipedia, you won’t get anywhere with that sort of attitude and may well be blocked. Please respect the fact that this article has existed since 2004; other editors have other ideas too. I just reverted some I.P. editor, who, apparently not impressed by your arguments (or finding your contributions unsuitable) deleted the whole bit you added. And, as I sense might be starting to dawn on you, other editors have ideas for the scope of its content that vary from yours. If you find some factual errors, please feel free to correct them. If you see assertions that need support, please cite them. But please don’t presume to come here and delete what has been stable for years and pronounce what you believe to be the proper scope of Solid modeling and how it is no more than a treatise on the mathematical underpinnings.  Greg L (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overly bold edits 

message: I did some cleanup and consolidation on the "Computer-aided design" section. I deleted the "entertainment" subsection altogether because it did not have any obvious relevance to solid modeling and cited no sources.  I tagged other sections and subsections that are in need of sources.  Most of the statements in the "Computer-aided design" section are vague and unverifiable, but I'm leaving them in for now to see if anyone comes up with references.  If not, much of the text in this section should be deleted.
This article could use some clarification of "parametric" modeling, since it is mentioned in several places in the article.  I don't know enough to do this. Oanjao (talk) 21:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup and conslidation 

message: Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that :File:Jack-in-cube solid model, light background.gif will be appearing as picture of the day on June 9, 2012. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2012-06-09. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page so Wikipedia doesn't look bad. :) Thanks! —howcheng  {chat} 21:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:File:Jack-in-cube solid model, light background.gif]] to appear as POTD soon 

message: In the figure "Regularization of a 2-d set by taking the closure of its interior" there are several empty circles. There is no explanation but I assume these indicate exclusions, i.e. points which are NOT member of the set although their neighbourhood is (I am not an expert so this might be a wrong understanding). However, a closure of the interior should not contain any such points, because with them excluded it's not a closed set any more - its complement is the "open outer world" plus the previously excluded points, which is not open. Am I right? Lebeda Karel (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Empty circles in the illustration