Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent operability


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 20:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Independent operability
Patent nonsense (but not as in WP:CSD, unfortunately). Some sort of unsourced, confusing babble on patents for replicators. WP:OR if nothing else. Contested PROD. Sandstein 13:33, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, the proud inventor has left an amusing note on the talk page. Sandstein 13:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as vanity (people should not create articles on themselves or things that they have created); also, <100 google hits.  Wh e  re  (talk) 13:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Where. Mi kk er ... 14:02, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, not so much because it is vanity, as much as it is a collection of insane ramblings. But, Where, why did you delete that awesome rant?  You gotta love "PATENT HATERS" --Deville (Talk) 15:01, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * The rant has now been restored for the amusement of the readers. Sandstein 15:48, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * That rant has to be BJAODN'd kotepho 16:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It already ahs been :-)  Wh e  re  (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete or SMerge to Self-replication as this name does not appear to be correct. The patents seem to actually be patents  FWIW. kotepho 16:47, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Retracting my vote until I can do more research. If the result is deletion I request that it be userfied. kotepho 19:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I oppose userfication because it is substantial content unrelated to Wikipedia (see WP:USER). Mr. Collins may store the article on his own computer or website. Sandstein 09:00, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I want it as a WIP to aid in the writting of an article on the subject (and not Mr. Collins). kotepho 17:31, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. Needs rewritten if any chance, but I think no matter what it is confusing and gave me a headache. TKE 19:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as PatentCruft, another new flavour  Dei zio  01:28, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 04:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, even if it is true, which I highly doubt, none of this is notable anyway. -Jetman123 08:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, the author posted the following rant on my talk page  Wh e  re  (talk) 12:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC):
 * At first glance the idea of my entry of "independent operability" may seem self serving. I understand. However, I am nicely retired and most likely would not work again if I was "vain". I hereby CONTEST Wikipedia's policy of blanket banning all "vanity" entries as that is the sign of a system that only supports those who have nothing to "brag" about in the first place and keeps many power producers from bothering to do anything anymore. I produced the technology of late to help others and I am highly disgusted at the insane interest in attacking it particularly when it seems that not a person attacking seems to have a slight clue (and some even admit it) as to what it is about and this fact alone warrants the removal of all the comments forthwith. This is NOT a comment place for bubble headed Madonna groupies. Large money has gone into this important project and not a dime has been spent on me. The project cannot live without funding so I hope a small note of my name and the patent will be a gratitude for the years of work many have put into it. I bet none of you remember Phill Pharnsworth do you? Well you're USING his invention RIGHT NOW. And I DON'T plan on beeing an UNKNOWN for my work.


 * This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, you know the thing that teaches the children? If all of you knew what you are attacking you would be sorry. This is why I had no compunction about nuking the first comment from the peanut gallery that opened the mouth before thinking (and I made certain to take out all the usual detractors that in fact DO know of my work and attack it for selfish reasons (such as the ELF, Unibomber, & other sorts of lunatic TECHNOPHOBS).


 * Let me teach you a thing or two about the first step in becoming smart. If someone says something and it is not CLEARLY NONSENSE, and you DON'T UNDERSTAND IT. PLEASE, DON'T COMMENT ON IT UNTIL YOU FIND OUT WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT OR AT LEAST BE COURTEOUS ENOUGH TO ASK A FEW QUESTIONS FIRST. And to the HACKER WANA-BE WHO USED THE TERM "PATENTCRUFT", I REST MY CASE ON MY (WHAT YOU CALL AMUSING) COINED TERM "PATENT HATTER", there's one RIGHT THERE (and there's quite a few of them out there indeed). BAN HIM! You ALL sound like DINOSAURS MATING. If there are stupid patents allowed, blame the patent office, not ALL inventors please because THIS one is NOT. Stop being childs.


 * P.S. To the one constructive comment as to independent operability being "self replication". It IS self replication. A more specific form of it that NEEDS to be TAUGHT to the masses for Mechagenics to be understood. It's INDEPENDENT REPLICATION (and I did not coin the term, it's been around a long time). I will dutifully edit the entry to correct on that. Thank you so much for pointing out that thoughtful fact. Also patents are ALL PUBLISHED (pursuant to your comments on the entry being not "sourced"). Where's the moderators around here? I hope a few have a little brains on this, thank you very much. Also, five days seems a bit short a time for proper debate on this.
 * Cool. This should be linked to from www.crank.net. 131.111.8.97 00:13, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * It should be linked to most wikipedia policies as well, starting with WP:V WP:CIVIL WP:NOT WP:NOR WP:8W ........ etc etc FT2 (Talk) 05:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What a nice long rant. Delete. Rambling and unclear what if anything is actually verified, cited, notable or more than authors vanity. Come back when the world is at your feet a bit more please. FT2 (Talk) 21:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unencyclopedic nonsense. MCB 02:02, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * score, mark, brand, imprint, plier, clasp, bore, wind, squash, churn, lift, lower, anchor, panel, insulate, wire, plumb, entube, oxygenate, hydrate, aerate, ventilate, spread, circulate, flow, floss, mash, cement, paste, pour, pick up, lay, affix, shovel, rake, scrape, dig, bury, grind, sand, plane, beat, work, polish, gouge, tile, support, strut, buttress, beam, prop, stay, band, strap, baste, tack, sew, siphon, tap, deflate, pump, orbit, light, measure, balance, offset, counteract, counterbalance, weigh, rank, pace, servo, gauge, appraise, apportion, proportion, step, rate, list, index, log, dissect, carve, print, engrave, etch, stamp, dial, display, exhibit, program, present, record, arrange, determine temperature, determine humidity, determine allergen level, determine barometric pressure, determine visibility, determine wind velocity, determine rainfall amounts, determine ozone levels, determine varied pollution levels, determine wind chill factor... ah heck, just Delete. Ronabop 02:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

fram fraberj - Independent operability is used extensively in nanotechnology (which is closely related to Mechagenics which is MY coined term for MY technology set forth explicitly in the patent, notice I did not ask that it be added). As an example of "secondary sources" using the term: Marvin Minsky (AKA: "Father of AI") used the term in this well known and broadly recited statement within the art: "Independent operability will make fission look like a mild irritation". Edd Regis, the most well known writer in nanotechnology, in his book "Nano" devoted that, his most noteworthy book mostly to the discussion on independent operability. In fact much inspiration for my developing it sprung from that book. K. Erik Drexler (HONORARY doctorate, for what? no one knows!) the loud mouthpiece before congress on nanotechnology and all his pretty picture filled books and political flashy jive but no substance (BUT PLENTY OF MEDIA NOTE!) used and promoted it extensively on his net site for the Fifth Foresight Institute (or is it sixth now?) he used the term many times (before I DID it first and he got very upset at that point and decided to quit using the term in any of his new writings or on the site). Richard Feyman in his book "Plenty of Room at the Bottom" may have it in it (I've not read it) but he has used it in public MANY times, I can't believe NONE of you have heard of it before. You can't have been reading much nanotechnology without running into it. The book Nano is FULL of the term, it's in the glossary for gosh sakes! As for the question of "vanity" the first version of my article purveyed was drawn from the works of Alex Nicholson (author, engineer, material specialist) NOT MYSELF, but when all the monkeys started throwing the p@@p I took over and added the long version to satisfy you guys' (& gals') objections. Here's the picture in a nutshell: It's well described in the book "Nano" (get it at the local library) and many other sources (and if you read them you will find that it very much is a BIG DEAL if that's what you are looking for in "notable", should be from merit had per function that you guy should ascertain) and if you go to uspto.gov site you can READ THE CLAIMS in the patent (LAST TWO LONG ONES) and you will see that the robotics division of the patent office indeed allowed it as it is described in the patent and it is a big one (86 pages), published world wide through the Patent Cooperation Treaty and last but not least I have both still photos and video of the device (tell me where to post it and I will). I do interviews and did two radio shows on WJFK. And so once and for all, FOR ALL both smart and dense, here goes a clear "romper room" definition: A machine that can have babies. Lots of NON independent replicators are about like Cornell's' (type "Cornell replicator" at Google and go right to it and note that one infringes on my patent if you can read the claims you'll see THAT'S of NOTE!) that is, ones that have parts that must be manufactured by man or beast (like life form commandeered versions). It exists my friends and someday with the power it bestows you will be asking the walls for chairs, and like plant life chairs will grow out of walls from tiles delivered through plumbing to your home of objects you shopped for on the net. It's the final error corrected control and creation of "stuff" in the home and elsewhere. Ask a cup to turn into a plate and it will if made of this replicating stuff and if sitting on a counter made of this stuff it will morph into it. It's instead of pixels on the screen controlled by computers now its the tiles in the world around you in a great hardware matrix being controlled by computers that are made up of the tiles by your verbal request. And finally (for you pure science buffs) its the addressable verbal control of mass structure to the atomic level; we are replacing the atom unit with another type of unit that is subject to verbal command and the like. You will copy THINGS like you copy software, by verbal command. A HARD INTERNET. Further it is error corrected and seldom subject to error and someday because of this VERY SOON there will be great automated factories that blast out tiles with lasers and e-beans to be delivered automatically to your home through plumbing (even frozen foods) and your house, chair, car, sidewalk etc will be made of them in a big physical LAN (Internet) of electrically conductive interlocking tiles and we will all live happily ever after REAL, REAL SOON. That is, if I can GET THE MEDIA AND YOU GUYS TO GET AT IT TO GET THE WORD OUT AND FUNDED AND ON LINE ect., ect., ect,. That's why it's called the INFINITY DEVICE (if you want to see the book written by Alex Nicholson called THE INFINITY DEVICE let me know where to upload it. (very much a technical bore for expert and novice alike but someone had to do it) It is and always will be ALL THAT WILL EVER BE NECESSARY once it attains evolution (has not yet, but soon will)... The Infinity Device... Any more questions?

Thank you so very much,

Charles Michael Collins.

P.S. I think the above writing alone by itself, if you think about it (and call it a rant if you like), is far worthy of note on its face as a literary work, particularly with the patent backing it (and all the above & more is in the description in the patent). I bet no one EVER told you guys ANYTHING LIKE THAT! HA! Even Orson Wells! My investor tells me he can't sleep at night after talking with me. I'm writing a movie about it: War in the Nanosphere. I play many musical instruments and did the sound track too. I have THOUSANDS of innovations. Several HUNDRED are in the patent alone (actually there were three of them, the patent office was caught with their pants down not knowing quite how to deal with it and blew the first one, they even allowed lists in the descriptions finally). Well, I guess I've bragged as my investors wanted me to do, this new "globalization" market will either get it or not soon with that new attitude which is what I suspect is the problem. Do you get the picture yet? Hey, this isn't advertising guys or vanity or whatever, it's HISTORY BEFORE YOUR EYES IN THE MAKING. DO WHAT'S RIGHT GUYS (and be a part of history, the most important part of it there ever was or will be). — Preceding unsigned comment added by fraberj (talk • contribs)


 * Wow. Just Wow. Very impressive rant by Mr. Collins. I'm not sure I'll be able to sleep at night either. Delete as our minds are too immature for this knowledge. Future generations should be allowed to rediscover these secrets for themselves. Let them be cursed by sleeplessness, save the current generation! GRuban 15:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Boy, if ever there was an article that cried out to be suitly emphazied, this is it. I wonder what implications independant operability will have on Time Cube? Delete 205.145.64.64 18:28, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Oops, I must have been overpowered by the sleeplessness inducing rant and failed to log in. Brian Schlosser42 18:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm? quite a phenomenon going on out there. I wonder if I submitted this for a grant with merit for study before NSF if it would pull a nice big fat grant? Hmmm, lets see what would I name the paper? Oh right, now I got it: LEVELING THE PLAYING FIELD FOR THE IDIOTS! Maybe Bush wasn't as stupid as we all thought after all nominating Allito. (I've got my stop watch going, if my calculations are correct after above I want to time how long before the article is yanked) Oh I noticed one of you was a Scientologist as well, whatever happened to: "Upstas get away with murder" (to quote L. Ron Hubbard).

fraberj — Preceding unsigned comment added by fraberj (talk • contribs)


 * Delete nonsense GeorgeBills 07:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This is getting crazy. Not only has Fraberj unleashed a slew of unwarranted, rude personal attacks upon other users, he seems to be completely unwanting to sit down and explain his points in a level-headed, rational manner, which would actually give the article a chance. Does he not get it? Personal attacks are not going to do anything but get him banned and get this article deleted. -Jetman123 11:39, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: Stay WP:COOL. The article is pretty clearly going to get deleted, the feedback is nearly unanimous. And you have to admit his comments are amusing. Don't take it personally. GRuban 13:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like kotepho is the only one doing any of the needed research here, asking the right questions, unlike the rest of you. As stated by the British House of Lords, "Copying an invention by taking its 'pith and marrow' without textual infringement of the patent is an old and familiar abuse which the law has never been powerless to prevent." (Per James, L.J., in Clark v. Adie (1873) L.R. 10 Ch. 667). But this "vanity" attitude is working a round about rendition of the above, needs to be revised to NO ADVERTISING or plugging unimportant work. This is NOT simply a new patent for a Bobby Pin. There should be a certain time place and form for those who excel to state their qualifications if of substance because the way things are going with this new globalization that's the only way they will ever be known. I know this from my own lived practical experience. You can't count on donations and others to PR you. That's what happened to Phil Pharnsworth, the principle innovator behind the first television, now few know him and he went broke when his idea was stolen and your computer monitor, whether CRT, LCD or DLP or the like IS based on the same principle. NOBODY CARES ABOUT US INVENTORS! Seriously. You guys don't seem to. Well I plan to change this whole weird way of thinking that you HAVE to modestly wait around until someone ELSE acknowledges your capabilities even if I have to be accused of vanity or rants thank you very much. This is THE NEW INVENTOR'S LIBERATION MOVEMENT starting right here. I could care less what you all think. And that's the truth. Why should I? Ban me if you like, make my day! I'm no sucker! NO MORE MR NICE GUY TO YOU ANARCHIST! I waited TEN YEARS! The PARTY IS OVER! With all due respect, I would submit that you folks should maybe consider the VALUE of the MATERIAL being brought to the table here rather than WHO brought it and HOW it was SAID or HOW it was brought. That seems to be getting lost in the wash of all this politically correct fascism! It seems clear to me, that even though there is a stated policy that this is "not an experiment in anarchy" some editors may secretly be pursuing just such, certainly "infoanarchy" to use a term used herein if not some other nefarious underhanded far flung buphoferouse boofaophery spewed far and wide all over globalistic creation! For example sanstien had his insulting comments about "confusing babble on patents" before I could barely get the article up clearly indicating that he had not a clue on nanotechnology or even cared to look into it. Attacked it on sight! THAT is what fired it all off. And you are threatening to ban me? RIGHT! BAN HIM! I was real nice up until then and you know it if you got your facts strait. How about banning deville with his insulting "it is a collection of insane ramblings"? That's pretty rude! Nothing technically constructive there. And how about the nutty comments from Gruban and the others with peanut gallery jive? And gee jetman123 UNWARRANTED?!?! I approached this with a world of dignity until sandstien blew off his mouth... I won't put up with that sort of indignity from someone who didn't do his homework. Please! What about george bills? you said nothing of substance so why say it? I nominate to DELETE ALL OF THE ABOVE FORTHWITH! Technically, if you guys/gals had an iota of ethics you would realize that's true now wouldn't you? Then we could all settle down and get to the business at hand instead of this craziness, but you know it's just not gonna happen I think because I can smell it like a rat SOMETHINGS AFOOT! Now in all fairness I REALLY LIKED Brian Shlosser42's "time cube" comparison. THAT was something of SUBSTANCE! It was constructive dialog wasn't it? A fair comparison on the face of it. However, I will point out that the same similar type of absolute bedlam went on at the patent office that seemed to have gone on with this "Time Cube" weirdness when I filed the first patent until a showed up with a video of the device of it "reduced to practice" and they all shut up and gave me all the claims I asked for because unlike "perpetual motion" and "tellatransportation" or maybe "Time Cube" (whatever the heck that is) it is broadly agreed that independent operability could actually happen (they thought it would be twenty years down the road by the way). So unlike "Time Cube" (which by the way made its way somehow into this Wikipedia didn't it?) you have NOT ONE but TWO IMPARTIAL THIRD PARTY OPINIONS: the PATENT EXAMINERS for BOTH the patents at the patent office and FURTHER AS WELL all the "prior art" both patents knocked down as set forth in the patent (tell me WHY patents are not OK again?, RIGHT), plus an OPINION "LETTER OF OPERABILITY" from a renown impartial patent documenting firm devised JUST FOR THAT: Nolte Nolte & Hunter P.C. (sent to Gruban), A CLEAR PICTURE OF THE DEVICE IN FULL COLOR siting there plain as day UPON ONE OF THE PATENTS. The patents withstood over ten years of legal onslaught (definitely not new untried science) the term "independent operability" was used by Marvin Minsky (father of AI), used in the best selling book by Ed Regis (top Nano writer) sited to Gruban. Even Einstein pointed out that it would be a big deal when he used the term "independent self replication". The invention even survived the onslaught of the "Don and Mike" show as they tried to cast it as "junk science". They admitted: "You beat us into the ground." I got a tape of that if it means that much but it's just part of the continuing credibility of the science as it lives and the term which you guys seem to be conveniently trying, for some reason to ignore. Seems the LEAST you can do is this: I'll give you guys permission to rewrite the article the way you guys like if it states substantially the same thing in the same or similar way as "Time Cube" with my name used just like Gene Ray's is in a very modest way and let me know where to place the description of its function, add the picture of the device and lets give it the go. I mean, Gene Ray's article is IN THERE is it not? I mean come on guys lets be fair now. All my other competitors in academia are in there: Richard Feynman, Norio Taniguchi, K. Eric Drexler, Robert Freitas, Ralph Merkle, Sumio Iijima, Richard Smalley, Erwin Müller, Gerd Binnig, David Britz, Heinrich Rohrer, Raymond Kurzweil, Paul Alivisatos Chris Phoenix, Mike Treder, Tim McKnight, Phaedon Avouris, James Fraser Stoddart, why can't I have equall standing herein with my competitors? Is it because I'm a n "inventor" HA! Hence my coined DIRECT term: PATENT HATERS. Not some politically correct blithering blather of a name tha's indirect. I think you guys are taking "sourcing" to a new extreme too, wreaks of prejudice here. This is not unproven NEW science nor junk science, I'm the foremost authority on top down nanotechnology and self replication. I'll admit, I'm not much of a writer so I'm new to this (first article) so give me a little help guys. It is NOT vain to stand up when you have beed dishonored, particularly when being PROFESSIONALLY IGNORED. when that occers all bets are off and you hit the dirt. Further, for your information you anarchists would have been dead of some disease before 25 or living like Mennonites like all the rest of us would be too if it were not for the protection of patent rights for innovation. And let's not mix this up with copyright protection (that's why I disapprove of the term "intellectual property" as well which generally lumps the certainly more important innovation of patentable innovations with books, movies and music which are just communications when you get down to it). It's unconscionable that books, movies and music can bring criminal penalties for infringement but patents far more important to day to day living may not but in fact find themselves under direct attack for some misguided notion that it is somehow helpful to the less better off for inventors to not get paid for their work. You don't chop the head off of the able to feed it to the disabled but you do help them but don't KILL THE ABLE while you are at it, thank you. The term I coined and like to use is "technophobe" because it is more in your face as it should be. It really affronts those that are JEALOUS of those who can innovate which is what all this is all about. It does not mean I advocate LESS protection for books, movies and music I just want the same or better for patents which is rather sane. When's the last time you heard of someone giving donations to an inventor? Rarely. You guys and gals won't because it's clear YOU DON'T EVEN WANT TO KNOW WHO I AM DO YOU? Worse... YOU DON'T WANT ANYONE ELSE TO KNOW EITHER if you go along with this program. Since 1994 I've had this work published and it's been published world wide and NOT ONCE has anyone sent me one red cent as a "donation". Don't get me wrong, I'm not for protecting the MORBIDLY RICH like Bill Gates or Trump but the urge to prosper well, i would submit is NOT GREED (Ihave to pay for MY kids too thank you. That's why Communism failed. NO MOTIVATION. What you do is tax the heck out of them at the millionaire point, up to then NO! Gives everyone a dream to be rich someday but not MORBIDLY RICH which IS greed. That directs peoples hopes and dreams in the proper fashion. You don't "tax the rich feed the poor until there are no rich no more" (song "Change the World" Alvan Lee, in the sixties) instead you "tax the rich feed the poor until there are NO POOR NO MORE! Now that's just right. Get it? Have a VERY nice day.

fraberj


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.