Talk:Self-replicating machine: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:52, 11 July 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Self-replicating machine article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Robotics Unassessed

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Robotics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Robotics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.RoboticsWikipedia:WikiProject RoboticsTemplate:WikiProject RoboticsRobotics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1	Archive 2	Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Interwiki

Please enter: pt:Máquina auto-replicadora into this article. Thank you Brunonar (talk) 03:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FUCK YOU STINKING PUTRID NIGGERS, SPICKS JEWS AND OTHER LEFT WING STEALING FUCKING MURDERINF DIRT RABBLE... THAT'S ALL YOU ARE FUCK GOOD FOR STOP YOUR FUCKING LIES!

Edit request from Biffta, 26 April 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Suggesting that we add Short Circuit to the Fiction section. The 1986 Science Fiction epic where in a scene close to the end the main star; Number five constructs an exact replica of himself from spare parts to aid his escape from the chasing (bad guys) NovaRobotics!

Biffta (talk) 17:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the bit from Short Circuit (movie) is a fictional example of self-replication. But I'm concerned that the fiction section is in danger of becoming bloated. There comes a point with sections like this where there are enough examples that we don't want to list them all. IMHO, if we aren't going to comprehensively list them all (and that could become a LONG list) then we should restrict ourselves to a small number of the best examples - and I don't think the example in Short Circuit is a particularly good one because the duplicate Johnny-Five is not a sentient robot like the 'real' one - and it's not clear that it has any actual software in it at all. It behaves just like all of it's motors were hard-wired to full-speed-forwards. Also, Johnny-Five makes his duplicate from a truckload of ready-built spare parts - which is really cheating. I'm reminded of the fact that the UniMate robot factory uses UniMate robots to assemble UniMate robots. We don't generally treat that as an example of self-replication because the parts being assembled are such "high level" components.

We have had this kind of 'bloat' problem with fiction sections of articles of many kinds - and some WikiProjects have developed rules about this. The WikiProject:Automobiles group came up with a standard that says (essentially) that for a mention like this to be included, it must be shown that the fictional work had an effect on the real thing. So, for example, many people who work for NASA say they did so because they became fascinated with Star Trek as kids...so that's a valid reason for including Star Trek in the fiction section of (let's say) Spaceflight. But where there is no such backwards-influence - there is no reason to include the fictional example into the real example's article.

Since the list we currently have is rather long already - I wonder if it's time to apply some kind of similar criterion.

SteveBaker (talk) 18:25, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. I have cancelled this semi-protected edit request, as clearly, it would need discussion towards consensus (not a quick "change THIS to THAT").

I suggest that someone considers creating a separate article on Self-replicating machines in fiction, and uses Summary style. Best, Chzz ► 19:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter

In order to make this page editable by all again, like it once was before banned user Fraberj (talk · contribs) showed up, I propose the addition of an edit filter to stop CMC. The rules of the filter would of course be kept private, but it would prevent him from editing this article, while allowing others to edit it so that semi-protection isn't needed. Thoughts?

As an aside, I'm already in talks with an edit filter manager about this. It would cost nothing concerning preformance.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am very interested and supportive of such effort. Let me know what I can do to help. William R. Buckley (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure.. go for it. Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:21, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how edit filters work - but if it looks promising, I'm all for it. SteveBaker (talk) 16:22, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It has now been activated.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. William R. Buckley (talk) 12:15, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new filter has been modified to account for his recent petty vandalism. Please email me for the filter number, and I'll give you the link to access the log.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Admin help

This talk page's article now has a filter so that it cannot be modified by a banned user. Can the protection please be removed so that editing by all others can resume?— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected. --Step hen 05:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 15: / Line 15: @@
 Thank you [[User:Brunonar|Brunonar]] ([[User talk:Brunonar|talk]]) 03:56, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
+FUCK YOU STINKING PUTRID NIGGERS, SPICKS JEWS AND OTHER LEFT WING STEALING FUCKING MURDERINF DIRT RABBLE... THAT'S ALL YOU ARE FUCK GOOD FOR STOP YOUR FUCKING LIES!
-== Recent deletion of F-Units. ==
-While I disagree with the deletion of F-Units from the article, I can well understand why this is being done; I concur with the effort to minimise vandalism committed by others.  [[User:William R. Buckley|William R. Buckley]] ([[User talk:William R. Buckley|talk]]) 04:07, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
-I actually agree with it.  The original section was created as a means of compromise ...  however, I don't see how that ever happened, given that the section met no policy or guideline.  CMC is banned, and wikipedia is not his soapbox, or his free ad space.  I see no reason the section should be re-added, and I saw no reason why it should ever remain.— '''[[User:Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Dæ</font>]][[User talk:Daedalus969|<font color="Blue">dαlus</font>]]<sup> [[Special:Contributions/Daedalus969|<font color="Green">Contribs</font>]]</sup>''' 05:29, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
-I agree as well.  Although I suspect there will be the occasional sock-burst over it.  [[User:Guyonthesubway|Guyonthesubway]] ([[User talk:Guyonthesubway|talk]]) 14:26, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
-: I removed the section '''solely''' because it has gone unreferenced for far too long.  At this point there is zero prospect of ever getting an acceptable reference for this information.  There are only four things we know for sure about F-units:
-:# There is a patent about them.  However, it is a well established guideline that Wikipedia cannot accept a patent as a proof of anything that the patent says...all it proves is that the patent exists and that the author said whatever he said.  The patent (by itself) isn't enough to prove that F-units are even notable.  We certainly don't have Wikipedia articles (or even sections) about every patented gizmo on the planet.  What makes this one any different?
-:# There is about a paragraph about F-units in a book that rounds up every single reference/mention/anything about self-replication, including real technical advances as well as fictional and fraudulent claims of self-replication.  Collins says that that section of the book on F-units is incorrect and he's even threatened to sue the authors because of it.  So this is clearly not a useful reference for F-units - by either Wikipedia OR Collins' standards.
-:# Collins has created a web site - which is very much [[WP:OR]] and therefore totally inadmissible as a Wikipedia reference.  It doesn't really tell you anything substantive or show pictures or video of these things actually self-replicating so it's no kind of proof that these things really exist and/or work as claimed.
-:# We know that Collins is a persistent Wikipedia vandal and sock-puppeteer and has a permanent ban from this site for breaking everything from [[WP:NPA]], [[WP:NLT]], [[WP:COI]], [[WP:SOCK]], [[WP:3RR]]...and much more besides.  Crucially: That shouldn't affect what we choose to write (or not write) about F-units in the slightest - either way.
-: None of those things justify the existence of this section in our article.  Collins could prove his claims very simply with a media demonstration of an F-unit replicating itself.  If that happened, it would be an earth-shattering event.  We'd have plenty to write about because there would be plenty of acceptable 3rd party references.  The fact he has failed to do so is a strong indication that this is all 'vaporware'.
-: '''TIMING:''' I really wish we'd removed this section sooner (a year or more ago) so there would not be the ''appearance'' of it being removed as a revenge act against a persistent vandal (which I assure you, it is not).  But on the other hand, removal of that section is long overdue.  Should we allow the persistent vandalism of the article and this talk page to cause us to retain this section when Wikipedia guidelines say we should remove it?  When '''would''' be a good time to delete it?  If we wait until the vandalism stops before remove it - then Collins' persistent appalling and unprofessional ill behavior can only be encouraged.  '''We cannot allow the actions of a banned user to interfere with the proper creation of Wikipedia articles - period.'''
-: So I maintain that my edit is a valid and long-overdue one.
-: If anyone has an acceptable reference for the facts stated in the section I removed - then I'll be first in line to reinstate this section.
-: [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 18:13, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
-::Regarding how the F-Units section was ever included, it is likely a result of my early efforts to bring consensus.  It now appears to have done little more than embolden vandalism.  I don't see the removal as an effort of revenge.  Rather, it is a matter of having a stable, clear, well written, and complete article that does not need constant protection, and is consistent with WP guidelines.  It is true that over time, I have come to understand much better the goals and procedures of Wikipedia, and other editors can probably see some change in the nature and quality of my edits.  If better (usable) references become known to me, I'll bring the references to the attention of other editors, by means of a message on the talk page.  [[User:William R. Buckley|William R. Buckley]] ([[User talk:William R. Buckley|talk]]) 22:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
-:::...And I don't blame you for adding it.  I might well have done the same thing under the same circumstances.  In this kind of article, it's sometimes necessary to say something that's unreferenced and hope that someone is able to come along later and add a reference.  However, we're not supposed to do that for 'controversial' facts - and even if uncontroversial, such edits should be removed if no references show up after a reasonable amount of time.  The "non-controversial" standard is kinda key here.  Aside from one man's claims - we actually have zero information...and now it's one man who we know will stop at nothing to keep this section written the way HE wants it.  That's pretty much as controversial as it gets.  [[User:SteveBaker|SteveBaker]] ([[User talk:SteveBaker|talk]]) 23:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
-::::Thoroughly agreed, no question of it.  Thanks for all your help, and the help of Daedelus, and that from Guyonthesubway. [[User:William R. Buckley|William R. Buckley]] ([[User talk:William R. Buckley|talk]]) 04:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
 == Edit request from Biffta, 26 April 2010 ==