Talk:Self-replicating machine/Archive 3

Very selective quoting
Why the mentions of Samuel Butler? Nowhere in Erewhon did he refer to anything remotely like "an artificial self-replicating system that relies on conventional large-scale technology and automation"? Why not quote this passage from his book -- ".....machines which reproduce machinery do not reproduce machines after their own kind. A thimble may be made by machinery, but it was not made by, neither will it ever make, a thimble." (Caution. If you mention anything about a thimble not being a machine, you will have made the case for deletion of references to Butler in the article. Probably means you haven't read the book as well). Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Though neither have I read the book (who cares about the book?), it might do, that comment be given regarding the thimble analogy. As technologies change with time, it would be a bit presumptuous to assume that such improvements will bypass the lowly thimble.  It would seem these days likely that much of technology will one day be of the self-replicating type; perhaps even the thimble.  Would such a thimble not be a machine?  William R. Buckley (talk) 06:01, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Partial Construction
As the paper Computational Ontogeny is now available by download from the web (try ScienceDirect, for instance), I have reinserted relevant text respecting the mechanism of partial construction, and those correspondences with zygote behavior. As these ideas are contained within a cite-able, peer-reviewed journal, removal of this reinserted material will constitute vandalism. William R. Buckley (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This article is an [edit] Conflict of Interest and original Research & not that worthy of note. This seems an agreed upon collective opinion here so I will delete if no further important objections, thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by NoNamer123 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Partial construction is noteworthy, as only one such model exists. See the paper as mentioned in my earlier post, and as referenced in at least one other publication.  Further, the note from NoNamer123 likely comes from an already banned editor, otherwise named Charles Michael Collins.  Original research is that which is not published elsewhere, and as Computational Ontogeny appears in the journal Biological Theory 3(1) on pages 3-6, the concept of partial construction is not original research.  William R. Buckley (talk) 03:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Introduction needs work.
The introduction needs work; some is redundant, some ill worded, etc. This mention is notice to other editors that I intend to offer such rewrite, soon. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Some" is a jot general, can you be more specific, please? Larrry2 (talk) 05:16, 21 February 2009 (UTC) Confirmed sockpuppet of banned user - not allowed to edit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, lets take the opening sentence. Discussed is a notion of autonomy, which is perhaps taking the point too far.  The cellular automaton self-replicators I have devised don't need to take raw materials; they use preformed parts.  Their behavior is non-the-less that of self-replication.  I admire the purist view that dominates this first sentence but, it does not give an accurate view of self-replication; it is too restrictive a view IMHO.  Self-replication need not mimic the biological variety to be true.  Nor need it satisfy the excellent suggestions of Edward Moore.  Yet, the first sentence concentrates strongly upon this model; autonomous entities *harvesting* raw materials from the environment, facilitating growth, and a product then harvest-able by man; a man-made renewable resource, which does all the mining and extraction, and delivers usable feed-stocks to industry of all types.  There are many suitable models, and the opening paragraphs of the article should steer clear of all; it should be a general discussion.  Just one example.  William R. Buckley (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Another point is the complete lack of historical content in the introduction. Interest in self-replication did not begin with von Neumann; at the very least, a queen of Sweden (IIRC) should get the title first, for having mentioned something to Decartes (again, IIRC) about seeing to it that a timely piece of fine metalwork should produce offspring.  The human fascination with life-mimicking automata is very old indeed.  William R. Buckley (talk) 06:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I contemplate said "rapid prototype" devices, as seen herein should be relegated where it only properly belongs to only that other site as it is in error here otherwise. Jerald99 (talk) 06:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Edits made by a certain indef-blocked sockmaster editor have been removed, as blocked editors are not allowed to edit. If they wish to appeal their block, they must do so through the proper procedures.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection review

 * 18:16, 9 March 2008 RHaworth protected Self-replicating machine ‎ (rpeated trolling by blocked user [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed])

That was over 18 months ago. I'd like to review this to see if semiprotection is still necessary. As well as welcoming views from regular editors I've contacted RHaworth, the protecting admin. --TS 11:34, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Unprotected. &mdash; RHaworth 12:57, 15 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am all for removing the protection. William R. Buckley (talk) 14:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Naturoid
If I recall correctly, the Naturoid concept has already been discussed with regard to this article, Self-replicating machine, and been rejected, both for appropriateness and relatedness, and also as being perhaps an example of unreasonable self-promotion. This issue should not require further discussion. I vote for removal of the mention of Naturoid in this article, even if it does occur within the See Also section. William R. Buckley (talk) 01:16, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't see any harm in having a link in "See Also". SteveBaker (talk) 02:23, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I recall a variety of complaints in the past, and that Naturoid has been therefore removed. Lets see how other editors feel about this latest edit.  William R. Buckley (talk) 09:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * A naturoid doesnt seem to necessarily have to do with replication, in fact almost none of the examples in the article have anything to do with self replication. I'd say remove it.  Guyonthesubway (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As the author of the 'theory of naturoids' (before named the 'theory of the artificial') I do not agree: a self-replicating machine is a naturoid because all the machines that try to reproduce something natural (like a biological system, which is self-replicating) are naturoids. The special case of self-replicating systems, already discussed since von Neumann, takes as its 'essential performance' right the self-replication. Massimo Negrotti, University of Urbino. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.51.33.68 (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, I can see what it has to do with this article. A self-replicating machine would, in a sense, be a naturoid, in that it could reproduce by consuming materials found in the environment, either for energy, or for more materials to build more of itself.  In this sense, it is a naturoid, and, given this relation, I see no need to remove it.  Remember, majority is not consensus, general agreement between all is consensus.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  23:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Rapid prototypers
What is the rationale for removing the section on rapid prototypers? --TS 14:38, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The removal was likely perpetrated by a banned editor. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)



Edits made by a certain indef-blocked editor have been removed, as blocked editors are not allowed to edit. If they wish to appeal their block, they must do so through the proper procedures.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs  22:29, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles Collins & F-Units.
I'm getting really sick of Charles Collins (a banned user: User:Fraberj) coming here with various IP accounts (See: User_talk:71.114.41.116) and changing the section on F-Units to how he want it to read. (His latest IP account is User:71.114.0.55 - which you can see is in the same IP range as his last sock). This is a clear conflict of interest - and outright puffery on his behalf - this guy has violated every Wikipedia rule in the book in the course of our dealings with him and he cannot be allowed to keep changing this section to read how he wants it to. You can tell it's him doing the editing because he always insists on having his middle name written out in full (which is not the way we conventionally refer to people here on Wikipedia) and for some odd reason he always removes the 'cite' to the patent he's always banging on about.

I've rolled-back his last change - and I invite other editors to verify that my version is more appropriate to what is the most minor of footnotes in the history of self-replication so it's not going to turn into a 3RR battle. Meanwhile I'll try to get his IP account blocked (again) by the admins.

Thanks in advance for your help.

SteveBaker (talk) 06:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

(This comment has been restored following deletion by JSimmonz (whom I suspect to be another sock of User:Fraberj aka Charles Collins). My comments on this matter continue at the end of the following section.  However whether JSimmonz is or is not such a sock, he/she should be aware that it is not acceptable to delete serious complaints such as the one I make above.)




 * You are allowed to complain about my language - but not delete it (at least not on discussion pages). If you feel that something so terrible has said that it must be expunged - then you need to go to the administrators and have them deal with the matter.  However, given the way you've been behaving, I strongly suspect that's more likely to get you into trouble than me.


 * The statement that I'm getting really sick of Collin's sock-puppets editing here in violation of his lifetime ban from this site is a true statement. I don't believe it violates any Wikipedia guidelines for discussion pages and it CERTAINLY doesn't rise to the level where you're allowed to simply delete my warning about Collins using a sock puppet.  There is no Wikipedia guideline denying the right to express emotion.


 * Even in the super-rare cases where it is acceptable to delete things from talk pages - it's very wrong to do so without leaving at least an explanation as to why you deleted it. Your actions are totally unacceptable - Wikipedia requires you to Assume Good Faith - which you did not - and I feel that you should apologize to me for what you did.


 * I (and many others here) have attempted to verify facts about Collins' "technology" and we can't because nobody has written about it except Collins himself - and that doesn't count (See: WP:NOR, WP:V and WP:COI). Collins did not make it clear that the 71.114.0.55 IP edit was him - and since he's been banned from editing Wikipedia for repeatedly violating our rules - my decision to erase his changes on sight are perfectly justifiable.  However, (as you'll see, below) I'm going the extra mile to explain why we cannot have much more than a sentence or two in the article about Collins' work.  It's simply not notable - and that's the end of it.  SteveBaker (talk) 00:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)




 * You're pretty close to getting blocked yourself, for trolling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)




 * You have been told many times what's needed, and you continue to avoid providing it. That's trolling. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:22, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't care about his freakin' video. Tell me an independent, reliable source that supports whatever claims Collins is making. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:33, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This is from archive #2 which established the article in 2008 with consensus and applies today:


 * "Not an unreasonable start. You will get involvement with Mr. Collins, and the text will be in flux for a long time. However, it is better this way, than either alternative - excision, or a content war. Mr. Collins' work deserves at minimum mention in the Wikipedia article, and there is at least one other published source: Frietas book. Even if his claim is bunk, it is current with the topic. William R. Buckley (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2008 (UTC)"



Be Nice

 * It's pretty obvious the IP is your sock, and I've reported you to its blocking admin. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:12, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Nice? Is that a guideline?  Sorry... why are we allowing a banned user to dictate the text of this article?  I don't mean JSimmonz.    I don't see any reason that section should be sacred.   I'm not sure consensus now is reflected in the article.  Guyonthesubway (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Statement of personal involvment: I'd like to make it clear - that I do not work, nor have met, spoken to, or communicated in any way with either Freitas or Merkle - and I've never been within 300 miles of Cornell University. I have read Freitas & Merkles book and Collins' patent.  My only contact with Collins has been here, at Wikipedia through his original account and subsequently through his various sock-puppets.  My interest in this matter is merely as a regular Wikipedia editor trying to make a better article.  I cannot accept the edits made by Charles Collins (aka User:Fraberj) and his many socks because they arise from a conflict of interest by someone who has been banned from editing Wikipedia and they vastly inflate the value of his work in the field.  I merely wish to place his "F-units" invention in a proper context in the history of Self-replicating machines by writing clear, accurate and (above all) referenceable infomation on the subject.  Collins makes legal threats and "accuses" me of many nasty things which you can read for yourself in the edit histories of User:Fraberj and the socks I refer to above.  The only "complaint" that comes even close to the truth is that I regularly read (and occasionally contribute) to the "RepRap" blog - because it's an interesting practical development in this field (albeit one that's a very long way from being a 'self replicating machine) - and it's one way to research one aspect of this subject.  However I have no other personal involvement in that project.  SteveBaker (talk) 21:05, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * "Long standing consensus" does not exist for the "F-units" section of this article. If anyone could point me to where the consensus discussion happened, then I'd be happy to read it - but I don't see it anywhere in the archived history of this discussion page (where such consensus would be expected to have been seeked).  An earlier revert of my version of this section by JSimmonz in July 2008 says "(→F-Units:  As per settlement at User talk:71.114.23.247)" - I invite other editors to take a look at this so-called "settlement".  But:
 * I see no consensus discussion there - merely a very long diatribe by Collins which contains all sorts of utterly unfounded complaints against me.
 * Wikipedia certainly doesn't make closed door "agreements" with banned users (Fraberj/Collins) or their socks (71.114.*.*) - and without consensus discussions here, such "agreements" would be worthless anyway.
 * Even if such an agreement were made, the changes I made to the article are fully justifiable given the available facts and the almost complete lack of references for these "F-unit" things.
 * So - if my changes to the F-Units section are unacceptable, let us "comment on the content" and sort them out here, where such debate belongs and achieve a proper consensus view.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * actually now I -do- mean jsimmonz. and I -have- been within 200 miles of cornell.    If we'd like to argue consensus I suggest we remove the funits section as a non-notable trivial patent that has never been tested by the courts.  Guyonthesubway (talk) 01:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * You guys ask more questions before others are answered slow down! That is not the point. With all due respect sir. The point is Merkle family is vary the famouse Ralph Merkle on the current subject of Self-replicating machines and made a famous comment on the Collins who is now famouse for being talked about functionally in the self-replicating subject current to this article for years. And as well for being already written up in here on it by "authority" I can think for many years. I see Collins as authority even though you may disagree, if not he certainly fooled the patent office LOL!



Discussion of content:
In the JSimmonz/Fraberj version, the F-units subject matter is given it's own '==' level section which reads as follows:


 * In 1998 Charles Michael Collins received United States patent 5,764,518 for a self replicating machine. The machine is a small robotic device with several attachments enabling it to tool a complete copy of itself. It implements a combination of machining techniques and a polymer buildup technique to attain independent self-replication. It additionally set forth and enabled substantial new art such as the "Trolley Car Method", first self-replicating actuators, and colorized tiles being employed for its software implementations amongst others, discussed in depth at Collins' site[1]. The patent claims that once replicated the machines could be used for any number of industrial and personal uses. These uses range from parts machining, to large scale infrastructure creation to personal grooming.

My revision of it is a '===' level section within the "Recent work" section:


 * In 1998 Charles M Collins received for a self replicating machine. The machine would be a small robotic device with several attachments enabling it to construct a complete copy of itself. It would use a combination of traditional machining techniques and a polymer buildup technique similar to that found in many rapid prototyping devices. It set forth techniques such as the "Trolley Car Method", self-replicating actuators, and colorized tiles for its software implementation.  The patent claims that, once replicated, the machines could be used for a variety of purposes.

The differences are there for the following reasons:


 * 1) F-units are just one patent and one (now vanished) web site.  The only mention of them in the literature of self-replicating machines is the briefest of mentions in the Freitas and Merkle book (which summarizes every single mention of self-replicating machines - whether practical, real or imagined).  There is absolutely no other referenceable material anywhere about them.  As such, it's arguable that F-units don't even deserve a mention here at all.  However, as an inclusionist, I don't object to a single paragraph about them.  They are, however, not a significant step in the state of the art - if they were, then there would be many more books, journal articles and websites writing about them - and there aren't.  Hence, we cannot justify making an entire major section about a single patent.  Worse still, Collins himself has made it abundantly clear that he is deeply unhappy about the Freitas and Merkle book and has said (both here and on his website) that he intends to sue them over it.  Absent that reference, there is nothing beyond the patent written about F-units - and patents do not constitute acceptable references for Wikipedia.
 * 2) For some reason, Collins insists on having his middle name given in full.  This is not a style that Wikipedia generally embraces.
 * 3) I do a proper 'cite' on his patent in order that people can easily go and read it.  I don't see any reason not to do that.
 * 4) The 'Fraberj' version says that the "...machine is a small robotic..." - but there is no evidence that anyone has actually built the machine in the patent - and I don't believe that even Collins claims to have built one.  So I change "is" to "would be" - and make similar changes throughout the paragraph in order to ensure that our readers don't get the impression that there are actual implementations of F-units roaming the countryside!
 * 5) I have a reference to Collins' own web page at this point - but that page seems to have vanished when GeoCities went bust.  Perhaps we should seek a link in the InternetArchive site.
 * 6) The Fraberj version makes a large claim "It additionally set forth and enabled substantial new art such as the "Trolley Car Method", first self-replicating actuators, and colorized tiles being employed for its software implementations amongst others, discussed in depth at Collins' site".  But this isn't really something we can write about because there is no definition of this "Trolley car method" that we can link to and "colorized tiles" are a very vague term of art that would need further explanation for it to mean anything.  Expanding the explanation of these terms would promote this very small part of the history of self-replication into a major section - and (as I've explained before) - that's entirely unjustifiable for a subject that has essentially zero literature beyond that one patent.
 * IMHO, we should probably simply delete all mention of F-units from our article on the grounds that there are no references for them. But at the very least, we have to limit what we say about them to what we actually know - which is that these are nothing more than an idea from one man who clearly regards his 'invention' with much greater importance than the rest of the practicioners of the art.  If he's reading this, my advice is to go out and build some F-units and show them to the world.  Then we'll have something to write about here.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 21:30, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * At the very least, this Collins guy (which I'm assuming is you) has a conflict of interest, basically trying to promote his own invention here, which is not the purpose of wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:25, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Either way, it's a conflict of interest. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

<comments by confirmed sockpuppet of banned user removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)>
 * And I see you pretend not know English! I can write fake accent too! ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

<comments by confirmed sockpuppet of banned user removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)>
 * There is no video on that site - also, only one photo, which could be anything quite honestly. There is an enormous amount of scientific-sounding tech talk - but it's all irrelevent.  We don't go writing articles (or even sections of articles) on this kind of thing unless there is concrete 3rd party references that talk about them.  There simply aren't.  Hence we aren't ALLOWED to write about them - no matter how true, or worthy or earth-shattering they potentially are.  The only thing Collins could reasonably do to make us be able to write more about F-units would be to get an article about them published in a reliable peer-reviewed journal.  It's a rule.  As for contacting him - he seems to really hate me, personally, with an amazing degree of violence.  The last thing I need is to talk more with him.  SteveBaker (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK - so calm down and take the time to type coherently. There is no urgency here - we can discuss this like civilised human beings - OK?  Take a deep breath.


 * Now - you say that "consensus was reach four to five months before you got here to roughly 13:31 feb 27 2008 after Franktobia and Bobprime worked with Collins (to get info on device including photos as was submitted at patent office)." - if that's true then you should be able to find where that consensus debate took place - I don't see it anywhere. However, Wikipedia's standards for referencing and tolerance for non-referenced statements have changed considerably over the intervening years - and there is no reason not to revise the article accordingly.


 * What I do see is that the article on F-units was deleted by unanimous !vote Articles for deletion/F-Unit (self-replicator) mostly on the grounds that it was not verifiable and that Collins had written it himself (which is a violation of WP:NOR and WP:COI). Collins is now a banned user and as such we may discount any 'agreement' made with him.


 * I do see a debate at User_talk:RHaworth/Archive_to_2008_March which seems to have ended with an agreement to let the AfD decide the matter...but I don't see any open consensus debate there. I also see that User talk:Bobprime was blanked after a rant by an obvious sock of Fraberj/Collins (User:71.114.9.82 - another 71.114.*.* address) in April 2008 - User:Franktobia got the same treatment from the Fraberj/Collins.  This definitely doesn't sound like a consensus agreement to me!


 * There was discussion of the F-units issue here Talk:Self-replicating_machine/Archive_1 in April 2008 - but I don't see any clear consensus agreement coming out of that - and the very next thing that happened was Collins getting blocked after creating a bunch of socks.


 * So - there has been no consensus debate. Unless you can give us an exact link to one - it might as well not have happened because we aren't going to take your word for it - OK?  I'm very happy to participate in a consensus debate about what we should or should not say about F-units.  Let's do it right here and now though if it will help to calm things down a bit.  I have to tell you though that my opening argument will be "We should remove all references to F-units from this article until/unless adequate referencing can be provided." - because that's what Wikipedia guidelines tell us we should do.  Note that neither Collins' web page nor the F-units patent(s) are acceptable under Wikipedia referencing guidelines.  That leaves (AFAIK) just the single paragraph about them in Freitas and Merkle - which Collins himself violently objects to.  If we discount Freitas and Merkle then F-units doesn't meet Wikipedia notability standards and all reference to them should be removed from this article.  If we report only what Freitas and Merkle says - then F-units are a mere fiction in the head of Collins and could justify no more than a footnote to that effect.


 * I know Collins feels very upset with the world and the way it has received his ideas - and perhaps that upset is justified. But Wikipedia does not exist to right those kinds of wrongs.  We're here to report facts - and (by our own rules) "facts" are things we can verify through solid, reliable, recognized sources...not things that one guy with a patent happens to believe.  That's maybe something you find unacceptable - perhaps you even feel it's a violation of "Free Speech" - but it is how Wikipedia operates.  Wikipedia is a privately owned and operated website and it can (and does) set its own editorial rules...and that's the end of that debate.


 * SteveBaker (talk) 23:55, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

<comments by confirmed sockpuppet of banned user removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)>


 * What you personally know about technology is not really relevant. What's relevant for wikipedia is to find independent sources that confer notability. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:26, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

<comments by confirmed sockpuppet of banned user removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)>


 * It's only useful as a primary source. I could go patent my time machine tomorrow. Having a patent on something doesn't make it notable. My time machine would not be notable unless (at least) valid, independent sources talked about it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:08, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

<comments by confirmed sockpuppet of banned user removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)>


 * A video provided by its creator does not make it notable. Otherwise, assume I know nothing, and tell me how this "Merkle and Freitas" are both reliable and independent? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:27, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

<comments by confirmed sockpuppet of banned user removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)>


 * A credible video would be an awesome thing to behold. I for one would love to see an F-unit replicate itself on video.  Wow...that would be earth-shattering.  However, sadly, it would count for nothing on Wikipedia because it's not evidence.  But if Collins can make one of his F-units replicate, then he's only got to show it happening to some reputable scientists and get them to write about it in (say) "Nature" or "Communications of the ACM" or some other reputable journal - and we'd be lining up here to write about it.  Wikipedia is the last place where breaking news is reported.  We're an encyclopedia - we write about things that are already well known - we're not a newspaper.  Once the news is all over the scientific press - we'll be able to write about it.  SteveBaker (talk) 03:55, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * First off, when you said "I come here to do things Americans can't do" is contentios which started such flame war up again after the peace. -- I don't see the relevance of this.
 * I do not know what you and the Collins got into before comming here at Napster but lets try and keep things civil so that one day China, U.S. and other countries of the world can come together as friends someday instead of enemies. -- I have no idea what you're talking about - I've never used Napster. Collins is the one being uncivil - just take a look at the talk pages of Fraberj and his socks.  But it's still irrelevant.
 * Do not assume you preach to me about Wikipedia policy I know what consensus is around here. -- Excellent - that'll save a lot of debate.
 * After Feb 2008 the article stayed same for the good five months or more, stable consensus until you and Collins got in it at the Napster or whatever and you deleted his entire article in spite. -- The fact that an article has been wrong for a long time is no reason not to fix it! Consensus means debating the content of the article and obtaining agreement between editors.  That hasn't happened.  I did not delete his article - that was the decision of the WP:AfD process - which is a meticulously fair, consensus-driven process.
 * Nothing to do with here. Are you scientist? -- I have a degree in Cybernetics from the University of Kent at Canterbury.
 * That was consensus before that (look at history sequences on that, you know how). I look I see it! -- That's not a "consensus debate" - that's just routine editing. A consensus debate is what I'm trying to have here.  A discussion of content, here on this discussion page.
 * I watch I see all this. I copy down & keep the notes. Debate was finally had to the fact that Collins patent is the only patent that a patent examiner has allowed on a "Self-replicating machine" in its entirety, published in the Patent Gazete unlike any others that are only propsed accessories and "partial replicators". -- Patents are irrelevent. You can patent almost anything.  The US patent examiners spend an average of 5 minutes per patent.  Since some patents take them years to investigate - most are completed with little more than a cursory glance.  You can patent almost any old crap.  The test of a patent only comes if someone infringes it and the owner defends it in court.  Patents are NOT acceptable Wikipedia verification for any fact other than that a patent was filed and that the owner made some set of claims.  Sorry - but that patent is utterly worthless as evidence for Wikipedia.
 * In fact someone unkown put it here not Collins (all the old talk has been deleted, I see it is gone and I saw it maliciously deleted). -- Nothing here is ever finally "gone" (well, almost nothing). It'll be in the history logs - I looked and it ain't there.
 * William Buckley (every one really likes that guy) stated that it was proper on the fact that Merkel made such braod comment on it. Further it has been up for going on five years and the fact that it has been has made it notable according to Wikipedia rules. You don't loose notability once had. I know such rules. I may not be best editor but I try. -- OK - if you have acceptable notable references for F-units then please tell use where to go and read them and we'll finally be able to say something meaningful about them. Personally, I'm quite sure you don't have such evidence.
 * I watched you get into debate with the Collins on "would be" language you put in and consensus was reached on "the patent claims" as a compromize instead of "device is" that he liked. It stayed several months untouched after that after several editors posted their opinion in just debate then which included the language in there then of the other parts. -- Please point us to where this debate happened. I don't think it ever did.  But again, that something stayed here for months (or even years) doesn't mean we can't fix it later if it's wrong.
 * In February 2008 during the final synthisis of the article -- There is no "final" in Wikipedia. We improve the encyclopedia continuously.
 * Collins asked if it would be OK to use his long name that he is known as because there are so many "Mike Collins" out there, and such including one of the three men who landed on the moon first. This was seen as reasonable and was left there many months in agreement which is consensus. -- That's irrelevent...and I don't think it ever happened. Again - point to the history where it was discussed.  Wikipedia has guidelines for this kind of thing - and we don't go around spelling out people's middle names except in some very exceptional cases.  Even if it was "agreed" - it was agreed incorrectly and now we're going to fix it.
 * You were not here but there has been times when Collins and editors got allong nicely and I like such like that. Why not now? I no like this fighting. -- Sorry - but the fact that previous editors didn't understand the rules - or chose to ignore them doesn't set some kind of precedent. Getting along nicely is secondary to making a decent encyclopedia.  Also, standards of consistency and verifiability have been improving steadily for several years now - articles that were once full-blown "Featured Articles" now come under scrutiny and are found lacking.  So stop dwelling in the past - let's make this article modern and up to current Wikipedia standards.
 * I know technology. I know what I see there in his site would work if you place four electromagnetic coils on top of it which will animate it to put the tiles and it is made of the tiles so it will "self-replicate". -- I'm biting my tongue. It doesn't matter whether you believe this or not - it doesn't even matter if you built one and got it to work.  What matters is whether we can read about it on a reliable source.  If there were (for example) an article about F-units in "Scientific American" or "The New York Times" - then we'd consider that to be reasonable evidence.  But just because you (or Collins) say it's true is quite utterly irrelevant.
 * He has picture that looks good to me practiced in this sort of thing and I check file at patent office and a working one was definitely shown to the examiner and a photo is on file. -- No - he didn't have to show a working system to the examiner. We haven't had that requirement for 50 years or more.  The photo could be anything - it looks to me like some cut-out plastic bits.  Sure, it might be real - but unless we have some solid 3rd party documentation PROVING that this works - then it's right up with an awful lot of crackpot stuff that's out there.
 * Maybe you call examiner? -- It wouldn't help. Please read the Wikipedia guidelines on reliable sources WP:V:
 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely, with page numbers where appropriate, and must clearly support the material as presented in the article.  If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it."
 * Do you see what I'm saying? We need "reliable, published sources" - and it must be "third-party". Patents, patent officers, secret working models, you, me, Collins, Collins' web site - none of that is worth a damn.  We need an article in a reliable 3rd party book or journal.  Nothing short of that is acceptable for material that's "challenged or likely to be challenged".  I'm challenging the entire F-units section in this article and whatever isn't referenced should be deleted...which right now, it all of it.
 * This "file wrapper" shows that the examiner refused to allow this patent until Collins showed it to him then was the patent given. -- Irrelevent.
 * I guess you wikis don't like patents. Merkle has 14 why you like him so much? He is very contentuous to boot on it. -- Irrelevent. It's not that we don't "like" patents (or the people who file them).  The problem is that they are not considered to be reliable sources.  Feel free to argue about why that should be - but don't do it here.  Go complain at the WP:V discussion page.  Until/unless the rules are changed - those ARE the rules.
 * I know technology and I know...I also know that...I know... -- It's irrelevant what you may or may not "know". Unless you can find some reliable 3rd party sources that show what you are saying is true - then it's WP:OR - and that's irrelevant.
 * It is clear you hate Collins -- No it's not. I don't know Collins.  What I DO know is that he broke a bunch of Wikipedia rules and was kicked off the site.  I know that he continues to violate the rules and to edit this web page despite being told not to.  He has no "right" to do that.
 * ...and I know some on patents, do you Steve? If not you bow out. OK? -- It's not relevant - but I do have 14 patents to my name. I'm quite familiar with the process - and I'm the first to say that you can patent any old crap.  In two of my patents, our patent lawyer screwed up and put all of the diagrams from one patent into the other - and vice-versa.  They sailed through the patent process without anyone noticing.  It was 10 years later that I found out!  Patents are worthless until you defend them in court...they only prove that the author made some claim or other - not whether that claim is true, or valuable, or scientifically possible.  However, that's all irrelevant too.  It is not required that one should have experience with patents to be able to edit Wikipedia - what IS required is that you prove everything you claim with reliable, 3rd party evidence.
 * You know he's trying business "startup" on them now which all this make look very suspicious. -- No, I didn't know that. But it's still irrelevant.
 * And I do still object strongly to Collins block for reporting a hacker guy -- Well, try not to turn him into some kind of folk-hero, defending the world against hackerdom! That's certainly not why he was blocked!  He didn't ever "report a hacker guy" - I don't know where you got that idea from.  His behavior here violated practically every rule in the book!  He was initially given a temporary block for verbal abuse, then again for editing with a conflict of interest despite warning, then again for making legal threats (which is STRICTLY not allowed here).  But then he created a bunch of other accounts and continued to edit (as he continues to do today) and that got him a lifetime ban.  I don't think I've ever come across such an ill-behaved editor...it's quite shocking.  The final discussion is here:.
 * SteveBaker (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the above link to the ban discussion.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 08:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bottom line - this is ALL irrelevant. All that matters here is what we're going to say about F-units.  We will say exactly and only what can be backed up with solid, Wikipedia-acceptable references.  We're not going to say anything that can't be proven by such references - OK?  SteveBaker (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Bottom line - this is ALL irrelevant. All that matters here is what we're going to say about F-units.  We will say exactly and only what can be backed up with solid, Wikipedia-acceptable references.  We're not going to say anything that can't be proven by such references - OK?  SteveBaker (talk) 03:48, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

<comments by confirmed sockpuppet of banned user removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)>

Break
You haven't won anything. Everyone here disagrees with you. No one here agrees with you, and SPAs do not count as people, so stop logging out to try and votestack. Wikipedia isn't a democracy. Consensus is obtained on the strength of the argument, not the number that agree. Now bugger off with your edit warring. Just because people refuse to respond to you, that doesn't mean they agree with you, it means that we've realized we can't convince you, and have stopped paying attention. '''You don't get your way until you have consensus, and you have no such consensus. Lack of communication doesn't mean consensus, so stop edit warring.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs''' 05:07, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

<comments by confirmed sockpuppet of banned user removed. Per WP:BAN, all edits of banned users may be removed and reverted on sight regardless of content.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)>


 * Is there a reason you're refusing to read my message to you on your talk page? Here, I'll write it in bold for you below, so there is no possible way you could miss it:


 * Wikipedia is not a vote. You obviously lost the debate, as you failed to provide a convincing argument.  The only thing you have convinced us of is that you are worthless responding to, as you refuse to address any points made in response to your own.


 * In any case, your edits fall under rule regarding bans, in that, you are editing for a banned editor, and that is strictly prohibited.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:37, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Simmonz is now indef'd for disruption, so I recommend that we consider this matter closed. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 05:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The sock case has also been endorsed. When it comes back positive, or even likely, I'll be archiving this section with a special sock archive template I developed.—  Dæ  dαlus Contribs 06:38, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Roger. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 06:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * yay! Guyonthesubway (talk) 13:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks. Now we can get back to writing an article. SteveBaker (talk) 14:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I question the validity of the patent, and believe the claim is not factual. That JSimmonz has some problem with the basis for creation of Wikipedia articles is trivially dismissible. If Charles Michael Collins had a leg to stand on, he would take the issue to the appropriate forum, which Wikipedia is not. As to the friends of Charles Michael Collins, to each his own; there is no accounting for taste. William R. Buckley (talk) 22:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

On sockpuppets and banned users
As per the miniturized notes above, you will all see that I have removed all edits of JSimmonz, as linked in the notes, he is a confirmed sockpuppet of banned user. Per WP:BAN, all edits by banned users may be reverted and removed on sight, regardless of content. Thus, I have removed all his edits, and hatted a section he created.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:44, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
 * If anyone feels like indenting my notes, feel free too.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 05:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments
<banned users are not allowed to edit, and all edits, on sight, may be reverted regardless of content. This IP is banned user Fraberj.—  Dæ dαlus Contribs 04:45, 11 July 2010 (UTC)>

They certainly well identify to all others the nature of the person (a banned person, I believe) who posted these comments. They may even be useful to police. Kindly leave them in place. William R. Buckley (talk) 04:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)


 * We should follow Wikipedia guidelines and remove the comments of banned users. It is not the function of the encyclopedia to provide lessons into the nature of persons who fail the notability criteria.  If the police need to see these posts, they can easily be retrieved from the edit history. SteveBaker (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)