User talk:71.114.23.247

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Requests for Page protection is not the place to register complaints against other users. Have you tried a mediation request? Clubjuggle ^T/C 16:41, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to User talk:EdJohnston has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thanks. Yamakiri ^T_C § 07-2-2008 • 04:07:35 04:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive comments.
If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at User:SteveBaker, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. ParticleMan (talk) 04:19, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:21, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

How can I comment on an article about me [1] that is being vandalized and ripped to shreds by SteveBaker and being blocked wrongly by a band of his rogue sockpuppet editors? The problem at F-Units [2] is so long that its called a "rant" just for an abridged version. Don't EVEN pretend that Wikipedia is nothing but a liberal lyinbg rag! Ethics... PLEASE! Are you going to take the time to sort through the crazy attacks on the article about me? And it is 99.99999999999999% chance YOU ARE A LIBERAL because all others have been wrongly blocked? Answer that!

Charles Michael Collins

I must admit I fail to see any problems with that section about you. What are your concerns specifically? seresin ( ¡? ) 04:43, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

This was the artickle before Steve Baker finished it off:

F-Units

In 1998 Charles Michael Collins received 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[3]. 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.

After the hack job:

F-Units

In 1998 Charles M. Collins received US patent 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.[34] 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.[34] The patent claims that, once replicated, the machines could be used for a variety of purposes.

The only published information about F-units is in the patents themselves and a critical mention by Freitas and Merkle in their text Kinematic Self-Replicating Machines.[35] (An assessment that Collins contests.[36])

SteveBaker is editing his own job site at Midway Games, where else does his damage go? You can't tell he trashed F-Units because he removed the entries where he did it, go look in the diffs if you don't believe me, the only way is to back space through them. Why did he attack articcle on me anyway? the discussion was on Adrian Bowyers, a competitor of mine that he is putting up advertizement copy on and protecting. WHAT A JOKE! BIAS? thats B-BIAS IN SPADES!

He's now added Two articles about Adrian Bowyers who STOLE MY INVENTION and added two new pictures and cut mine down and overhung the photos to hang down into the article about me (particularly when viewd in small text).

I'm sorry; I still do not see anything particularly wrong with the new version. If anything, it reads a bit more neutral and encyclopedic than the previous version. What specifically is your concern? seresin ( ¡? ) 05:04, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

He changed "is" to "would" Changed my name to "Charles M. Collins" when other editors changed it to that specifically for theses reasons: I'm known publicly as Charles Michael Collins and there are several other scientists with Charles M. Collins, all the links around the net and search engines list me as Charles Michael Collins as it was for over a year here as that before; HE took out that I was "first" as doing the trolley car means (as he knows Hod Lipsom and Freitas are stealing it and claiming it). He also even changed my patent references to that because he knows it will create mass confussion. He says (made up) that it uses rapid prototyping methods IT DOES NOT! He's trying to make it look like old technology. And he generalizes the purposes. Are you blind? It's VAndalism in the guise of what you refer to sir.

And where's your comments on him editing his own work site at Midway Games[4]? He complained that I was bias in trying to gert envolved with Self-replicating machines. Why can't I comment on others there? I'm an athority for Christ sake! BIAS BIAS BIAS VANDALISM!

He also blocked all editors from the Robert Freitas an Ralph Merkle sites so no one can even bring up the world famous dispute and deleted the dispute as well, clearly bias and has sockpuppets pretending to be me to trash my reputation (AvantVenger) using it as excuse to attack the F-Unit site that had over 200 pages of talk fighting to get to consensus as it was and all were happy until SteveBaker came along and started throwing up more nonsense on Adrian Bowyers WHO NEVER MADE ANY SELF_REPLICATOR ... EVER! This desturbed the delicate equilibrium, and he blocked talk on it which is crap... Just because Adrian Bowyers is you Silly Wikipedia "Open Source" crap". PLEASE! What a JOKE!

You just like SteveBaker because he is one of your buddy long time editors and like open source, that is clear. Ban him and put the article back. Why do you say it is more "encyclopedic" if full of lies added by the editor (not the source), tell me... I wan't to know as what you said makes no sense to me.

This is a bio article about a live person (me) so it has stricter standards, standards being IGNORED.

Has the machine been created? The middle name is stylistic issue; I see no particular reason to have it M., and can probably be changed back to the full name. A claim that you were the first would need a citation from an independent and reliable source; do you have one? I don't see any explicit statement that the device uses "rapid prototyping methods". As for the purposes, there is no need to list applications. Legitimacy of your concerns notwithstanding, I am concerned by your claims about the motives of SteveBaker. Wikipedia has a policy of assuming good faith; this means that, without evidence to the contrary, we believe that actions undertaken by other editors are done with the sole intent of improving the encyclopedia. Your accusations are not inline with this policy, and I suggest that unless you have evidence of any ulterior intentions, you refrain from such accusations. If he is indeed editing an article with which he has a conflict of interest, then there might be cause for concern. But in the past five edits he has made on that article in the past year, none are problematic. As for a sockpuppet, AV has been blocked as a sockpuppet for several weeks now; SteveBaker himself was the one who discovered this. I have no particular feelings toward SteveBaker; I do not believe I have ever interacted with him. And yes, this is an article that discusses a living person. However, there is no libel or damaging information being placed here. seresin ( ¡? ) 05:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

All I'm getting F@CKING editing conflicts (9 times now!)Wikipedia SUCKS!

How can you get any insight on this?! in this short of a time? At least changing the name back to Charles Michael Collins would be a start. I should NOT be blocked from the talk pages, period. Unblock fraberj (my user). The machine exists (look at the picture at my site), patent papers show was presented to patent office, claims for trolly car are in patent, no reliable source ever said it does not exist, only silly Wiki editors, right out of their immaginations. I can't keep sending trade secret stuff anymore to Wiki editors who may steal. You have NO prove to no existence. You have nonr on Adrian Bowyers? He admits it! Yet you give me a stub. BIAS BIAS BIAS! I gave this stuff to Buckley who ignored it and threatened to sue me and "take my patent" and he was blocked, now we got "sockpuppets". Who do you think they are? please! I'ts to make ME look bad. I'm the ONLY one to make a self-replicator, started the whole Wikipedia "Self-replicator" idea and I get a stupid stub on me. What crap!

You are blocked because you vandalized userpages. After your block expires, you are welcome to discuss your concerns in a civil and calm manner on talk pages. I'm going to be honest here, I don't really understand what your complaints are. I'm going to just assume it's my own deficiencies, and disengage, as I cannot help you. Wait until your block expires, and discuss your concerns on relevant talk pagesSorSorry. . seresin ( ¡? ) 06:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

When your are attacked one must attack back. Period. You and others "don't understand"?, if you don't UNBLOCK! What is this spite?

I am first to do the trolly car NO ONE BEFORE! Where is prior art on that? NONE! So why does SteveBaker take out that I'm FIRST? What kind of crap is that? BIAS CRAP that's what, he's working for Adrian Bowyers, editing for him in bias like he's editing his own job site at Midway Games. And he's using his experienced editor skils to delete his tracks. And he is NOT the first one to attack on me as sockpuppets, anti-sockpuppets - sockpuppeters and sockpuppets pretending to be me to trash my repute. No real proff of ANY KIND that I really sockpuppet that's lies and TRASH! Adrian Bowers with all this article and no real self-replicator? Cut it down fair as before... before SteveBaker comes by, working for Bowyers and loads it up with add coppy. All this is CLEAR!

"fraberj" is blocked indefinite! Change that back! Total nuts here! Nuts! SteveBaker and his goons will block ANYBODY they think is me (Charles Michael Collins) so this IP will be blocked (and my musician friendly editors who are on my side who talk like me who follow my work). Look how EVERYONE on my side is blocked, probably hundreds!) Such NONSENSE! You can't block the WHOLE EAST COAST! What am I supposed to do? Take this B@lsh!t lying down? You KNOW its total trash UNBLOCK ME! I never had problems until Yamla hacked me! THEN I GET BLOCKED! Total SETUP!

I VANDALISED those who VANDALIZED ME FIRST! In any law system self defense in extraordinary situations is legal, everywhere on earth but Wikipedia!

This is the most important technology since the dawn of time, we are morphing stuff here, making copies. It is too important to have me blocked. IT"S CRAZY! Even my competitors stealing from me admit it, look:[5] THAT IS WHY HE STEALS IT! UNBLOCK ME! YOU NEVER HAD TROUBLE BEFORE I WAS UNFAIRLY BLOCKED AND NO TROUBLE AFTERWARDS! UNBLOCK ME! NOW!

...and put the article back before SteveBaker UNILATERALLY changed it with VANDALISM! (like it was for over a year with consensus).

I see it. I'm putting the article back (reconstructed). Leaving Adrian stuff in so as not to re-start the revert war. Objections?JSimmonz (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Let me state this for you since you fail to pass and avoid every mention of it. You were blocked because of your harassment and personal attacks of other users, and your using Wikipedia as a battle ground for your arguments. You continue to do this, as shown on this talk page. This is against the rules here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention you have continuesly broken other rules, such as our sockpuppet policy.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And to be perfectly clear, when you are attacked, you stand and take it, and report it to the authorities of the area, you do not attack back, otherwise you will get charged with assult. This is what happened here. You apparently have no grasp of our rules here, as you break them over and over and over again and never bother to read them even when they are cited. Why don't you try Wikipedia:No personal attacks on for size. You've broken it over and over again by vandalizing others' userpages, or we could try Wikipedia:Sockpuppets, another rule which you have complete disregard for. Shall I cite your numerous puppets?— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 09:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

And don't have to "stand and take" nothing when attacked when nothing is being done about it like the following when I was a newbie (if you had done your research you would have known this):

I (fraberj) was blocked when an inexperienced editor first for "self-promotion" after my character was attacked for writing an article "independent operability" defending myself from bio attacks already existing in Wikipedia quoting Freitas and Merkle who are competitors of mine getting all the write ups: [6]. I should not be blamed for doing all necessary to stop lies about me here and elsewhere. This is not "promotion", fighting attacks that is. Neither is commenting technically on others in the work at the site because I started the subject of self-replicators and can have valuable input. My article (on the replicator science) was hijacked and supplanted with the name "Self-replicating machines" by abusive bias editors, some who have been blocked before I was for attacks on me, yet let back, see:

02:59, 28 October 2007 (UTC) in archive #1 and 12:17, 22 October 2007 (UTC) archive# 2 (cant diff, no history there and the legal threats were removed but this is the threatening party's response showing it was true and the editors remarks, he also has extensive abuses on me (as fraberj) including "biting the newbie" activity calling my job "trash": 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC) archive #1; calling me a "stuffed shirt": 20:39, 18 October 2007 (UTC); ridiculing my musical career: 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC) archive 2; calling me a "dilettante": 16:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC) archive 2; general other attacks: 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC) archive2; 19:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC) archive 2; 19:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC) archive 2; 19:19, 17 October 2007 (UTC) archive#2;

Wholesale deletions of the consensus article right after much hard work without talk by hacker: 12:02, 27 February 2008 (UTC) archive #2; and my noting it and being deleted by fellow hacker "Yamla" who had me permanently blocked with huge swaths of deleted talk page materials to cover the hacking: 12:32, 27 February 2008 (UTC) archive #2 (This first started the pattern of blocks then vandalism to the article on me by large groups of core seasoned editors with organized political intentions. (Note on reading above much of my text are mysteriously deleted, thus the hacking I refer to). I was blocked nefariously for "legal threats" simply for my reporting the hacking when things were rather calm, such was called a "legal threat". That's nonsense, read the text on it. That permanent block fired off the war. That's the truth and fact.

Of late SteveBaker sets me up for an attack by making these insulting remarks: Rude political attacks SteveBaker: "I was invited to be here by the US government 15 years ago to do work that no American was able to do." [7] which is highly bias as he knows that I was a victim of affirmative action in grant distributions to foreign scientists in the United States and his competitor Hod Lipson at Cornell University who stole my idea first spouted off about "immigrants doing work here" [8] not me but SteveBaker used that as reason for vandalizing the F-Unit article when it was clearly Hod Lipson who fired off the bigotry not me. I had nothing to do with it and one of my parents comes from immigrants anyway making this whole affair sick lunacy.

These long term unresolved attacks as a newbie pretty much spells out my disposition: AT WAR WITH THOSE WHO HAVE INSULTED AND BLOCKED ME AS COMPETITORS. I have NEVER initiated the attacks. I have NO apology but DEMAND apology and go block those miscreants NOT me. Thank you very much.

Charles Michael Collins

Now SteveBaker has changed "is" to "would" again in F-Units as he protects Adrian's article with vengeance yet won't unblock me in at least talk... because he does not like patents and holds contempt for the patent process or does not know what he is doing with patents. The United States Patent office (USPTO) does not allow claims to extraordinary inventions such as perpetual motion or free energy devices etc. contrary to popular rumor, spawned by the ant-patent community, one of which is Adrian Bowyer. The patent office did not allow a "perpetual motion" device as it patented "over unity" as some would have you believe. "Over unity" devices sound like perpetual motion devices but are not. If it does give a claim of such, like it did in my innovation it has very certain legal procedures in place to ascertain that witnessing the function of any such devices occur including photographic evidence with "fact checking" to the hilt. This was the case with my patent in # 5,764,518, seen by trained witnesses (patent lawyers) and photographic evidence was formally submitted and in the file wrapper record. That is fact. A letter by the firm who did this is posted at my site as scanned.

The patent office refused to give me that claim in my first patent# 5,659,477 requiring extensive new filing materials in a continuation, materials that Freitas calls "overly broad" which is ridiculous. Frietas is lying. There was video of the device but it went on for months (F-Units take months to replicate and many tries, yet they do in mass self-replicate). I invited Dr. Roco from NSF's nanotechnology division to come see it at the Center for Innovative Technology (CIT) in Virginia here where I showcased the device in the 90s repeatedly. I also invited K. Eric Drexler and Cornell University. Showing the typical indifference that university wonk scientist may do none showed up. I have the beginning of the video in DV format and was getting ready to submit it to Buckley (he says he does articles with Scientific American as authority). As soon as I did start sending materials that I am convinced proved it to him he begins to threaten to "sue" me and "take" my device and even question me as to having so much "power" in one man's hand. This got deleted by some delete happy politically correct editor who does not understand the value of heated talk debates.

I should not have to repeatedly risk the stealing of my device to jealous and disingenuous media types who hate intellectual property and have clearly attempted to "bust" my patent when the disclosure was done properly at the patent office as well as WJFK as I certainly did also showcase the device on WJFK Washington DC's largest FM radio show "Don and Mike" which is all the proof one would need (see Library of Congress's national archives). That was the first talk show on radio about self-replicators and nanotechnology and was broadcast worldwide. The fact that Britney Spears gets page after page and my whimsical various artistic talents applied to self-replicating entities which is far more important is not is disheartening to me as my innovative skills are what produced the F-Unit system, and a lifetime of hard work and calling it "trash" as Buckley did is unconscionable. All of this is a huge event in history. I could disclose the video but already SteveBaker who is clearly protecting Adrian Bowyer who is stealing my ideas will not accept it as he indicated with RadioShack1234 even though he accepts it from Bowyers and he does not point out in his huge submissions on Bowyer that his certainly does not self-replicate, nothing derogatory at all yet he changes the name to "Self-replicating rapid prototypers". Wait until they self-replicate first please, because it is my professional opinion and other seasoned experts I have talked it over with at length that they won't (which is being censored by him and other bias editors in talk). Talk should not be blocked ever! The politically correct can go bunk.

Further, on the case of the "trolley car means" it is clear that I patented it first, it did not exist prior, and was later stolen by Freitas at NIAC so anything stated in Freitas and Merkle's book "Kinematic Self-replicating machines" must be discredited upon the clear lie (and copyright infringement) that it clearly is. to say von Neumann's writings disclosed any form of working self-replicator, particularly like mine is absolutely ludicrous. Also if you accept Hod Lipson's device as a "self-replicator" or "limited self-replicator", 90% of that device was in my patents including the trolley car means, then the F-Unit system does exist by another's hand, right? So it certainly does exist in the hands of my competitors. And even if you don't think it "independently" self-replicates (which it does) the claims on the trolley car means still hold even if the rest of the patent might be thrown out (which I'm told by top patent lawyers, again and again it won't be), Freitas and Merkle notwithstanding.

Further, why SteveBaker do you delete the comment in Frietas and Merkle's site about this huge worldwide dispute from their articles without putting in at least something on it? This on this subject that you should know is more important than any other? Bias, that's why. Britney Spears gets multutudes more and I resent it in spades, and should. In the F-unit article it is a bias representation because it does not give at least one or two quotes in the Wikipedia article itself, not just linked to my site about my side of the argument... no? So quit spouting off on me please. If you are going to do an article do it right!

It is Hod Lipson who played the immigration card not I. And if I had left the "aas" out that bothered you so much, which he actually spoke, I would have been left open to quoting out of context, right? If Hod Lipson plays the immigration card as he assails capitalism it is news, right?

As to Adrian Bowyer in particular, I sent him a friendly email before I ever started the "independent operability" article, trying to offer him a reasonable license on the conductive trace placement method after I saw him going through all the soft metals like I did in the 90s but he attacked me and the patent as the evil capitalist American. This is fact. If he ever did produce the conductive traces without infringing my patent it still would not matter because he will never produce windings, bushings, brushes in the stepper motors nor the multitudes of delicate parts in the electronics in the control section. Also he will only be able to produce narrow objects because without well known hardening aspects needed in the guide rods and gear mechanisms not to mention high tolerance machining and metal aloying under high temperatures it will just not work, can't work, ever. Therefore it is my professional opinion that no rapid prototyper such as adrian Bowyer's is pursuing will ever self-replicate as much as a percentage as even F-Units minus the coils (8%) will. This even if you do dispute coil replication which my new methods do that I hold in trade secret until the system can be made safe and marketable. That does not mean that F-Units did not self-replicate as a pure science first. I admit, they are not usefull in their present form to the public for sale, but will be with proper funding which is being interfered with by these nasty players in the game. It is not that I think RepRap class science is at all not valuable, it is... and I've said that repeatedly. I took up home fabrications in my patents. It just is not a self-replicating device and never will be and needs to be in that well drawn article Rapid prototyping. I have brought these points up, time after time in talk and they are not debated but ignored.

Also, I am a lead guitar player and my innovative skills developed through that and knowledge of programming and electronics coming from studio recording and sound reinforcement. I brached from there into self-replicators, something I always wanted to do as a child so I am scoffed at by university wonks who know nothing of the ways of hands on "on the job training". Too Bad. I talk like a musician and so do my editors that like me it seems. So, that does not make them all sockpuppets. Making fun of innovative abilities such as musicianship by Buckley is another reason why things blew up at the Self-Replicator talk. I am afraid to put my music out less it be stolen seeing how $600.00 hour lawyers could not protect my patent from NASA and Cornell. Stuff is being stolen from me right and left.

All the stories about inventors being kidnapped comes from this case and I have plenty of court papers to back up that the government wants my technology and will stop at nothing to get it and there is a whole store of rich and notable material great for Wikipedia consumption yet untapped of note on that. But I only get into that once my name is clean in the public eye. In short it is not a rude comment to say that so far Wikipedia has done a pretty low order job of this article on me. No attack, just fact.

The reason this article is fighting over whether self-replication exists or not is in the changed definition from "independent operability" to silly: "Self-replicating machine" because Buckley attacks the term because it was used by the patent office in deliniating my self-replicator in my patent claims. This is absurd. If the article was called "Independent operability" as it was at first then we could encompas self-replicators not made by man and point that out as described. But now the article is a mess, spawning term disputes. I told you so.

If anyone reading this disagrees say so. We can talk it out. Don't just delete or vandalize and call me names.

Charles Michael Collins

out indent

Nothing is being done about it because you refuse to follow our rules. I realize you must be very upset, why don't you take it to court? Wikipedia, as stated so many times before, is not a battle ground. We have rules regarding civilty. You were blocked because you broke them over and over and over again and showed no signs of stopping, or that you even cared the rules were in place. We have rules here, whether you like them or not, if you don't follow them, you will be blocked, as you have been.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 03:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)