Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/synthetic consciousness

An article created today in parallel to artificial consciousness article because two users there didn't want to respect others who edit his article [1]. This is not a Wikipedia policy to create parallel articles. But this is not the first time when these two users did this. They should edit artificial consciousness article instead and respect the people there. Tkorrovi 17:20, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Keep --These two paradymes are common themes in AI and not well understood. They both have valid thoughts to offer the "consciousness and AI" sections. While the content of Artificial vs syhtnetic leaves muchto be desired, it remains two well represented theoretical platforms in Ai today. If I were conscious I'd keep it..Quickwik
- Please sign and date your entries, it helps when votes are time-sensitive as they are here. --Ben Brockert 21:53, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
Keep --One page is tiresomely argumentative and is the residence of a troll. Hopefully something better comes out fo the other. Paul Beardsell 18:27, 4 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: and is the residence of a troll - made me laugh that phrase. Trolls wearing sock puppets in the consciousness. Lovely image --bodnotbod 23:10, May 4, 2004 (UTC)
Merge any unique content from synthetic consciousness to artificial consciousness and redirect. Forking articles, for better or worse, is not the WP way. "Artificial consciousness" is a much more common term than "synthetic consciousness", so the article should have the former name. -- ~~That said, I have to admit I don't know what's an effective way to deal with a troll. Unfortunately AI seems to attract them.~~ Wile E. Heresiarch 05:13, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]
- I take back what I said about trolling. It's not clear to me who the troll is here. Vote unchanged. Wile E. Heresiarch 14:14, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This is me who he calls a troll. In spite of all my attempts to make things better, he doesn't stop offending me, and recently confirmed that he is not going to have a slightest respect towards me. I asked him on his talk page, I talked on public places, but there is nothing I can do, in spite many people in Wikipedia know that, such behaviour is tolerated in Wikipedia. I'm thoroughly discredited by his numerous offenses and attempts to ridicule me, I cannot imagine worst self-demotion than writing article in Wikipedia where such behaviour is tolerated, and supported by the action of sysops. I think I'm going to write about it and Wikipedia somewhere in the Internet, it is very unfortunate, but unfortunately this is the truth about Wikipedia. But I stay and continue to edit the article, I shall never leave in spite of continuous offending and ridiculing of me for several months now by a single person, and the only reason for that is that I in principle cannot allow gaining a power by unfair methods such as consistent offending of single individual. But against such offending there is nothing I can do, I didn't reply to many offenses, and replied most politely whenever I could, but whenever offender feels even a silent support by others, there is no reason for him to stop. Tkorrovi 12:35, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for the time being. The assertion that synthetic consciousness should be deleted was made by the person who it is alleged is the troll, and who, it seems to me, appears to make a proprietorial claim on the artificial consciousness article, having been its progenitor. As can be seen from the AC talk page and its voluminous archives, progress in light of this misplaced ownership claim has been turbulent. I started the synthetic consciousness page, but would agree that eventually there should be one page to cover this topic, which has no agreed nomenclature. The terms artificial consciousness, digital consciousness, digital sentience, artificial neuroconsciousness, synthetic consciousness (and there may be others) all seem to be related and perhaps should eventually all redirect to the same place, which might itself be a subsection of artificial intelligence. In the mean time, I have thrown down the gauntlet to the original author of artificial consciousness to tolerate the 'competing' synthetic consciousness page and to hold a poll in due course to determine which of the two is the better article which should then become the definitive wikipedia offering. He has responded to my challenge by flagging synthetic consciousness for deletion, though I note that User:Wikiwikifast has just suggested at Talk:Artificial_consciousness#AC_article_should_be_deleted that the artificial consciousness page should mainly be deleted. Matt Stan 10:52, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I said clearly that I don't support parallel articles. You always supported Paul Beardsell in offending me, you were the two who came together a long time after I created artificial consciousness article and started a long series of offenses against me. But in spite of such treatment, I never didn't prevent editing the article by anybody. Except a single unfortunate event many months ago when I tried to prevent an attempt to almost completely remove the content of he article, and was severely punished by sysops then, maybe I indeed violated some rules of Wikipedia, but not intentionally, and this is a matter of interpretation, but I comply. If you assert that I make a proprietorial claim on the article, then you must specify where I did it. I never made any proprietary claim on the article, and didn't prevent anybody editing it, most of the text in the article is not written by me, and all views, presented by anybody, for and against, are present, so the article is also NPOV, in spite of contrary claims. Tkorrovi 12:54, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This is typical misrepresentation and is wrong in practically all respects. It is easy to demonstrate this. Time and time again Tkorrovi makes unwarranted and false assertions about AC and about others' behaviour. Just read the archived talk pages: You will be entertained, if nothing else. Paul Beardsell 17:30, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

This is a matter for mediation, not VfD. I support merging the two articles back together and working out your difficulties instead of this extended pissing match, which is just destructive. Snowspinner 19:26, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's not funny. Tkorrovi 20:47, 5 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]