Talk:Invention/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Ancient Inventions

How about some older inventions, like the plow, the stirrup, the aqueduct, the arch? They certainly revolutionized the societies of their times. Does agriculture count as an invention? Surely it would be one of the earliest influential ones, right up there with stone tools... -- April

Great idea: I'll put them in. The Anome

I don't think that the 'parachute:powered flight' analogy is the best. Granted we now use parachutes *most* with powered flight, but it was primarily a way to get close to flight, or for base jumping (for a more modern term). They weren't designed to be airplane survival systems. In fact, WWI was notorious for pilots not having parachutes (even if they had been previously designed).
~ender 2003-10-02 17:07:MST

I have got some problems with the definition of innovation and invention. If there is no need for application for an innovation, what is than the distinction with invention? In this definition, innovation and invention are the same. I would like to use Schumpeters definitions here, with the remark that an other school looks at it a different way. --MaxB 12:55, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with outlining Schumpeter's theory. However, to balance the article, it is important to note conflicting views from other theorists. I don't think there is any reason to limit the article to Schumpeter. --Westendgirl 07:10, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

In lay terms, an invention is a novel device, material, or technique.
But what means "novel"? --Montanesko

Sibling word

Is Invention a sibling word of convention? does anybody know if there are such words as revention, suvention, etc.? --SuperDude 03:49, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

 I don't know , but, apparently there is an Unconvention Center somewhere.

Signed220.101.66.30 (talk) 03:52, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Invention vs innovation

I removed this paragraph from the article:

Further to the disinction between invention and innovation. Innovation generally solves economic problems whereas invention solves technical problems. When both are achieved then ongoing success is more likely.

Please reinsert it with appropriate sources. I have never heard of that distinction. --Edcolins 06:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

This article is too short. Why not include such things as a short descriptions of inventions or types of inventions - such as stone age, iron age, industrial revolution, technological age etc. For instance, the industrial revolution should be mentioned to show how the invention of the factory process revolutionized the production of goods for the greater economic benefit of the countries using it. The iron age - having the general society upgrade from bronze to metal, which is a more durable metal.

Why not list some inventions, such as the airplane, the Dav Vinci's to wright brothers to whoever helped develop it next. Or - the above - the evolution of inventions.

Are there listings for how interested inventors can start learning how to do inventing? I mean, i have ideas, but how does one make them reality? Thanks Fieryfaith

Wiki

Is there any general wiki to propose inventions or to propose open / free design ? --193.144.127.248 12:09, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone know it ? . I am interested in invention (no necesarily patent ) wikis. --Mac 06:45, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Invention in patent law

I claim that a patented invention is an idea, not a real object.

The current article says that it is an actual thing.

I have difficulty with the article's definition:

a) an invention can cover variations on an idea whereas a particular object, process etc. is always necessarily a subset. If I invent a telescope, and produce an example that is 2 foot long; does my invention cover one that is 200 foot long? If it is particular object(s), then exactly what is and isn't invented is extremely difficult to say, whereas a written description outlining the idea can define it far better.

b) patent law in US and UK at least says that it is the idea that is the invention.

c) the definition that the article uses seems to be unreferenced. WolfKeeper 21:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Definition of "Invention"

Copied from users' talk page. Please continue the discussion here. Thanks.

Hi, there is another problem at the top of the "Invention" page which I cannot gain access to fix myself. In the definition of invention it says that an invention is an object, process or technique. The word "object" in common usage in the US implies a form that is relatively small, e.g., objects are considered to be forms that can be lifted. A wall is not generally considered to be an object, nor is: a building, an airplane, a monument, other huge immobile forms, a system (like a large system that runs throughout a building or throughout a landscape), etc. Yet any of these forms can be inventions. This must be why patent offices allow patent applications for what they call "compositions of matter" (instead of objects). The term "object" in the Wikipedia definition of invention must be expanded. I suggest adding something to the effect that an invention can be: a composition, a form, a tangible form, a composition of matter, or something like this. (DavidTactics like to correct spelling.In this paragragh the word "There" is after a comma and its not starting a sentence therefore it needs to be lower cased.)

Thanks. --Sara USA (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The introduction needs improvement. I am not sure what you mean by "..I cannot gain access to fix myself". Normally you should be able to edit the introduction by clicking on "Edit this page" on the top of the page. Feel free to improve the intro, but let me know if you can still not edit it. Seems strange.--Edcolins (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: There is a huge distinction between mechanical process invention and ornamental design invention that has only to do with shape, lines, appearance (not function, process, mechanics). When someone invents a process to do something new and novel, then millions of specialized formats of that new mechanical means can be formalized. Invent a bread toaster with hot wires cooking the bread in a pull-down spring-loaded fashion; when that was new and novel, then a mechanical patent would be appropriate. But then the hundreds of products that use that mechanical process can be shaped diffently, colored differently, sized differently...etc. each of which could be formalized in an appearance design to make a product or art piece different thatn the next; those hundreds of distinct uses of the basic mechanical patent can only obtain from USA, UK, Australia... ornamental design patents, not mechanical process patents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joefaust (talk • contribs)

Patents on Inventions that have not been made in real forms

Sometimes inventions that are only ideas and have never been made in reality can obtain patent protection. I believe these would be ideas that are very well worked out, just as patents require of all inventions. You can for example, carefully and completely work out all the details of an invention (e.g., do drawings, models, tests, or samples of difficult parts of an invention, etc.) and file a patent on it before you have the finances or the technical means to make the entire invention. Also, you can for instance, file a patent on a composition that has a specific function or use, that can be made of a mixture which includes one or more ingredients described in the claims as a broad categories, e.g., a mixture that includes an oil or a polymer would include any oil or any natural or synthetic polymer. So your patent will cover many specific useful compositions that could be made from the mixture described in your broad patent claim, that have never been made in reality. --Sara USA (talk) 00:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Invention and Innovation

The following sentence was removd from this section because the facts prove this statement wrong so overwhelmingly. Here is the sentence. "The political economist Joseph Schumpeter believed that inventions are theoretical, and innovation is invention put into practice." Millions and millions of inventions patented by governments all over the world prove that inventions are not just theoretical, inventions are practical, useful forms, compositions, and processes that work and serve a wide range of purposes in the real world. It is easy to find examples by searching patents at www.uspto.gov and at the websites of the patent offices for other countries. --Sara USA (talk) 13:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Tesla

Didnt see a mention of Nikola Tesla(1856-1943) in Invention Inovation article why? Tesla A.C. Electric motor alone his discovery of the rotation magnetgic field that made it possible, and should have made a place for him in article.His arch foe Edison I see got his due. (If you edit this then you should spell things correctly.)

This article is terrible.

This article is terrible, full of self-aggrandised cliched generalisations such as "Inventors think outside of the box" that can only be referenced to hack motivational speakers and/or Astrologers. It's like someone has merged 25 highschool term papers into one article. Roidroid (talk) 05:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Before we go any farther...

I would like to have your feedbak on changes I made to the Invention article.

It already caused one strong reaction, I hope it's not typical.

This is a delicate subject, and emotionally charged. I'd like to keep it objective, useful and descriptive of real life issues and knowledge.

I'd like this article to develop out of consent and during a civilized dialog, rather than everyone undoing each other's acts...

What issues or questions interest you, the Wiki community?

Some comments on issues posted thus far:

$ Ancient inventions - much info is available on the Internet on fascinating, unbelievable inventions of time past... people then were no fools nor innovative-less. Regular (utility) patents can be obtained for inventions re new machines or processes in agriculture. There is also a venue for Plant patents. You can only file a patent application for your invention; ancient inventions are not yours and are long published. Still, there may be exceptions.

$ Patent law does not make that distinction between invention and innovation; it is not true that ideas in one category are patentable and in the other - not. Rather, patent law looks into the substance of it, see value patentability. If you want to use Schumpeter's definition to write an academic article - great. But to consider patentability, or to convince a manufacturer or investor, I don't think you should be overly concerned with that difference.

     This precisely is one of the issues in my addition to the article.

$ Novel means something different in its structure, operation and/or use - that is, it differs from what is known in at least one of these aspects. This is a simple answer; for more details, see Novelty and Patentability .

$ How to do inventing? Edison said it is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration. You should be both innovative and committed.

$ Is a patented invention an idea or an actual object? The patent is a document; it is a blueprint, pre-preliminary design for the product described there. But it is agreed that a real product can be manufactured by persons skilled in that art, based on the description and instructions in the patent.

$ Difficulty with article's definition: a) a patent is only granted if there is a written description. you can specify a range of values, for example 2 foot to 200 foot, or a combination of such ranges, or several ranges, etc. b) both in US and UK, what is patented is not the idea but an invention or inventive concept as relating to embodiments.

$ Tesla was a great inventor, no doubt. The differences from Edison which come to my mind are not an attempt at judgment, but some points that may guide the reader:

+ Tesla didn't achieve economic success like Edison. The opinions are divided as of why.
+ Tesla was erudite. He could compute and estimate results, whereas Edison had to make many experiments.

This raises the question, whether higher education is conducive to success or not. In their book "All the Money in the World", Peter W. Bernstein and Annalyn Swan present evidence that people lacking higher education are more successfull. ISBN 978-0-307-26612-5 I hope they are not correct.

+ Edison was good at selling and public relations.

Robert T. Kiyosaki, when asked how he became a best selling author, answered that he learned selling. To the shocked listener, he explained that he is a best -selling author, not a best - writing author. Book: Rich Dad, Poor Dad.

$ The article is terrible - maybe you can be more specific, then we all can discuss what needs improvement. I disagree with parts of it, but it is interesting and inspiring; one should not make changes lightly, without paying respect to another's well-intended work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zutam (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey, where's Wikietiquette?

This is my first Edit, and I am surprised with the brutality of responses:

Actually there are no responses and no dialog, they just erase what I have done:

(cur | prev) 18:54, 4 July 2010 Zutam (talk | contribs) (47,139 bytes) (Undid revision 371725732. it's Vandalism, see my talk, discusn. no Wikiquete, respect for other's opinion, dialog. Just brute force Undo.) (undo) (cur | prev) 17:24, 4 July 2010 Aldaron (talk | contribs) (35,950 bytes) (Reverted to revision 371677307 by MrOllie; Reverting good faith edits..) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:18, 4 July 2010 Zutam (talk | contribs) (47,139 bytes) (Addition. Don't delete it all before others in Wiki community have a chance to see it too - this is vandalism and against freedom of speech.) (undo) (cur | prev) 12:07, 4 July 2010 Zutam (talk | contribs) (47,134 bytes) (Undid revision 371677307 - it deleted all my contribution arbitrarily, without a dialog,explanation nor Wikietiquete. Mine is objective+ citations, experience. I can prove, explain, discuss it) (undo) (cur | prev) 09:40, 4 July 2010 MrOllie (talk | contribs) (35,950 bytes) (Reverted good faith edits by Zutam. (TW)) (undo) (cur | prev) 08:56, 4 July 2010 Zutam (talk | contribs) (47,134 bytes) (Small additions and corrections) (undo) (cur | prev) 03:32, 4 July 2010 Zutam (talk | contribs) (47,085 bytes) (formatting and some additions in the text added today.) (undo) (cur | prev) 02:03, 4 July 2010 Zutam (talk | contribs) (47,038 bytes) (minor) (undo) (cur | prev) 01:58, 4 July 2010 Zutam (talk | contribs) (47,030 bytes) (minor) (undo) (cur | prev) 01:56, 4 July 2010 Zutam (talk | contribs) (47,018 bytes) (minor) (undo) (cur | prev) 01:53, 4 July 2010 Zutam (talk | contribs) (47,018 bytes) (minor edit) (undo) (cur | prev) 01:45, 4 July 2010 Zutam (talk | contribs) (47,017 bytes) (undo) (cur | prev) 22:00, 2 July 2010 FrescoBot (talk | contribs) m (35,950 bytes) (Bot: links syntax and spacing) (undo)

I wrote on my Talk about Freedom of expression, Openness to other's views - this did not make an impression.

It reminds me of elections in a dark past: Activists of one party were instructed not to try to convince reluctant voters, just hit them on the head...

Zutam (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)<!

Overzealous deletion

My edit was deleted/reverted four times within 10 hours!

Talk about edit wars... This - without any discussion or explanation. Sure, I am a new editor, but they should know better, I guess. I asked each one of the objectors for their reasons.

This subject is emotionally charged.

People may feel personally attached to it and own the Article. There appears to be a seniority structure, with Editors showing their power. What am I doing here?

Sure, there is a notice in the article inviting editing, but

if Wikipedia can't provide a platform for civilized discussion - why should I waste my time with this?

Zutam (talk • contribs) 17:59, 4 July 2010 (UTC)<!

Wikipedia *can* provide a platform for civilized discussion. However both sides must be interested in it, and starting out with accusing people of vandalism and communism (as you did on the Wikiquette page previously) is not going to help.

Your edit was reverted because it had multiple issues. Sorry to say, it just wasn't very good. This is perfectly normal for new editors, it takes time to learn how to make a good contribution that improves the article. There are style guidelines, guidelines for verifyability etc.

My recommendation to you is that you take *one* of the many changes you made, and propose that change here on the talk page for discussion. If nobody objects, make the change. But bring up one thing at a time, not many. Nobody is going to be bothered with making a detailed listing of everything that was wrong with one big edit with many faults in it. --OpenFuture (talk) 07:33, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree woth OpenFuture. Do changes one by one and if they are reverted, discuss them peacefully here. --Cyclopia ^talk 10:43, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. The issue was overzealous addition, not deletion -- along with largely irrelevant, "explanations" citing communism and vandalism and obstruction of freedom of expression. Beyond that, the fact is, your additions failed to improve the (admittedly already pretty bad) article, so they were reverted. — Aldaron • T/C 11:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I am listening

What bothered me is that there were no explanations at all for the deletions (Except for Cyclopia - Thank you).

This appeared to me as a power play and a hostile reaction. I now learned it is also contrary to Wiki guidelines.

Question 1: Please give me a for-instance, at least one specific point you object to, the worst mistake I made.

This will help me to take it into account, in future edits, large or small.

Question 2: What do you think of the first paragraph of my contribution, just after the title? I include it here for your convenience:

  "An invention is something new found by people, as a result of experimentation, a mental process and/or serendipity [51].

Inventions can be divided into industrial inventions having a technical aspect, such as machines, processes, compositions of matter; and inventions in general, also including those in the arts, music, literature, etc. Inventions in industry are protected mainly by patents, whereas inventions in literature, music, art - mainly by copyright. Inventing may be one of the strongest human drives: The desire to improve one's condition, to do things differently, to create and experiment, to understand one's environment and to advantageously use this understanding."

My argument: This is factually true, and it also is a useful guide to readers - this is how the Patent office, the Courts and society at large view invention. Although many other definitions are possible.

For example, I see people worrying whether their idea is an invention or innovation; it is a pity that that consideration should prevent them from going ahead.

Question 3: What to include in an article on Invention ?

Taking a wide stance, every improvement in human's condition, from going out from under water to breathe air, to present inventions in politics, is invention.

It also includes all the sciences and the history thereof, and all the people involved - practically everything in Wikipedia. What are, in your opinion, the important issues to present, or the parts of the article?

Zutam (talk • contribs) 14:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)<!

Even in your comments, you do too many things at once. Your comment above is diverse and includes both accusations against others of breaing Wikipedia policy, misunderstandings on how Wikipedia works, and the question I asked you to pose, and many other things. Try to focus on one thing at a time. Very few people will have the patience to deal with long ramblings on diverse, if related, subjects.

That said, I think your opening sentence is pretty good, assuming that you have a reliable source for it. --OpenFuture (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources:

58. Dr. Nathan P. Myhrvold - Testimony before the United States Senate. 23 May 2006 http://www.intven.com/Libraries/Article_Reprints/NMyhrvoldTestimony052306.sflb.ashx

65. Prof. Lawrence Lessig - The future of ideas, 2002 .ISBN 0-375-50578-4

Zutam (talk • contribs) 14:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)<!

I endorse OpenFuture's, Cyclopia's and Alseron's comments. Keep your communications brief - we are all volunteers here and don't want to have to read one more word than necessary. I haven't read the sources you cite, but if they both equally support the opening sentence, just use one. Prof. Lessig looks more suitable to Wikipedia's reliable sources policy.

To easily create a book citation, type the ISBN into here and paste the text it gives you, between <ref> and </ref>, into the article.

The tool will generate this text: {{cite book |author=Lessig, Lawrence |title=The future of ideas: the fate of the commons in a connected world |publisher=Random House |location=New York |year=2001 |pages= |isbn=0-375-50578-4 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}
Enclose it in <ref> and </ref> so it looks like this <ref>{{cite book |author=Lessig, Lawrence |title=The future of ideas: the fate of the commons in a connected world |publisher=Random House |location=New York |year=2001 |pages= |isbn=0-375-50578-4 |oclc= |doi= |accessdate=}}</ref>
So others can easily find it, insert the page numbers of the book that support your contribution after |pages= in the above text.
Paste it into the article after your contribution.

Any queries at all, ask here.

For a simple, essential tutorial, click here.

Good luck!

Anthony (talk) 15:12, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Myhrvold unfortunately does not support the quote. I can't find that he even talks about what inventions are at all. Lessigs book is almost 400 pages long, I can't obviously read through it now, but it is freely available as a PDF, which is awesome, and it's notable that the word "serendipity" doens't exist in it. I can't find that he talks about what inventions are either. So I suspect that neither of the sources support the statement without a bit of WP:SYN. That's unfortunate because I like the statement. The current statement isn't sourced either, perhaps the current editors would be OK with replacing it? Or maybe we can find a statement about what Inventions are that *is* sourced? --OpenFuture (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Answer: 1. There exists an excellent source which defines "invention" and practically everything:

    51. Websters's II New Riverside University Dictionary, 1994 ISBN 0-395-33957-X

Would you like to copy it from there? It is copyrighted, you know.

What I have written is based on my experience and knowledge. Experience as patent attorney for 15 years. Knowledge of U.S. and U.K. patent and copyright laws and rules, MPEP, many Court decisions which delved into these issues.

Question: What material do you expect Editors to bring here?

If I copy from a good source - it infringes on their copyright

If you wait until the copyright expires - it may be very old, obsolete

Thus it appears that precise citations should not be a prerequisite for inclusion.

--Zutam (talk) 15:51, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Precise citations are not a prerequisite, but the source needs to support the statement. Your sources didn't. If Websters do, we can use that as a source. (But it probably doesn't, the online dictionary doesn't in any case). I don't know how much you can quote from a source before it's infringes on the copyright. Once sentence definitely is OK.

What I have written is based on my experience and knowledge - You are not a reliable source.

OpenFuture (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

It is fine to include what reliable sources say, but paraphrase it; say it in your own words. Wikipedia is governed by fairly strict policies. Any addition or change of meaning to an article needs to be supported by a reliable published source. Two fundamental policies that you'll really need to grasp if you intend to make a substantial contribution (and I hope you do) are:

Original research

Wikipedia does not publish original thought: all material in Wikipedia must be attributable to a reliable, published source. Articles may not contain any new analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not clearly advanced by the sources. The full policy is here.

Reliable sources

Ideal sources include general or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published sources, widely recognised standard textbooks written by experts in a field, or position statements from nationally or internationally reputable expert bodies. The full policy is here.

Anthony (talk) 16:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Is the U.S. Supreme Court a reliable source?

Citation from Graham et al. v. John Deere Company of Kansas City et al. February 21, 1966

 "Unless more ingenuity and skill were required than were possessed by an ordinary mechanic  acquainted with the business, there was an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of a skilled mechanic, not that of the inventor."

--Zutam (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

New definition presented for discussion:

An invention is something new or an improvement which requires more than the skill and ingenuity of a person skilled in the art [66]. Inventions are a result of experimentation, a mental process and/or serendipity. Inventions can be divided into industrial inventions having a technical aspect, such as machines, processes, compositions of matter; and inventions in the humanities, including those in the arts, music, literature, etc. Inventions in industry are protected mainly by patents, whereas inventions in the humanities - mainly by copyright. Inventing may be one of the strongest human drives: The desire to improve one's condition, to do things differently, to create and experiment, to understand one's environment and to advantageously use this understanding.

66. U.S. Supreme Court, Graham et al. v. John Deere Company of Kansas City et al., February 21, 1966

--Zutam (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Rigorously speaking...

Since I have learned how Wikis think, I would like to add that using my citation for humanities may be taking it a bit out of context - Graham only relates to patentable inventions, that is only those in industrial inventions.

The part re humanities inventions is in the article so maybe there is support for it.

So please advise: To retain the humanities part, or delete it altogether and focus the whole article on industrial inventions?

--Zutam (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Please your comments re addition of a second paragraph as follows:

Concepts

Patent office - a Government organ for receiving and processing patent applications in that country. Patent examiners there decide whether to grant a patent in an invention or not, while discussing it with the inventor.
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) - the patent office of the United States. It is part of the U.S. Department of Commerce.
Utility patent - the majority of patents are of this type; it protects functional inventions such as a machine, process, composition of matter [53].

International patent application - an application filed with the international WIPO organization; also called a PCT patent application, see Patent Cooperation Treaty.
International patent - there is no such thing. International patent applications always expire without becoming patents. Based on a PCT application, one can file national and regional applications to get patents.
National patent - a patent granted in one country
Regional patent - a patent covering a group of countries which have set up specific organizations for that purpose: ARIPO, Eurasia, Europe, OAPI.
Serendipity - an invention is found by accident; it requires, however, a person with innovative skills to recognize an invention when he/she sees it.

53. United States Code Title 35 - Patent Laws

My argument:

This is accepted Wiki format for an article. The most important terms are detailed in the Category: Patent law. Still, it can help the reader and put things in context.

I will arrange the reference in the final edit.

--Zutam (talk) 23:28, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandal strikes again...

We discussed a cited source, nobody objected for several hours... So I applied the edit - based on consensus.

The same person who had nothing to contribute for hours, was fast to revert within minutes.

Now I ask you: is this civilized discussion?

WP says: Don't revert due to "no consensus"

WP says: Revert only when necessary.

Question: Does the previous paragraph have a better Source?

Was it necessary to revert and so fast and without discussion?

Hey! Can't anybody do something about the vandals among us?

You overflow Wikipedia with long rambling comments of confusing formatting, you accuse everyone else of being vandals, you edit war and you don't listen to recommendations. I'm sorry Zutam, but if you continue this way you are going to find yourself blocked pretty soon. To be a constructive editor you really need to change the attitude, especially the attitude that you are the only one who is right about everything and everyone else are evil vandals. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I *do not* think that I am the only one who is right about everything and everyone else are vandals. Quite the opposite.

I enjoyed the high level of this dialog; I learned new things and applied them, i hope. I am sorry about the communits part - it is not true. I hope to become a good editor, with your help.

Thanks.

--Zutam (talk) 07:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We are all busy. You have been asked to keep your comments short and to the point, you have been asked to discuss changes on this talk page before you make them, you have been asked to read the essential policies WP:OR WP:V WP:RS, you have been told that bullet lists are almost always (and certainly in this case) not acceptable in WP articles, you have been asked to wait more than a couple of hours before asserting consensus due to no response, you have been asked to assume other WP editors are well meaning. If you expect free help from busy experienced editors, start doing the above. The person who reverted you is not a vandal, they are an editor who sees something wrong with your edit. Calling them a vandal is insulting and they are highly unlikely to want to help or interact with you now. Anthony (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Moreover, throwing around false accusations of vandalism is a serious breach of our policy on civility. --Cyclopia ^talk 12:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Worth repeating: Zutam's behavior is a serious breach of WP:CIVIL, especially since it is he who is courting a violation of WP:3RR. — Aldaron • T/C 16:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Zutam, you need to understand that wikipedia is edited sporadically by unpaid volunteers from all over the world in different time zones. Putting a suggestion on a talk page and assuming you have consensus if no-one objects in a couple of hours is a false premise. When you post your comment, other interested editors may have gone away to do other things, or gone to bed because it's late at night where they are. Sometimes I do some editing from work at lunchtime and then I may not look at my watchlist again until later that evening, or maybe not for a couple of days. Also, the fact that one editor agrees with your suggestion doesn't mean that you have consensus and everyone else will agree with the edit. Unfortunately, some people won't bother to interact on the talk page but will revert an edit they don't like - that's life! If someone reverts your edit they should give a reason why, and if you're not happy you can discuss that with them on their talk page. If they don't give a reason just revert it as an unexplained edit. However, as has been said above, you will not endear yourself to anyone by calling them "vandals" or accusing them of having "nothing to contribute for hours". And a bit of advice on formatting - to add a quotation use the option to "insert a block of quoted text" on the editing toolbar. The reason why the ones you have added above are in a dotted box that runs off the page is because you have started the line with a space that shouldn't be there. If you use the quote option they come out as follows:

"Unless more ingenuity and skill were required than were possessed by an ordinary mechanic acquainted with the business, there was an absence of that degree of skill and ingenuity which constitute essential elements of every invention. In other words, the improvement is the work of a skilled mechanic, not that of the inventor."

Richerman (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Your turn

Maybe I lost my temper, I was surprised... sorry if offended anyone

You be the judge - which version of the paragraph to present.

If you want me to continue edit, please answer my questions and I will try to do it the Wiki way.

--Zutam (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Propose something here. If it is a change to existing article content, put the existing text here, followed by your proposed replacement. (Put each block of text between <blockquote> and </blockquote>).

If it is new text, put it here (between <blockquote> and </blockquote>).

Either case, explain why your version is good. As a courtesy to other editors, always make sure your spelling is correct and meaning is clear.

Anthony (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You are so well coordinated - amanzing!

Either you all respond within minutes to Revert; or you all keep silent for days.

You are always in 100% agreement.

Even Siamese twins disagree at times.

I did not receive answers to any of my substantive questions,

only those relating to formalities and procedure.

I don't have to explain my proposed version. If it is not evident

to experienced Editors like you, how an occassional reader will understand it?

--Zutam (talk) 06:20, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Way to not respond and yet take up a dozen lines of text! 69.181.249.92 (talk) 06:28, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Propose a change here, using the exact form you expect to appear in the article - not bullet points. Put it between <blockquote> and </blockquote> so we can easily tell what is your proposed insertion. Say what reliable source supports your proposed change. If others object to your proposed insertion, explain why it is good for the article.

Everybody here wants to see you making policy-compliant, useful contributions to this and many other articles. You came to Wikiquette alerts seeking help. I and every editor on this page have offered you advice. Follow it, and you'll be successful. It is your responsibility to apply policy. We all had to learn it. We all get reverted when we breach policy - and often for other reasons, like a disagreement over importance or accuracy. Anthony (talk) 06:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Your answers below are not acceptable. Please cite a Reliable source.

"

I don't know how much you can quote from a source before it's infringes on the copyright. Once sentence definitely is OK.
It is fine to include what reliable sources say, but paraphrase it; say it in your own words.

"

--Zutam (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I have posted your question here. Anthony (talk) 10:04, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I quit this Edit, because

I was treated unfairly and uncurteously

You did not answer my questions

You cite WP rules, but you don't follow them.

--Zutam (talk) 11:32, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Goodbye. Anthony (talk) 11:59, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Abacus, Pascaline, and MARK I are example of some inventions on the first years that happened. 1801, 1623, 1642 are years of inventions. ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network) is the first net before the Internet is invented. «This is my project» «erIcka mAe» —Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.192.126.202 (talk) 09:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Those who followed the discussion with Zutam should take note that he created a fork of this article at Industrial invention with his preferred content. I have redirected this fork back to this article. - MrOllie (talk) 14:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Brilliant idea! (sayings on topic of invention)

Apparently "Mater Artium Necessitas" is the Latin phrase for the oft used-"Necessity is the mother of invention". (seems that 'List of Latin phrases' is moving to Wiktionary)

"E pluribus unum"(Out of many, one.) is a bit off topic,but,there's the notion of "many hands make light work" in this field sometimes.
It's mentioned elsewhere that Ediswan was a common term used when referring to to joint venture

of Thomas Edison and Joseph Swan. "there is nothing new under the sun" is another saying.

Then there's various along the lines of-

"Why use a sledge hammer to crack a nut, when a steam roller will do?", and actually if you read about the Panama Canal, the use of steam shovels was one of the innovations that eventually brought success to the project (apart from controlling Yellow Fever outbreaks).

 The Chilean ,San Jose Mine Rescue is probably worth studying in regard, invention and

innovation.Signed220.101.66.30 (talk) 04:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikiquote is that a-way.

. --Cyclopia ^talk 14:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Practically, dissatisfaction is the mother of invention. Necessity just mothers desperation. A man on shore who dislikes being wet is far more likely to invent a boat than a man drifting in the middle of the ocean.Three d dave (talk) 02:56, 14 September 2011 (UTC) Yes, that may be able to be worked into an aphorism.Originally I was thinking 1. New need begets invention, 2.Invention creates/conceives new need(disssatisfaction), 3. Go to 1. (if it's a good idea) SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2011 (UTC) And perhaps this , Dissatisfaction(& critical thinking)perceives need of change,disharmony/waste/inefficiency.JohnsonL623 (talk) 05:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Adding a Timeline to the Section on Invention in Art, Design and Architecture

Hi Everyone, Will anyone help add a timeline at the end of the section in this Invention page on Art, Design and Architecture? It would be like the timelines about invention in the music, literature and performing arts sections of this same page. This seems very useful. Thanks!BlueOcean OceanBlue (talk) 14:04, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This page looks quite heavy.

Is it a candidate to divide into separate pages for separate topics? Technical, societal, and artistic invention? Perhaps distilling to a short description of the noun and verb of invention, splitting to specific areas with related histories and descriptions of related theories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Three d dave (talk • contribs) 03:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Mind over matter

Suggest add 'Mind over matter' to 'See also' list. Alternatively, someone could hyperlink to 'Mind over matter' article from an appropriate word or phrase existing in the article. SignedJohnsonL623 (talk) 00:19, 16 November 2011 (UTC)