User talk:William R. Buckley

Administrators: The constant harassment of my User Talk page by Charles Michael Collins, and his involvement of other parties, such as by inclusion of name, location, and means of contact for expectedly disinterested third parties, makes protection of this user page necessary. As I have not sufficient familiarity with creation of an alternative User Talk page, and a desire to protect these posts of Charles Michael Collins (for posterity and other reasons), I request your assistance with creating such alternative User Talk page, so as to promote legitimate contact by other Wikipedians. Thank You. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:57, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello William R. Buckley, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! DES ^(talk) 02:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

APL - Yeah, baby!

You wrote (on my talk page):

Mr. Siegel:

It is nice to know that there remains a professional APL programmer. When I was 12 years of age, I had the very fortunate experience of living near an IBM beta test site (the Coast Community College District) which had a policy of providing to interested parties (we were known as squirrels) with access to their computer system (in 1972, a 370/155 with 1MByte of semiconductor RAM). At the time, they supported 256 terminals, running STSC APL*PLUS. John Clark was one of my teachers. William R. Buckley 02:41, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I am glad to hear it. My intro to APL was around 1975, when the Sate University of New York had a terminal system accessible to students adn faculty (my father taught at SUNY/Oneonta). It used APL/360. I used APL to do stat work for one of his papers. Then I encounterd APL again at Michigan State University, and then again when i got a job in APL. I was lookign for a programmign job at the time, and listed all laguages I ahd evern worked in on my resume. I was asked if i could pass a technical in APL. "When i said" "In a week" was the response. I went out and got a used copy of APL2 at a glance by Polivka and Brown, and studied for a week. Later I got to know Ray Polivka, and enjoyed telling him how he got me my job (which i still have, through 3 changes of corporate ownership).

Ther are still quite a few APL professionals around, and I just got the latest issue of APL Quote Quad in the mail last week. Thanks for your note, and again welcome to wikipedia. DES ^(talk) 02:56, 23 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removing parts of Talk:Core War

Please do not remove parts of talk pages. It is considered vandalism. --Dijxtra 11:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm... now, you are right, i too can't find where it says that it's vandalism. Now, I'll go and ask at the Help Desk and ask is it OK to delete parts of talk pages (there, I asked) and if they tell me it's OK, then I'll apologise. --Dijxtra 00:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There. I recieved this answer: "I found your answer in guideline form: archive don't delete and deleting others' comments is not acceptable. Deleting or editing the comments of others is seen as misrepresenting them. [...]" Therefore, don't remove parts of talk pages. --Dijxtra 11:36, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: John von Neumann

It does not fit in with other articles in this category: 3D Life, Block cellular automaton, Cellular automaton, Cellular image processing, Codd's cellular automaton, Conway's Game of Life, Day & Night, to name but a few. Generally speaking, the CA category appears to be divided between examples of cellular automata (Immigration (CA), QuadLife, Rule 110 cellular automaton) and terms related to cellular automata (Garden of Eden pattern, Gun (CA), Oscillator (CA)) - to such an extent that it might be best to divide this category into two subcategories. What you don't find in this category, however, are people who have contributed to cellular automata, regardless of their distinction. What we can do, however - I'll be glad to contribute, and it'd be nice if you helped to - is possibly create a subcategory, "Scientists who have made a major contribution to cellular automata" (or, for preference, a shorter name, if you can come up with one), and in this category place Mr von Neumann. Tell me what you think. — Itai (talk) 13:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cellular Automaton

Hello - first off, let me acknowledge that I am no expert on (and in fact have very little knowledge of) the Cellular automaton field. My task (as it related to this article) is to prevent and remove spamming (WP:SPAM). When the same or very similar external links and other potentially promotional-type material is added to multiple articles by one editor, it violates these guidelines and is subject to removal.

However, if a neutral editor later comes by and decides the link is useful, I have no issue with it being re-added. As far as I'm concerned, it's no longer spam then. If you find the link and/or reference to be useful, please feel free to re-add it in. Bear in mind though that the references section really ought to be for references that were used to write the article. Other relevent material should go in a section entitled "External links" (if it is only links) or "Further reading" (if it contains a mixture of links and non-links). See the Wikipedia Manual of Style (WP:MOS) for further information on this.

Regarding the question of creating a list link of non-citational (WP:CITE) material, and the question of re-naming the article, the talk page of that article is likely the best place to hash them out. As I mention above I really have no knowledge in the field, and am not in a position to make any sort of judgement call on them.

Please let me know if you have any other questions and concerns that I may be able to assist with. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA

FA=Featured Article].--Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 07:41, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response from FF

Please do not take umbrage!! It was just a careless mistake. I was simply trying to think up a way to consolidate the introductory paragraph a little bit and could not come up with anything better. Your reasonong is perfectly just. I will revert it ASAP, if you have not already. There's absolutely no desire to take any credit away from von Neumann on my part!! --Francesco Franco aka Lacatosias 06:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial life

I would have thought that artificial consciousness is a subset of artificial life. This view is certainly being resisted at Talk:Artificial life. What say you? Paul Beardsell 21:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also: It does not seem right to me that the artificial life article defines AL as being the study of artificial life. You have seen I have run into resistance here. I note that I have made exactly the same point at artificial intelligence and it was readily accepted. Opinion? Paul Beardsell 21:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Central Coast and RepRap

William: I'm not at SLO, but about 180 km up the coast at Pacific Grove. My son attends UCSB so I get to travel through SLO regularly when I drive down to see him. I love the town. Wish I could justify moving down there.

I'm extremely familiar with Bowyer's reprap project since I'm on the project team (ref Forrest Higgs). I've recently spun off an American approach to the idea which emphasises bootstrapping into the technology from nothing but a description instead of just waiting for somebody to print you up a copy. You can see what I'm up to at...

http://www.3DReplicators.com

Cut me a little slack when you browse it, though. I only bought the domain just before Christmas and am trying to crank out content for the site while doing a day job AND finishing up my Tommelise bootstrap replicator.

Plaasjaapie 17:59, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging UC with vNUC

Hi William, just to say I have transferred your comments on the merging to the discussion page of the Universal Constructor article. - CharlesC 18:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Uh, why did you undo my edit to John von Neumann? I was disambiguating an ambiguous link. Please be more careful with your reverts. Dylan 08:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Joint effort

Jay:

I have a proposal for you. It is clear that you have strong interest in nomenclature, and it is probably the case that no papers have been written to address the issue. Artificia life/ALife/Alife/alife and perhaps other forms are to be found in extant literature. Might you be interested to jointly pen a paper, an argument for selection of form? William R. Buckley 20:52, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think that would be interesting. There is certainly alot of ambiguity when it comes to term use, even from the same source. --Numsgil 11:13, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John von Neumann

Your message to my talk page does not assume good faith, its tone is strange, and it misrepresents my edits to the von Neumann article. Von Neumann was born to a non-practicing Jewish family. This information belongs in his biography section, not in the lead, and not under the "religion" tab of his infobox, as it doesn't say anything to his religion. According to biographies of von Neumann, he was non-religious, until he was dying, at which point he took heed of Pascal's wager and converted to Roman Catholocism. Robert K S 07:04, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John von Neumann edits

Tom, it is not clear to me why you modified the reference to what I expect is an historical fact - circumcision. For me, the article should contain all facts pertinent to the person of John von Neumann. That he engaged in behavior now frowned upon, if not during his lifetime, seems not so insulting of the person. John von Neumann was as colorful as he was capable, and I tend to disagree with editors who remove information of this kind. In that respect, the edit you made seems more to limit knowledge transfer to the reader, than any other consideration. So, I would like to understand your justification.

I do not know much about the students of John von Neumann, though I seem to recall there having been only one. Thus, I am not particularly concerned with this edit, as other editors will surely support you in keeping this part of the article accurate. William R. Buckley 22:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is mentioning that he had a "ritual circumcision" relevant to the article? Is that sourced and how does that add to the article? Was he also left handed? We don't add every "fact" about an individual to a bio unless it has some relevance/significance. Also, what "behavior now frowned upon" are you reffering to? I see that the article mentions some unsourced material that I will be removing shortly but can you be more specific? --Tom 13:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Von Neumann Universal Constructor

Actually, I was doing routine cleanup duty (the {{technical}} template is designed to be placed on a talk page, not the article page, and some templates flag themselves when they aren't on the talk page). - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 20:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the subject enough to make recommendations. (The technical flag wasn't originally placed by me.) - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 22:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Latest von Neumann edits

Thanks for your message.

I'm not familiar with the biographical material on this subject, and my edits were just for an improved read. I didn't add anything, and I hope I didn't upset the citations.

No issue from me if a revert is in order.--Shtove 21:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cal Poly

Yes, I see the edit. I'm not sure what the point of that change was, but I don't think I should change it back. Perhaps some battles are best left un-fought? Basar 06:48, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Legal threats

Hi. Please do not discuss possible legal action on-Wiki ^[1], it is not permitted. Please restrict such discoruse to another venue. Thank you. El_C 08:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but that is a clear violation of Wikipedia:No legal threats. Specifically "If you make legal threats, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other than legal channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding." If you choose to withdraw the the threat then you may be un-blocked. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 12:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

William R. Buckley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

CambridgeBayWeather has failed to respond to a direct email appeal.

Decline reason:

Blocked because of a legal threat. No evidence that you have unconditionally withdrawn the legal threat. If you have, please resubmit your unblock request and state so. — Yamla 20:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

William R. Buckley (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

CambridgeBayWeather has the email from me wherein I state that the legal action is dropped. Frankly, this should have been obtained by other editors from CambridgeBayWeather: the evidence is contained within the inbox of CambridgeBayWeather. I you asked him, you would have found the statement of withdrawal. Not only have I withdrawn this statement but, your block has prevented me from removing the statements from Wikipedia talk pages. In short, the actions to block me have prevented me from removing the offending statements. That they remain is entirely the fault of Wikipedia administrators, not me. If the warning from user *El C* had been allowed to reach me, I would have removed the statements before CambridgeBayWeather acted. However, understand that I shall only use my editor to remove the offending statements. I SHALL NEVER AGAIN CONCERN MYSELF WITH THE CONTENT OF WIKIPEDIA, AND SHALL NEVER EDIT ANOTHER WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE. Wikipedia has lost this editor for ever. William R. Buckley 23:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

User is not asking to be unblocked. — Yamla 23:10, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

{{unblock|I did not understand that you require these words: Please, unblock my account. That I rescind the offending remarks has already been stated. Frankly, I would have thought that the statement to rescind was enough. You asked me to resubmit a request, and so state the withdrawal of the offensive remark. That was done. Yet, the block was not removed. I followed your instructions, apparently to no avail. That requirements for unblocking of my account have changed is abusive. William R. Buckley 00:11, 25 October 2007 (UTC)}}[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

On behalf of my colleagues, sorry for the bureaucratic-ness-essnesses. Note that unblocking is also conditional to adhering with personal attacks and civility policies. Good luck!

Request handled by: El_C 00:19, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My warning was somewhat invalid. I was pointed out that, according to the policy, any legal threats prompts blocking on sight, with no warning. El_C 00:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies for not seeing your request earlier. I had been unable to access the email account until today. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 21:55, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== Response to von Neumann diagrams on Self-replicating machine talk page:

I enjoyed looking over the drawings you purveyed. With your permission I would retain one copy for my files to study. I may have questions later after further very careful review. Before I spend much time on them, are they of a contemplated actual self-replicating device that does so completely (with all the small parts) or only software self-replication? In 1997 and 1998 when my patents were allowed those drawings in that form were clearly not around. At least published openly. I know this because I have the search results, including the world PCT search done prior to patenting then and von Neumann was contemplated in the prior art searches.

Also, the additions made by you to von Neumann's older work here or others were not extant then and von Neuman's device alone was not able to be devised from his writings then. Further, it certainly is a very different device than mine even if it would get the same results, ultimately... it is a different means indeed. Also it seems with your drawing abilities that you would know that the drawings I sent you of F-units constituted "enabling" drawings without question. I think both you and I know I had a self-replicator then and was first to do so. So, please indicate it by adding it in the F-Unit article or at least opinion on the drawings. As a scientist you due me that respect. At the very least remove that offending last paragraph done by absurd Wikipedia editors as no proof of such exists and certainly is not sourced at all. Maybe after my F-Unit article is fair we could have time for further constructive talks instead of fighting at silly Wikipedia. I'm getting funded soon at CIT and have a private investor on-line who will pay to bring a Cornell type device into production for sale as an educational toy protected by my patent (the trolley car feature). I might need someone like you to assist in this planning. Thank you very much.

Charles Michael Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.11.79 (talk) 11:42, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this relate, at all to any hardware that can actually be implemented? If so why did you even present it in a discussion on possible prior art to F-Units? Other editors here may see it as such and do wrong edit changes. Charles C. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.114.28.53 (talk) 07:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest and original Research

Please be aware of the following Wikipeida policies and guidelines.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest#How to avoid COI edits

original research#Citing oneself

(reply) within Wikipedia, 'my ignorance' should not be a factor - when reading the article, each claim and analysis should be clearly linked to the source and there should be no doubt as to whether the claim is from the source or the Wikipedia editor who added the material. Because of the open nature of Wikipedia, more thorough citation is needed to maintain verfiability than is generally required in printed formats.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the paragraph you quoted on my talk page is from a reliable published source, then, no, I would not object to Self-replicating machine#Partial Construction including material about 'similarity to zygotes' as long as the material in the article accurately reflects the published material and that the published material is appropriately tied to the statements that appear in the article, either through a <:ref> footnote or textually ("the paper/author further suggests ...."). My concern was that the analysis in the article was not clearly sourced to the published material and appeared likely to be a violation of WP:SYN.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ps - While the usage was grammatically correct in this instance, generally calling out people's 'ignorance' on their talk page is not a great way to build camaraderie with your fellow editors. TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 17:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Partial construction

An article that you have been involved in editing, Partial construction, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Partial construction. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Ripe (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE JvN and IAS

I got your note and have been mulling it over. For me the sentence works best as it stands but I certainly have no objection to your adding "located" if you think that works better. While PU and IAS are different entities, they are associated in peoples minds and there is certainly a cross germination among their faculties. JvN's move from one to the other would not have entailed any great change in life style.

By the way, I tend to agree with you on Macrae. Until, and if, the definitive bio is written, Macrae, for all his inadequacies, remains the best source.RandomTool2 (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Ripe

Hiya. I haven't been following the dispute between you two users, so I can't comment, but please don't revert users removing comments from their own talk page, as you did here. Users are entirely allowed to remove comments from their own talk pages as they wish, per WP:BLANKING. If he edited your post that would be a different matter, but Ripe is breaking no policy by removing those comments, so please do not revert any further. If you have any questions, do feel free to contact me, either here or on my talk page. Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 17:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Automata vs. automaton

My edit was purely grammatical, not technical: automaton is singular; automata is plural, as indicated on Cellular automaton. That's how the terms are used on the rest of the page in question (Von Neumann universal constructor). It's also how von Neumann used them on pg. 92 of Theory of Self-Reproducing Automata. (Automatons is also a valid plural, according to dictionaries, but it's not generally used on those pages.) Do you have an independent source for the technical distinction you're making between automaton and automata? Davemck (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

John von Neumann

If you look at my edit, what I did was assembled together the responses (by an IP, probably Joseph) that had previously been interspersed and injected into my remarks. Robert K S (talk) 20:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of your comments

I'm putting this here as a datapoint for you and for others, that the tone of your comments has often been unfriendly, to put it mildly. You have made rude, personal attacks [2] (later you attempted to hide the evidence [3] or were you regretting what you'd said?), you have been sarcastic [4] (not a crime in itself!), and you have deliberately revealed personal information about me that was previously anonymous [5][6]. Please see http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines, specifically http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable if you are in any doubt about the social rules that govern our behaviour here. You've been around here long enough to know what is tolerated - and I should have spoken up earlier. I don't want to take these matters any further; I'm sure you're perfectly capable of being pleasant, and I'm not so concerned about my anonymity here. But if you've ever wondered why I haven't responded to a question or a suggestion, this might be the reason. Whatever our disagreements about the content of Wikipedia articles let's have a civil discussion in future. Ferkel (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ontogeny and embryology

Hi, I am afraid I am not sure what you are referring to on my talk page, can you provide a link? Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 13:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that was two years ago. That was part of an article improvement drive and in the end it did not gain sufficient votes to support the article improvement request. Since the vote went against the petition, it has been a moot issue since I posted the comment in 2006. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alsao, concerning your own comment, "the ontogeny article is a bit biocentric, and should include acknowledgment of this additional meaning and usage" - anyone can edit Wikipedia, as lopng as they conform to our core content policies of WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:NOR. As long as there are notable views that ontogeny applies to these other areas, and these views are found in reliable sources, no one will object to an editor adding them in. But I am not the right person as I know nothing about embryology or ontogeny, and do not have the time to research either topic. Hopefully other editors who do know the scientific literature or who have access and are willing to do the research, and who are committed to NPOV, V and NOR, will work on the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of William R. Buckley

A tag has been placed on William R. Buckley requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

You can put your papers on your user page instead of course. Ferkel (talk) 10:59, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am Charles Michael Collins and I strongly object to anything by William R. Buckley on his work be added because I, as his competitor was not allowed to do the same and was blocked thereto... so was Buckley for making legal threats against me which has not been resolved which initiated a flame war yet somehow he always manages to end up unblocked all the other complaints on him notwithstanding as well. I don't claim nor would ever want to be an "editor" here but it would seem I would be given a fair article which is not the case and is the only reason I am about here anyway because I don't want to be here as much as Wikipedia does not want me with my big evil patent. When all is said and done in plain English, Buckley's technology deals with "eggs" of a self-replicator. This is not particularly notable in my view, all his lovely scribing and evoking of thermodynamics speak notwithstanding. If a smart editor would like to take up reexamining this case in depth I will take the time to diff all of Buckley's antics, but before I take the time I would have to ascertain that something ethical is afoot without the shock jock politics or the like. Also last time I checked one would need to buy Buckley's "source" material linked to view it which is self serving and obstructs free examination of source thereto, amongst a thousand or so other reasons.

Charles Michael Collins

(maker of the first actual self-replicating machine [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.31.15 (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Charles, the mere fact of your complaints regarding me is a potential source of lift to my fame, and therefore to the likelihood of a biography about me becoming placed in Wikipedia. William R. Buckley (talk) 07:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Such an event will certainly not be appreciated by the likes of Ferkel. Do you really want to get him upset at you, too? William R. Buckley (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As usual Buckley, you as a so-called "Wikipedia editor" take up matters that are of no importance to well written articles nor self-replicator facts and it would seem that you would know by now that I do not care in the least at what the rabble has to say or think. Being an innovator I am and always will be a peculiarity to other absurdities at hand. I simply pose the opportunity for some rare media bird that does not care more for self and the marketing of chaos or the minutes of the Bilderberg meetings to do their job properly and to produce an accurate and well drawn article upon facts other that those that present sensationalism or skewed political views. That has never been and most likely never will be you nor of any of the mainstream media zombies.

As for your concern as to what I had to say above you clearly started the trouble and admitted it and I am also certain that the other wikis well know it and so do I and I copied and archived all of it and further so does the public at large know of it. Such remains a reputational stain that won't go away easily any time soon, it seems. The cloud of lies lives on and I do not side with it as it is destructive. This also goes for the scientific community as exists in colleges and the like and the public's perception of their activities and the questionable reputation of the reliability of the "peer review" process not to mention the idiocy of very many so called "professors" these days as they get further and further behind the curve upon self-replicator technology.

I spend my time working in the lab and pop up here from time to time but do not value lovely wordings over hard work and research hands on in the lab and A to B thinking patterns. To that I am not wasting much time doing the minor subject to replicator configuration to be a writer or editor here. That is your and your colleague's job in the broader media not mine. Besides, being the "bad boy of the media upon the media" is a reputation that has carried me very far and fostered many real friends. Notice is notice regardless of who notices nonetheless. In short, I am cause, not effect unlike the other lemurs running off the cliff of media insanity.

My F-units are serving my own personal needs these days towards life extension and much else, thank you very much but my interests in disseminating the technology has been attenuated by the multiplicities of hazards of doing so not to mention Hod Lipson's recent self-serving propensity to designate that self-replicator development exists only upon a continuum to water down my work after stealing my trolley car means for himself... not to further mention ranting about "illegal immigrants" in one of his vids on replicators exposing an inferiority complex of sorts. You guys are still struggling with a definition it would seem (and Von Neumann aspects still bore me to tears). By the way Cornell University was served an assertion letter, thereto by my legal team. Gee, I awaited your summons Mr. Buckley on your threatened lawsuit... what happened? Cold feet?

As you well know my definition has been from the start and always will be its degree of independence as set forth in my first patent many years before self-replicator science was “cool”. But one lives and learns. A serial replicator is available to my needs if I was to grow more politically inclined but if I were it would be for the better good, I would suppose. Such would certainly remain a wild card snake pit but so it will be when one of you guys comes about. For that I retain my countermeasure technologies.

By the way, I spoke with Seven of Nine on MySpace about a part in my Musical War in the Nanosphere (no promises) and Michael Troy of Yngwie Malmsteen has cut some tracks thereto and so will be Circa of Yes fame. I've had several offers to go on radio but have turned them down finding them annoying considering the quality of the personalities I have to contend with. Notwithstanding, things are looking very well thank you, amongst those of us who are real.

Charles Michael Collins —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.31.15 (talk) 08:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In passing, you guys are rather mean spirited blocking Rich Bourque RadioShack1234, he's just a kid getting started in the tech/media world and is not a puppet, behold his Facebook site he has up with pics etc: [8] and you can meet him at any time at the Radio Shack at Potomac Mills Mall or call him there at: 703-490-3222. Oh, and by the way, a mechanic who is my friend named Greg can ascertain the trolley-car method and read claim 65 in my patent and see how the Cornell replicator infringes yet you put up that ridiculous demagogue a site... like I expected of my tech instead, tisk... tisk... politics, politics! And people wonder how a guy like me gets a name around here! Chaz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.24.155 (talk) 03:49, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: William R. Buckley

Hi Willam R. Buckley! Please note that the main criterion for inclusion on Wikipedia is verifiability, which means that articles about a real person without providing any sources are usually deleted. Granted, not all of these articles satisfy the criteria for speedy deletion. I am of the opinion that the article you created did satisfy the A7 criterion, because there was no clear indication from the text of the article that the subject was notable, or why he might be notable. Aside from the speedy deletion criteria, there are several policies and guidelines strongly discouraging you from writing about yourself, such as the guideline for autobiographies and What Wikipedia is Not. Please do not re-create the article unless you are absolutely certain that it meets Wikipedia's notability and verifiability policies. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually assuming all of the points about you that you provided are true, I would definitely say that an article about you would not satisfy the notability guideline, which states that: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article. In simple terms, it means that a significant number of notable publications wrote articles about you specifically (not ones that mentioned you in passing).

However, you don't need to negotiate with me at all. I do not own Wikipedia or its content, and only have the technical tools to delete articles. If you can create an article about yourself that does not violate Wikipedia policies and guidelines, feel free to do so (although again, assuming you read the guidelines I linked to above, it's better not to write about yourself at all). Online references in English especially go a long way to help other Wikipedians decide on the notability of a subject, so try to use those as much as possible.

Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:37, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! As I said before, Wikipedia works on the basis of verifiability, i.e. external sources. For subjects of borderline notability, it especially helps to find online sources. You should be looking for such sources about yourself before trying to establish notability, because sometimes even articles about clearly notable figures are torpedoed because of a lack of reliable sources to confirm the information they contain. Good luck! -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 12:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mealy Machine

Note: this comment is part of a synchronised thread. You can reply by clicking the [edit] link next to the comment's heading, or following this link. To ensure that you can see any further responses I make, add this page to your watchlist. Once you have replied, feel free to remove this boilerplate.

I am concerned with the edit to remove statements regarding the nature of finite state automata. Clearly, no state machine has an infinite number of states (if only because from the practical point of view, man does not live long enough to define an infinite machine). Hence, the edit seems a bit confused. Might you take a moment to clarify (at least for me) the point you are trying to make, and the accuracy of the edit you made? Some relevant references would be useful. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my edit had nothing to do with in/finiteness. I merely wanted to emphasize that the Mealy machine is a transducer, because it produces an output string rather than merely moving from state to state. Karl Dickman ^talk 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see; then you will perhaps not mind some minor adjustment (should I still think it necessary) in this relation. Still, when I've completed, would you mind terribly reviewing any edit? Thanks you much for the clarification. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:50, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, about the synchronised thread, thank you for the introduction. William R. Buckley (talk) 18:51, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're edits are entirely correct. It took me a while to figure out exactly what was meant by both versions. The real point of the difference between a Mealy machine and a Moore machine is that the Mealy machine generates its output based on the sequence of transitions that occur when processing some input, whereas the Moore machine generates its output based on the sequence of states that occur when processing some input. Come to think of it, I think that contrasting Moore's and Mealy's models is perhaps a little tangential for the introduction. Perhaps it should be moved into the body of the article? Karl Dickman ^talk 05:11, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken identity

Hi, you seem to have mistaken one of the profs in my department for me. I'm in the Brown morph group, but I'm a student, as it says on my userpage. Plus, you can always send email directly a WP user via the "Email this user" link on the left side of the page. Mokele (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination of Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Huntington Beach High School

Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Huntington Beach High School, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Hackers Conference

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of The Hackers Conference, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.think.org/conference/about.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: The Hackers Conference

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as The Hackers Conference, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.think.org/conference/faq.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:The Hackers Conference and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:The Hackers Conference with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:The Hackers Conference.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:The Hackers Conference saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing!

I flagged this for further investigation after checking out the CorenSearchBot report above. The text still feels like a very close paraphrasing, it therefore requires additional reviewing. Cheers, MLauba (talk) 13:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

{{MLauba|The Hacker's Conference}} MLauba (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Universal constructor

Sorry about that, I don’t know too much on the subject yet, other than the rules of each state. Can you correct the details for me? Thanks. BTW is this your design:

File:Sphinx layout.gif

UC design.

Now that I’ve finally devised a time-efficient method of computing the 29-state automaton I was thinking of making an animation of the arm reading a very short strip and then retracting (across 270,000 generations) while leaving a row of cells behind at the top.

Also do you have any good information sources on the 32-state version? I can’t find information on that anywhere. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 15:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think this is an appropriate image for the Von Neumann universal constructor article? If so what do you think the subtitle should be? Also could you add an appropriate license to the image if I can have your permission to use the layout. Thanks. --Simpsons contributor (talk) 19:31, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Message to me

This is now archived at User talk:MLauba/Archive 3#The Hacker's Conference and a bit stale. MLauba (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ANI notice

Hello, William R. Buckley. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Ban of user User:Fraberj. Thank you.— Dæ dαlus ^Contribs 23:14, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your User Page

What I removed from your user page was a category that your user page should NOT be in. [[Category:School user templates]]. Your user page is not a School user template and should not be in that category. So my editing was not vandalism. Please can you remove the category. Thanks. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refer to item 14 of Wikipedia:USER#What_may_I_not_have_on_my_user_page.3F. Thanks -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:40, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy edits

I was wondering if you could weigh in on an unrelated article.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 08:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AN notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Request for help regarding banned users. Thank you..— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 06:21, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit filter request regarding CMC

Please see Talk:Self-replicating machine#Edit filter.— Dæ dαlus^Contribs 05:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobili cellular automaton, Self-replicating machine

I have substantially expanded the page on Nobili cellular automaton, and added a reference to your Automata 2008 paper. What do you think to the new format?

On another topic, an anonymous IP (no prizes for guessing who!) has continued vandalising Self-replicating machine, deleting a section of mine on Hod Lipson's / Cornell University's self-assembler on no fewer than two occasions: [9], [10].

Can we semi-protect the page so that only auto-confirmed users (I believe that most productive people with Wikipedia accounts fall into this category) can edit it?

Regards, Calcyman (talk) 12:11, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello William R. Buckley! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot notifying you on behalf of the the unreferenced biographies team that 1 of the articles that you created is currently tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 3 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

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

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 02:09, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please email me.,

Hi! Please email me ASAP at the "email this user" on my home page or directly at steve@sjbaker.org. I have something to pass on that you need to know that can't be said in public. Thanks! SteveBaker (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Golly Cellular Automata Simulator

Hello, William R. Buckley. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Golly Cellular Automata Simulator, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

edit the page
remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
save the page

Also, be sure to explain why you think the article should be kept in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you don't do so, it may be deleted later anyway.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks, Travelbird (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have contested deletion, mainly based on my personal familiarity with the topic, but can see why this was proposed for deletion. Please at least provide a reference when you create an article so that others can see that it is notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently working on two papers, one already submitted for review, and in both will be references to Golly. William R. Buckley (talk) 19:07, 15 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Renato Nobili for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Renato Nobili is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Renato Nobili until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I take the position that Renato Nobili is notable owing primarily to his alteration of the cellular automata system devised by John von Neumann. Let me make a stronger claim regarding the utility of H index as a measure of importance of an individuals contributions. Google Scholar says that my H index is 3. Not particularly noteworthy, you say? Well, with but that meager H index of 3, yet I have produced a machine of qualitatively different character as compared to all other machines ever designed. See this reference for the suitable quote:

"In clear distinction from von Neumann’s machine, where the daughter machine becomes functional only after it is fully assembled by the mother machine, Buckley’s model has the daughter machine becoming operational and taking over its own development before her assembly is completed (Buckley, 2008)."

http://books.google.com/books?id=THz_-R8BSs0C&lpg=PA59&dq=buckley%20zygote&pg=PA60#v=onepage&q=buckley%20zygote&f=false

Now, I think this statement captures clearly the value of my contribution, far more than does my h index score. Do you Lukeno94 think that the accomplishment of designing a machine that builds itself is, as justification, insufficient for inclusion within Wikipedia of an article related to the personage of the designer of said machine? Or, do you think the accomplishment itself is sufficient, regardless of H index score?

You can set any standard you like. How well that yields an encyclopedia worthy of the name is another issue entirely.William R. Buckley (talk) 17:58, 7 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of chromosome lengths for various organisms

The article List of chromosome lengths for various organisms has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A list with only one thing even in it

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Wgolf (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, William R. Buckley. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:53, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]