Talk:Self-replicating machine

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)

Let's not start it up again, please be nice. JSimmonz (talk) 09:44, 8 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.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:29, 4 October 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.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

References

The best and most recent example that I can think of would be the replicators from the television show Stargate: SG-1. They are self replicating devices that use ANY compatible alloy or technology to both upgrade themselves and replicate. I believe this to be the best example of not only highly sophisticated Von Neumann device but a perfect example of what could go wrong with any self-replicating technology which is not given an appropriate fail-safe. The fail-safe cannot just be a shutdown command as any technology with these properties must be able to learn as it encounters different situations. The fail-safe would have to both shut down the program and deconstruct the machine itself.

Post by, Iseriad

74.45.36.222 (talk) 06:39, 6 February 2010 (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.)

The reason it was deleted was the contentious "I'm getting really sick" part. The emotion is irrelevant and not allowed of Wikipedia. I'll be polite, please remove it youself as was those words that started the flame war along with you perceived to be libeling his name and technology without verifying facts, in his opinion. Also don't pretend that it was a sock editing the article, he made it clear it was indeed Collins himself and only after you did the first edit. This is a biographical issue. Let's keep facts straight and emotions cool. JSimmonz (talk) 00:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

I think Collins was to tricked by the experience editors in here to report a hacker and they called that legal threats. I see this for sure guys! That's not nice! Before Collins was banned they do the mass delete on him too when he was nice. you seem Steve like you look for something to get grumpy about. You like jumpy or something man lol! JSimmonz (talk) 02:34, 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)

Be Nice

I can't even go on vacation, I come home and you guys are at it again! Stop vandalizing and stop the legal threars please. Be nice! JSimmonz (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

Why you say that? That not fair. JSimmonz (talk) 19:29, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I returned to the long standing consensus article before latest changes that started contention. Be nice please!JSimmonz (talk) 20:05, 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)

He is not. He did not write present article. And you not get vote twice, three times then again or eventully you get to voted out article. That is what you guys now to be doing. Stop. Also, there is these attacks now that Collins suing Freitas and Merkle and Cornell right now for stuff in their book. Do you guys work for them? I watching real close all this for long time. I look Baker remove part about Freitas and Merkle critical remarks just now on last edit, if you hate him so much why you take this out now that he is suing them? JSimmonz (talk) 06:08, 28 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:

1. I see no consensus discussion there - merely a very long diatribe by Collins which contains all sorts of utterly unfounded complaints against me.
2. 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.
3. 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)

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 US 5764518  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)

You are wrong. I see you! I keep notes. You come here Steve at Jume 2008, 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). I'm not big shot engineer as Feitas and Merkle professors claim but I make circuit boards here and we take patents. I read article on Feitas and Merkle. Nonsense! They are competitors attacking Collins with lies which is big deal because they very famouse in this field and he did it first. Patents 101 say of only what is claimed is what's important in patent and stuff in description can explain many many prior art. freitas & Merkle only descuss description and no claims as if Collins claimed prior art in his description. This is bias nonsense. Collins device nothing like von Neuman who never patent or make any self-replicator long long ago dead. Also I see you Steve at one time delete big places in talk to cover up stuff as well to in history logs. Also, RHaworth hacked Collins and all he did is report that, you guys call that legal threat and block? Big joke! This is malicious & contentious edit. You guys do deliberately. You are bias somhowe. I see you! I'm keeping notes. I see record at patent office to of working device submitted. Why you not check that? This is big deal that Merkle family lie about Collins, very note worth. Collins can't submit if you block him with corrupt tactics. He only sock after you do that, I see you! You won't get away with it. Also too I notice this guy "Buckley" edits his own stuff as "athority". If that's the case so can Collins. "Buckley" also blocked for "legal threats" on Collins and you let him back withoutb "resolution" as rules. This site full of nonsense. Where collins submit his self-replicator video or working device? You don't sighn nondisclosur he say, why not? Also let Collins respond with one line like he wants on Merkle, only Fair. You give no chance, right? Corrupt peole here! Very bad! You need to go pray for big sins.JSimmonz (talk) 22:21, 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)

You guys paranoid! You think everyone is collins. As usual, here you don't respond to facts. You block everything around DC now I'm only one left as I'm not of DC. DC is where patent office is and seat of self-replicator world and experts. Stop being corrupt blocking all there. You make me mad! You have no prooff! Now you want to redo vote after block everybody. Big joke you are. you think you only ones who know technology! I intrest in this to. Stop being a jerk. I see all of you! I was nice but you call me sok. No one ever call me sock! ever! Go lie to yourself! You guys cannot be nice to. JSimmonz (talk) 22:42, 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)

Buckley promote his own invention, he really do. Collins just self-defence. You don't make rude comments about others here? I take his side now only, not like befor, you think what you want. but I see you ignore facts! JSimmonz (talk) 22:51, 28 March 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)

Ha Ha, good one! You come to China I show you how to fake U.S.JSimmonz (talk) 23:12, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I speak Emglish very well, when I'm not hurying up to stop deleting and I'm not mad. You like? JSimmonz (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess Collins got on plane a fly 10,000 miles just to edit article. First in dc then day latter in overseas! Maybe collins patent new warp drive space plane "thing" lol! Stupid paranoid people! JSimmonz (talk) 23:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I look and it's only less than day I delete his stuff. You tell me how I do that. stop stupid comments please. JSimmonz (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I know collins has video, he said it here. Where he submit and protect rights on new technology on it? Let me know I'll email him and tell him how or you ask him yourself at email posted at his site: http://charles1.jimdo.com/] page on Collins' website.</ref (note his new site for while suits going on) JSimmonz (talk) 23:51, 28 March 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 Wikipedia: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#F-Unit_page 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#.22Contentious.22_paragraph 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)

Too many issues all at once, slow down, be nice! 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 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. OK? Do not assume you preach to me about Wikipedia policy I know what consensus is around here. it is still the same:

"Consensus is one of a range of policies concerning how editors work with each other. Editors typically reach consensus as a natural and inherent product of editing; generally someone makes a change or addition to a page, then everyone who reads it has an opportunity to leave the page as it is or change it."

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. Nothing to do with here. Are you scientist? That was consensus before that (look at history sequences on that, you know how). I look I see it! Before, that article was in there with variuous changes during debate for years and Collins started the "Self-replicating machine" site (called: Independent operability) long before 2005 and no one understood it said it gave everyone a "Icecream headache" said stupid editor once lol!

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". 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). 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.

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. In February 2008 during the final synthisis of the article 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. 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.

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". 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. Maybe you call examiner? This "file wrapper" shows that the examiner refused to allow this patent until Collins showed it to him then was the patent given. 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.

I know technology and I know the Merkle is in error because he only attacks description of the patent not the claims which is suspect and to me very big news because he is doing what collins says "busting patents". I also know Freitas proposed an infringing copy at the NIAC so these guys are corrupt guys which is big story if the Merkle is involved. I don't like the Merkles they made the poisonous "atomic rocket" for crying out loud. Him calling Collins "acquisitive" (greedy) for simply filing a patent is asinine bestowing to me he is a jerk or up to something. All these facts are known by everyone here in who has followed such is the technology and has hands on like me.

I also know that the Cornell "Molecubes" device has been made and is "dead on" infinging in a particularly annoying manner way. It was developed at the state college (Cornell) whith some immunity from the infringement and now Victor Zycov and others from Cornell are giving the collins technology away at "Molecubes for everyone" at [molecubes.org]. This is evil dumping and an international trade infraction that he is dealing with at present. Collins nicely offered Cornell license but they rudely ignore him.

That is why it is suspiciopus that you might want to remove the Freitas merkle portion of article at this time, making you look like you are covering for the Merkle and Freitas. Of course this is only suspicious. It is clear you hate Collins also I think. But taking Merkle comments out of Collins article is wrong, I agree because it is note worthy so leave it in, I don't the care. The biggest problem I have with you kinda guys is you reject Collins attempts to submit videos that he has tried before. And because you reject his photo makes me think you will reject his video too of the same item. He has a right to keep the trade secrets particularly considering the infringements he has discovered. He say claim 65 protects what he calls "trolley car" looks reasonable to me and I know some on patents, do you Steve? If not you bow out. OK?

You can't just proclaim one never existed in your wording language either, you don't know such things considering the patents (78 world-wide I count in PCT) and the photo and the official Gazete Publications. You have no photos of other stuff in here why do you pick on the Collins? You know he's trying business "startup" on them now which all this make look very suspicious. What changes around here do you refer and were you involved in changing them? Just asking. And I do still object strongly to Collins block for reporting a hacker guy, that is not a legal threat. I been hackered to, I don't like that! Be nice! OK? JSimmonz (talk) 02:09, 29 March 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)

What's also the relevant is the consensus upon what was notable amongst the editors in Feruary 2008, particularly Merkle & Freiras' comments in their book as follows:

[1]

Are you saying if the Collins submits the video that means nothing at all? No wonder this guy's annoyed, that's more than the rest of this stuff around here has for notable, why not delete other stuff to? Rapid-prototypers don't make all their parts so only a little bit notable. Also a patent allowed on a complete self-replicator, decided by patent examiner with working model given is material worth reading in spirit of the article. You have other patents here, none of which have language for the complete self-replicating machine at all. You don't say "would be" for anything else what gives? By the way I like Baseball too, but I'm not too good I think. I ignore players, too much steroids for crying out loud lol!JSimmonz (talk) 03:00, 29 March 2010 (UTC)