Talk:Artificial intelligence/Archive 5

Expert systems: eyes please
Recently there have been signicant changes to the expert systems article. I wonder if others would care to give their opinion. pgr94 (talk) 18:34, 30 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks very fishy. I've made a request at Sockpuppet investigations/Pat grenier. —Ruud 21:26, 4 October 2011 (UTC)


 * This is a difficult problem and should be handled carefully. What's most important here is that we WP:assume good faith and just try to clean up the article. I think what we have is someone who is an expert in the field, who (1) plays loose with WP:VER because he tends to use citations like academic citations, rather than as verifications. And (2) might be WP:POV-pushing. This sort of thing has happened before ...the Carl Hewitt affair comes to mind.   CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Hewitt was a computer scientist with an established track record. The person here doesn't come from academia (or at least hasn't managed to leave any trace of his existence behind in academic journals or proceedings). The only thing I could find are the two articles in Larousse . Apparently they allow anyone to contribute, though. —Ruud 12:04, 10 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Il is true : everyone can create a compte contributeur and then write articles. --Rigoureux (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Logic
Logic section presently has sentence beginning The study of logic led directly to the invention of, which is flat wrong. The study of logic had to detour through George Boole and An Investigation of the Laws of Thought (1854), on Which are Founded the Mathematical Theories of Logic and Probabilities, before 0 + 1 could equal anything but 1, and before there were any useful means of analyzing artificial thought or artificial intelligence. The omission is illogical. He should certainly get prominent mention, and editors might even consider honorable mention of a Logic Named Joe.--Pawyilee (talk) 05:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * There are many centuries of people who are equally important, including those who came before Boole (Aristotle, Euclid, al-Khwārizmī, Liebniz) and those who came after (Frege, Russell, Church, Post, Godel, Turing, Von Neumann). The "programmable digital computer" is the end result of a train of thought that includes all these people. The article mentions only Turing, because it was Turing who developed a "mechanical" metaphor to describe all of mathematical logic. The sentence that says "the study of logic..." is referring to the fact that all of these people where trying to improve and/or understand mathematical logic. That's what they were "studying" when they stumbled onto the idea of a computer. CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:57, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * In doing so, they stumbled onto a 17th-century word for teller. --Pawyilee (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Fixing citations
I have fixed some cites which were not linking to the citations/works/books to which they were apparantly meant to link. I have also deleted two cites because there seemed to be no cited book (in the article) to which they could be linked. I would request that some regular editors to this article may review my edits. Thanks. M W ℳ 16:01, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I would like two edits in particular to be reviewed. In those edits, I had deleted citations. This could mean that some of the material in the article is now unsupported by proper citations.
 * The first is this edit, which should relate to the lines Many futurists believe that artificial intelligence will ultimately transcend the limits of progress. Ray Kurzweil has used Moore's law (which describes the relentless exponential improvement in digital technology) to calculate that desktop computers will have the same processing power as human brains by the year 2029. He also predicts that by 2045 artificial intelligence will reach a point where it is able to improve itself at a rate that far exceeds anything conceivable in the past, a scenario that science fiction writer Vernor Vinge named the "singularity".[165] in the article.
 * The second edit, should be related to this Roger Penrose is among those who claim that Gödel's theorem limits what machines can do. (See The Emperor's New Mind.)[155]

If we have no citations to support what Vernor Vinge and Roger Penrose are being made to say in the article, we may need to delete the points attributed to them. That is why I suggested that my edits be reviewed. Thanks. M W ℳ 13:21, 13 November 2011 (UTC) Besides these two cites, I had also deleted one citation to Picard. I think that should be OK. M W ℳ 13:31, 13 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm adding the Penrose and Vinge citations. CharlesGillingham (talk) 10:02, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be happy if those citations can be added. My objection was that we seem to be attributing some views to Penrose and Vinge through some books / articles etc. written by Penrose and Vinge. Only that our article does not seem to name/identify any book or article or paper or whatever written by Penrose and Vinge. M W ℳ 10:11, 14 November 2011 (UTC) I see that you have added the relevant cites now. Thanks. M W  ℳ 10:29, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Favonian (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Artificial intelligence → Artificial Intelligence – Better match the title naming convention (capitalization) Varagrawal (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC) (orig. time stamp: 21:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Contest. Not a proper noun, should not be capitalised like one (see also: WP:CAPS, MOS:CAPS). Jenks24 (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Moved from WP:RM. Favonian (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Please explain how the title naming conventions on capitalization support capitalizing this title.  Powers T 14:55, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - the current title is in line with common useage and WP policy on capitalisation.Rangoon11 (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose - not a proper noun. --Zanhe (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose —Ruud 18:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. See MOS:CAPS, not a proper noun. -- SchreyP (messages) 20:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarify - Why isn't Artificial Intelligence a proper noun? It is the unique name of a field of applied study. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Varagrawal (talk • contribs) 04:40, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a whole "field of study" as you say, not a name referring to a unique entity (such as a specific person, building, ...). —Ruud 12:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So it is comparable with nuclear medicine and cell biology. pgr94 (talk) 12:28, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's not a proper noun, just a generic term for a "whole field of study". Fields of study are not proper nouns (engineering, geology, computer science, etc.). •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:26, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * P.S. to my last: Such a name would be capitalized if it were the name of a specific course at a university: e.g., Computer Science 101, Cell Biology 201, etc. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 22:31, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Validation over Reach of A.I. Market in the 1980s
I would only like to know the Market Study, the Specialized Article or any Serious Source for the Affirmation "By 1985 the market for AI had reached over a billion dollars", because I have been searching for It since Long Time Ago and cannot find Anything. AFGV 03 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.135.62.175 (talk)


 * This number is from Dan Crevier's history of AI. CharlesGillingham (talk) 01:12, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Suggested intro changes
The intro is good. It presents all that is needed for a definition proper. However, I would prefer swapping paragraph 2 and 3, since para 3 explains details, and para 2 speculates about consequences. Maybe some formulation trimming too, to make the language fluent. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 06:11, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Good idea, did it; tried to improve the flow. CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:09, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

vandalism
I noticed a poorly spelled insult to wikipedia at the top of the "history" subsection of the mobile version of this article, that is not present in the standard version, I am uncertain of how to edit the mobile version, and so decided I should simply point out the infraction, with the hopes that someone would know how to fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.65.160 (talk) 17:30, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It was reverted in less than 60 seconds by an automated vandalism-detecting program. Sorry you spotted it during the brief period it was in the article!  Powers T 18:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Merger proposal
The history of Talk:Synthetic intelligence shows that this article has been contentious for quite some time. I'm adding a RfC tag in front of the latest merge discussion in the hopes that a wider participation will get us out of the "no consensus" zone one way or the other. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:17, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

I am proposing to merge the Synthetic intelligence article into this one. The reason is -as stated in the SI article- "(SI) is an alternative term for artificial intelligence which emphasizes that the intelligence of machines need not be an imitation or any way artificial";

The SI article is quite small and we can even select the most relevant information to be merged. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:13, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We've been down this road before, it didn't work. Try doing the AI article side of the merge; if the information remaining after 72 hours is enough to define the term SI then this merger might work. Otherwise you're re-hashing old discussions for nothing. Darker Dreams (talk) 18:38, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm a casual reader of IT articles. I did not read the Talk page achives so I was not aware of your work-for-nothing history. Your playground, your call. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk)

Since this has been tried and failed, it looks like this merge failed again. At current times, I say Darker Dreams has option to cancel. So, your decision, Darker Dreams? Mysterytrey  talk  19:48, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I agree with the "option to cancel," but I definitely have strong opinions against this for the previously stated reasons. I do want to note that, while being a casual reader is fine, when you make grand moves like recommending merges a cursory read of the relevant talk pages is advisable. You may not have gotten anything from the AI talk-page due to its turnover, but the SI page still has a section from when I reverted the last "merge." Darker Dreams (talk) 03:14, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an example of Synthetic Intelligence. It is not artificial intelligence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.183.31.208 (talk) 08:54, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Support smerge + redirect. Silly WP:CFORK. Only the name differs and tiny bit of emphasis. It's enough to mention who introduced/emphasized the alt name somewhere in the history section. Only the 1st and 2nd paragraphs (in this version) say anything specific about the SI terminology and that's the only stuff worth merging. The rest is just filler material that applies to AI as well. Tijfo098 (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Merging Synthetic intelligence here would either deteriorate the quality and flow of this article or be equivalent to outright deleting the latter; I don't see a need to tell more about SI in this article than is already being done in a single sentence at the moment. Deleting the latter might be an option&mdash;the sources mentioned there give the impression it isn't a particularly widely used term&mdash;but that should probably be discussed at AfD. —Ruud 17:14, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm okay to keeping it to a stub about the term. The last two paragraphs, which are non-specific to the terminology discussion, should be deleted then. See philosophical logic for a comparison how to deal with a topic like this, where the meaning has changed over time. Tijfo098 (talk) 07:00, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't know whether you will manage to achieve resolution with this RFC, but if you don't it will be fundamentally because of differences in attitude towards articles as much as because of philosophical differences concerning the distinctions between synthetic intelligence and artificial intelligence. Concerning the latter, and just as an obiter dictum, because I don't think it matters seriously concerning the RFC, whether the two have sufficient to do with each other to justify their being treated together, is largely a matter of philosophical context rather than philosophical content. Whatever you do, don't let that part fash you; it would be a waste of time, even from the philosopher's point of view. Just make sure that you write in a matter that makes the important points and forget about it.
 * On the other hand, although it would be perfectly possible to merge the two articles the first thing to note is that the very fact that there is any argument about it means that it is possible to regard the two as separate topics, not merely as matters of taste, but as matters of context. As soon as you have such a situation, you do not need a cogent reason to split, but you do need a cogent reason to merge. The fact that certain POVs (or ftm, failures to appreciate differences) move certain parties to smother distinctions, is no reason to encourage their dismissiveness. Thereby you simply diminish yourself. The only reason to put two topics into one article is when they are mutually supplementary; each would lose by being read separately. Under any other circumstances they would merely get in each other's way, confusing the issue and irritating the reader that is concentrating on one aspect in particular. Out of proper justification, "fork" is only just barely a four-letter word. Split articles are not a problem in the converse situation; anyone trying to deal with both subjects at the same time can use links just as easily as paging over; what is more, if there is a need for direct reference to the other article's text, a brief remark plus "see main article" works well. And incidentally, anyone who thinks machines don't swim just because he thinks submarines can't swim lacks imagination even more badly than the people who think that there is no substantial basis for separate reference to AI and SI. Vital point, that!
 * Note that the smallness of an article is no argument for merging; only coherence is. Nor is size an argument for splitting; only coherence is. (Huge articles, properly structured and indexed, are easier to read than collections of smaller articles if the structure fits.) Furthermore, the SI article as it stands is the merest embryonic gloss over a large topic. To shoehorn the current couple of paragraphs into the other article might be easy, but it would invite nasty problems later on. JonRichfield (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. (I came here from RFC) The very first thing to do with the article is to clean if off all OR of WP:SYNTH stuff, and only then do decide its fate. The first glaring thing that caught my eye is liberal conflation of qualifiers "simulated" and "synthetic". If they are splitting hair between AI and SI, then show me the reason that SynI and SimI are the same or one is subset of another. (Note: when I write "show me", "prove", etc., it goes without saying you have to use WP:RS, not just spilling our own brains.) A prim example of this conflation is what constitutes "real" intelligence as opposed to "simulated" intelligence and therefore whether there is a meaningful distinction between artificial intelligence and synthetic intelligence. I see no "therefore" here. Further, the example of Russel and Norvig is rather baffling: (if airplines fly then why submarined don't swim? or there is a deeper deep thought which stupid me fails to grasp, but the article does not explain it to an average me.)  A bunch of names are quoted liberally, without direct logical connection, so superposition of them is again a trait of good old OR. The text is clumsy. For example, I spent a couple minutes trying to figure out what ''.., or other relatively new methods to define and create "true" intelligence from previous attempts..." would mean until I realised this is a kind or "reverse garden path sentence". And I am sorry guys, but the quote of Daniel Dennett shows his inept logical thinking (or lacking any expertise in vodkas; in this case it is stupid of him to rely on something he does not know. To those whoi don't drink vodkas: Dennett compares in individual product line with a generic class of product. (Chateau Latour vs Vodka) The correct one will be Latour vs Wyborowa or wine vs vodka. ). So, guys, if I read this artile 5 more minutes, I will have a great urge to send it to AFD :-) (Of course not; I respect the work done and believe the subject makes sense). Staszek Lem (talk) 02:23, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Haugeland defines the distinction of "synthetic intelligence" vs. "artificial intelligence" as the difference between "real" and "simulated" intelligence. So, for the purposes of the discussion, the comments by the others take this for granted, and we must as well.
 * Russell, Norvig and Dennett are all trying to show that this distinction makes no sense; there is no coherent way to describe the difference between "real" and "simulated" intelligence.
 * The article could do a better job of setting up the issue, I suppose. But there's no OR or synthesis here. The article is a kind of a list of related comments that philosophers and AI researchers have made against Haugeland's distinction. The major sources mention Haugeland (typically along with John Searle's chinese room) and then give this kind of criticism.
 * Finally, I think that your criticism of Dennett is correct, but doesn't really disprove his point. I think his point is that chemically synthesized generic vodka is still "real" vodka, whereas the chemically synthesized Chateau LaTour is a "simulated" Chateau LaTour, thus the words "real" and "simulated" depend on the context they are applied, thus Haugeland's "synthetic" vs "artificial", lacking context, is meaningless. Of course, we can't change Dennett's example or reply in any way.  CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Colleague, I am sorry you failed to read carefully all my major points. I have no issues with distinction of SimI vs. ArtI. I was against unsupported conflation of SynI and SimI. (I mean there is no refs  and no clearly stated how SimI related ty SynI.
 * There is synthesis here because there is a confusing juxtaposition of utterances of the greats without clear idea why they say that and in which circumstances and wheter in response to one and the same issue and from what point. For example what idea is supported by the quotation "the question whether machines can think as relevant as the question whether submarines can swim"? Does it mean that the question is meaningless? What does the word "relevant mean here? Relevant to what? I can continue picking on every paragraph here; like I said up to AfD. This is the worst case of OR: every sentence looks sharp (and worst of all, well referenced), but taken together the text is  gibberish and an insult to people quoted.
 * What's the point of comparing "generic" wodka with non-generic wine? We cannot change his comment, but wikipedia does not have to include faulty witticisms, especially confusing and non-commented ones. Bon mots and analogies are good to support a clear idea, to embellish it, but not the way for encyclopedic definition of the idea. Another example, you still did not answer why is that submarines cannot swim.  Staszek Lem (talk) 15:59, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking about rewriting this article, and your comments are quite helpful, actually. The problem isn't that there is WP:OR, the problem is that the article does a poor job of setting up the issue. A reader (such as yourself) who is unfamiliar with the philosophy of AI is can't even understand what the point is -- everything seems to be out of context, because the context isn't clear.
 * I don't think I misread you, but maybe I did. I was reacting to your comment about the word "therefore" being inappropriate. I hope it is obvious that "synthetic" intelligence = "real" intelligence in a machine = machines that actually think; and that "artificial" intelligence = "simulated" intelligence in a machine = machines that only act like they are thinking. If it can shown that "simulated" intelligence" = "real" intelligence then we may conclude that "synthetic" intelligence = "artificial" intelligence. So the "therefore" should make sense. Also, I couldn't understand what could possibly be proved by comparing "Chateau LaTour" with "Wyborow" -- in both cases, a chemically perfect imitation would be a "fake", wouldn't it?
 * An what may be possibly proved by comparing oranges and apples beyond lack of mental clarity in the author? (or in a wikipedian, who I admit might has taken it out of context and all intended deep thought was lost on me). Not to say that arguments "but it's real McCoy" lead to nowhere: we all know that every ding an zich is unique, and if we define a category as a set of objects that belong to this category (sometimes a definition has an ingenuous amount of recursion difficult to fish out), then it is a pointless job to try proving or disproving that a yesteryear shoe does not belong to it. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you object to moving this discussion over to Talk:Synthetic intelligence? I would like to know exactly how you misunderstood the issue, so that a new version of the article is less confusing. To start with, does the basic distinction between "real"/"simulated" intelligence make sense? Or does the article need to discuss ELIZA and the chinese room to set up the issue and motivate the discussion? Is it obvious that Haugeland was trying to make about a specific point about this issue he when coined the term "synthetic intelligence"? I'm thinking that the article could use a few paragraphs to set this up. CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, please move. I didn't realize this is wrong talk page. I just clicked "discuss". I will comment further tomorrow. I didn't "misunderstand" nothing :-). And you don't have to explain me anything in talk page. Whay you've just said you have to write in the article. And the very first thing to do is to clearly define the basic terminology, from references, of course. Why don't you start a new draft in your user space, so that I would not have to repeat my objections which may quite possibly become invalid in a carefully rewritten text. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose There is no more room in this article. This is sub-sub-topic of the philosophy of AI. We already devote a page or so to the philosophy of AI, and that is enough. The half-dozen points we mention are all more notable that this. CharlesGillingham (talk) 08:41, 14 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The two articles are about two different topics. --Gryllida 12:56, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Could you use this?
Found an interesting article http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19748209 Could be useful here or on a page directly related. 212.250.138.33 (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Dubious history.
The last four paragraphs of the history section are, at best, unsourced and unencyclopedic. Some of their content is just false. For example, the line: "No one would any longer consider already-solved computing science problems like OCR "artificial intelligence" today." A quick skim of the article on OCR reveals it is indeed a "field of research in" AI and that it is certainly not considered "solved." I've sprinkled those paragraphs with and will remove them soon if they're not fixed. I would remove them now but they appear to have been there for a while so I'll wait a bit longer. ColinClark (talk) 02:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
 * They're gone. I left in the one bit that was sourced. ColinClark (talk) 19:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

wording suggestion
This summary sentence could be worded better, I think, for NLP bots and humans alike:

The central problems of AI include such traits as reasoning, knowledge, planning, learning, communication, perception and the ability to move and manipulate objects.

Traits or goals of an AI system don't seem like "problems" to me. They are a challenge to implement, or broad categories of qualities to be improved, or the themes of problem sets being researched. Is there a way to say this more precisely and with less academic jargon, while maintaining the citation? Hobsonlane (talk) 12:29, 3 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I guess "problems" is academic jargon, to be sure. In scientific circles, people work on specific "problems" for which they want to find "solutions". And yes, this is exactly the same sense as "math problems". See list of unsolved problems and open problem. In this context, the term means something like "tasks" or "goals". We could use the term "task", but, of course, this is not how academic AI researchers talk about their own field, so that doesn't seem right. I'm adding "(or tasks)" in the introduction for the lay reader. CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Settled on "goals", in the introduction and as the title of the section. This will help avoid disorienting non-academic readers. The text still calls them problems, as it should. CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed move: Strong AI to Artificial general intelligence
'Strong AI' seems to be used ambiguously for a number of different theses or programs, from reductionism about mind to the computational theory of mind to reductionism about semantics or consciousness (discussed in Chinese room) to the creation of machines exhibiting generally intelligent behavior. The last of these options is the topic of the article we're currently calling 'Strong AI'. I've proposed a rename to Artificial general intelligence at the Talk page. What do you all think? -Silence (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Augusto's "Unconscious representations" in References
Is L.M. Augusto's Unconscious representations [in AI > References > Notes > #55] appropriate/valid/etc. ?

I couldn't find this mentioned/discussed earlier, although Talk:Artificial_intelligence/Archive_5...

The (2) paper(s) in question are easy to find. However, since I don't feel competent in evaluating them, I tried [unsuccessfully] to find other opinions.

WikiBlame was helpful in eventually identifying 4 May 2013‎ as 1st appearance in this AI Wikipedia article.

Not to be slanderous, but, seeing  only 4 (seemingly targeted) edits got me wondering...

So, after learning a little, am I perhaps being too cynical/suspicious in suspecting this as a clever means towards tenure?

[How] Does the quality of the research/papers bear on it's inclusion in Wikipedia? (less picky for "Notes"??)

Additional brain dumps:
 * In general (using subset thinking), should something mentioned in a more general article also be mentioned in the [indented just below headings] referred to "Main article[s]:"? (E.g., Artificial intelligence mentions Kinect, but, History of artificial intelligence and Timeline of artificial intelligence don't.  Perhaps simply an example of where I should Be_bold?)
 * Would anyone (who's read this far) think it worthwhile to even bother trying to read those 2 papers? WHY/not?
 * Does my general thought process above seem sound?

Educational flames, especially like/using [the blocked by Wikipedia] "LMGTFY.com" are welcome. ;-)

Thanks.

Curious1i (talk) 00:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Since you are asking (in part) about procedures here, I'll fill you in. Yes you should WP:BE BOLD whenever possible. For well watched articles (such as this one), you will be reverted if your edit is terrible.


 * I haven't looked into the issues that you raise, but I would research them carefully before proceeding, because it's important to WP:ASSUME GOOD FAITH. If you're killing something because you think it is someone's self-promotion, then the onus of proof is on you. CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:09, 18 December 2013 (UTC)


 * I finally got around to noticing your edits. Yes, there is definitely something wrong with the thing you struck out -- it seems weird that anyone would deny the role of sub-symbolic reasoning in 2014 unless they don't know what they are talking about, especially after popular books such as Gladwell's Blink or Kahnemann's Thinking, Fast and Slow have brought together such a huge body of evidence. CharlesGillingham (talk) 20:39, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

218.86.59.82
This IP seems to be trying to add plugs to recent articles, by adding a paragraph on semantic comprehension with reference to Deep Blue vs. Kasparov, or by adding links in the body of the article without plain text. This isn't really appropriate at this level of article - AI is meant for a general overview, and not to promote one of the many thousands of attempts to define intelligence. Leondz (talk) 11:52, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Misplaced information
Under section "Predictions and Ethics" is the following:


 * "In the 1980s artist Hajime Sorayama's Sexy Robots series were painted and published in Japan depicting the actual organic human form with life-like muscular metallic skins and later "the Gynoids" book followed that was used by or influenced movie makers including George Lucas and other creatives. Sorayama never considered these organic robots to be real part of nature but always unnatural product of the human mind, a fantasy existing in the mind even when realized in actual form."

This information is about robotic art and does not apply to "Predictions and Ethics", and should be relocated to an appropriate article or deleted.

In the same paragraph occurs the following information:


 * "Almost 20 years later, the first AI robotic pet, AIBO, came available as a companion to people. AIBO grew out of Sony's Computer Science Laboratory (CSL). Famed engineer Toshitada Doi is credited as AIBO's original progenitor: in 1994 he had started work on robots with artificial intelligence expert Masahiro Fujita, at CSL. Doi's, friend, the artist Hajime Sorayama, was enlisted to create the initial designs for the AIBO's body. Those designs are now part of the permanent collections of Museum of Modern Art and the Smithsonian Institution, with later versions of AIBO being used in studies in Carnegie Mellon University. In 2006, AIBO was added into Carnegie Mellon University's "Robot Hall of Fame"."

This information is about robotic history, and does not apply to "Predictions and Ethics". Advise relocate or delete. Belnova (talk) 06:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Goals
I think a high level listing of AI's goals (from which more specific Problems inherit) is needed; for instance "AI attempts to achieve one or more of: 1) mimicking living structure and/or internal processes, 2) replacing living thing's external function, using a different internal implementation, 3) ..." At one point in the past, I had 3 or 4 such disjoint goals stated to me by someone expert in AI. I am not, however. DouglasHeld (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * We'd need a reliable source for this, such as a major AI textbook. CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

"Human-like" intelligence
I object to the phrase "human-like intelligence" being substituted here and elsewhere for "intelligence". This is too narrow and is out of step with the way many leaders of AI describe their own work. This only describes the work of a small minority of AI researchers.
 * AI founder John McCarthy (computer scientist) argued forcefully and repeatedly that AI research should not attempt to create "human-like intelligence", but instead should focus on create programs that solve the same problems that humans solve by thinking. The programs don't need to be human-like at all, just so long as they work. He felt AI should be guided by logic and formalism, rather than psychological experiments and neurology.
 * Rodney Brooks (leader of MIT's AI laboratories for many years) argued forcefully and repeatedly that AI research (specifically robotics) should not attempt to simulate human-like abilities such as reasoning and deduction, but instead should focus on animal-like abilities such as survival and locomotion.
 * Stuart Russell and Peter Norvig (authors of the leading AI textbook) dismiss the Turing Test as irrelevant, because they don't see the point in trying to creating human-like intelligence. What we need is the intelligence it takes to solve problems, regardless of whether it's human-like or not. They write "airplanes are tested by how well they fly, not by how they can fool other pigeons into thinking they are pigeons."
 * They also object to John Searle's Chinese room argument, which claims that machine intelligence can never be truly "human-like", but at best can only be a simulation of "human-like" intelligence. They write "as long the program works, [we] don't care if you call it a simulation or not." I.e., they don't care if it's human-like.
 * Russell and Norvig define the field in terms of "rational agents' and write specifically that the field studies all kinds of rational or intelligent agents, not just humans.

AI research is primarily concerned with solving real-world problems, problems that require intelligence when they are solved by people. AI research, for the most part, does not seek to simulate "human like" intelligence, unless it helps to solve this fundamental goal. Although some AI researchers have studied human psychology or human neurology in their search for better algorithms, this is the exception rather than the rule.

I find it difficult to understand why we want to emphasize "human-like" intelligence. As opposed to what? "Animal-like" intelligence? "Machine-like" intelligence? "God-like" intelligence? I'm not really sure what this editor is getting at.

I will continue to revert the insertion "human-like" wherever I see it. CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Completely agree. The above arguments are good.  Human-like intelligence is a proper subset of intelligence.  The editor seems to be confusing "Artificial human intelligence" and the much broader field of "artificial intelligence". pgr94 (talk) 10:12, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

One more thing: the phrase "human-like" is an awkward neologism. Even if the text was written correctly, it would still read poorly. CharlesGillingham (talk) 06:18, 11 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To both editors, WP:MOS requires that the Lead section only contain material which is covered in the main body of the article. At present, the five items which you outline above are not contained in the main body of the article but only on Talk. The current version of the Lead section accurately summarizes the main body of the article in its current state. FelixRosch (talk) 14:54, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The article (nor any of the sources) does not define AI by using the term "human like" to specify the exact kind of intelligence that it studies. Thus the addition of the term "human-like" absolutely does not summarize the article. I think the argument from WP:SUMMARY is actually a very strong argument for striking the term "human like".
 * I still don't understand the distinction between "human-like" intelligence and the other kind of intelligence (whatever it is), and how this applies to AI research. Your edit amounts to the claim that AI studies "human-like" intelligence and NOT some other kind of intelligence. It is utterly not clear what this other kind of intelligence is, and it certainly does not appear in the article or the sources, as far as I can tell. It would help if you explain what it is you are talking about, because it makes no sense to me and I have been working on, reading and studying AI for something like 34 years now. CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, see the intro to the section Approaches and read footnote 93. This describes specifically how some AI researchers are opposed to the idea of studying "human-like" intelligence. Thus the addition of "human-like" to the the intro not only does not summarize the article, it actually claims the opposite of what the body the article states, with highly reliable sources. CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's not quite what you said in the beginning of this section. Also, your two comments on 1August seem to be at odds with each other. Either you are saying that there is nothing other than human-like intelligence, or you wish to introduce material to support the opposite. If you wish to develop the material into the body of the article following your five points at the start of this section, then you are welcome to try to post them in the text prior to making changes in the Lead section. WP policy is that material in the Lede must be first developed in the main body of the article, which you have not done. FelixRosch (talk) 16:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I've already said, the point I am making is already in the article.
 * "Human-like" intelligence is not in the article. Quite the contrary.
 * The article states that this is long standing question that AI research has not yet answered: "Should artificial intelligence simulate natural intelligence by studying psychology or neurology? Or is human biology as irrelevant to AI research as bird biology is to aeronautical engineering?"
 * And the accompanying footnote makes the point in more detail:
 * "Biological intelligence vs. intelligence in general:
 * , who make the analogy with aeronautical engineering.
 * , who writes that there are "two major branches of artificial intelligence: one aimed at producing intelligent behavior regardless of how it was accomplioshed, and the other aimed at modeling intelligent processes found in nature, particularly human ones."
 * , a paper in Science, which describes McCathy's indifference to biological models. Kolata quotes McCarthy as writing: "This is AI, so we don't care if it's psychologically real". McCarthy recently reiterated his position at the AI@50 conference where he said "Artificial intelligence is not, by definition, simulation of human intelligence" ."
 * This proves that the article does not state that AI studies "human like" intelligence. It states, very specifically, that AI doesn't know whether to study human-like intelligence or not. CharlesGillingham (talk) 03:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Human-like intelligence is the subject of each of the opening eight sections including "Natural language"
As the outline of this article plainly shows in its opening eight sections, each one of the eight sections of this page are all explicitly for 'human-like' intelligence. This fact should be reflected in the Lede as well. The first eight section are all devoted to human-like intelligence. In the last few weeks you have taken several differing positions. First you were saying that there is nothing other than human-like intelligence, then you wished to introduce multiple references to support the opposite, and now you appear to wish to defend an explicitly strong-AI version of your views against 'human-like' intelligence. You are expected on the basis of good faith to make you best arguments up front. The opening eight sections are all devoted to human-like intelligence, even to the explicit numbering of natural language communication into the list. There is no difficulty if you wish to write your own new page for "Strong-AI" and only Strong-AI. If you like, you can even ignore the normative AI perspective on your version of a page titled "Strong-AI". That however is not the position which is represented on the general AI page which is predominantly in its first eight sections oriented to human-like intelligence. FelixRosch (talk) 16:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * (Just to be clear: (1) I did not say there is nothing other than human-like intelligence. I don't know where you're getting that. (2) I find it difficult to see how you could construe my arguments as being in favor of research into "strong AI" (as in artificial general intelligence) or as an argument that machines that behave intelligently must also have consciousness (as in the strong AI hypothesis). As I said in my first post, AI research is about solving problems that require intelligence when solved by people. And more to the point: the solutions to these problems are not, in general, "human-like". This is the position I have consistently defended. (3) I have never shared my own views in this discussion, only the views expressed by AI researchers and this article. CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC))
 * Hello Felix. My reading of the sections is not the same.  Could you please quote the specific sentences you are referring to.  I have reverted your edit as it is rather a narrow view of AI that exists mostly in the popular press, not the literature. pgr94 (talk) 18:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Hello Pgr94; This is the list of the eight items which start off the article: 2.1 Deduction, reasoning, problem solving 2.2 Knowledge representation 2.3 Planning 2.4 Learning 2.5 Natural language processing (communication) 2.6 Perception 2.7 Motion and manipulation 2.8 Long-term goals. Each of these items is oriented to human-like intelligence. I have also emphasized 2.5, Natural language processing, as specifically unique to human alone. Please clarify if this is the same outline that should appear on your screen. Of the three approaches to artificial intelligence, weak-AI, Strong-AI, and normative AI, you should specify which one you are endorsing prior to reverting. My point is that the Lede should be consistent with the body of the article, and that it should not change until the new material is developed in the main body of the article before changing the Lede. Human-like intelligence are what all the opening 8 sections are about. Make Lede consistent with the contents of the article following WP:MoS. FelixRosch (talk) 20:11, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It seems you just listed the sections rather than answer my query. Never mind.
 * The article is not based on human-like intelligence as you seem to be suggesting. If you look at animal cognition you will see that reasoning, planning, learning and language are not unique to humans.  Consider also swarm intelligence and evolutionary algorithms that are not based on human behaviour.  To say that the body of the article revolves around human-like intelligence is therefore inaccurate.
 * If you still disagree with both Charles and myself, may I suggest working towards consensus here before adding your change as I don't believe your change to the lede reflects the body of the article. pgr94 (talk) 23:51, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
 * All of the intelligent behaviors you listed above can demonstrated by very "inhuman" programs. For example, a program can "deduce" the solution of a Sudoku puzzle by iterating through all of the possible combinations of numbers and testing each one. A database can "represent knowledge" as billions of nearly identical individual records. And so on. As for natural language processing, this includes tasks such as text mining, where a computer searches millions of web pages looking for a set of words and related grammatical structures. No human could do this task; a human would approach the problem a completely different way. Even Siri's linguistic abilities are based mostly on statistical correlations (using things like support vector machines or kernel methods) and not on neurology. Siri depends more on the mathematical theory of optimization than it does on our understanding of the way the brain processes language. CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * @Pgr94; Your comment appears to state that because there are exceptions to the normative reading of AI, therefore you can justify changes to the Lede to reflect these exceptions. WP:MoS is the exact opposite of this, where the Lede is required to give only a summary of material already used to describe the field covered in the main body of the article. No difficulty if you want to cover the exceptions in the main body of the article and you can go ahead and do so as long as you cite your additions according to wikipedia policy for being verifiable. The language used in section 2.1 is "that humans use when they solve puzzles...", and this is consistent for the other sections I have already enumerated for human-like intelligence. This article in its current form is overwhelmingly oriented to human-like intelligence applied normatively to establish the goals of AI. Arguing the exception can be covered in the main body but does not belong in the Lede according to wikipedia policy. @CharlesGillingham; You appear now to be devoted to the Strong-AI position to support your answers. This is only one version of AI, and it is not the one which is the principal one covered in the main baody of this article which covers the goal of producing human-link intelligence and its principal objectives. Strong-AI, Weak-AI, and normative AI are three versions, and one should not be used to bias attention away from what the main content of this article is about which is the normative AI approach as discussed in each of the opening 8 sections. The language used in section 2.1 is "that humans use when they solve puzzles...", and this is consistent for the other sections I have already enumerated. No difficulty if you want to bring in the material to support your preference for Strong-AI in the main body of the article. Until you do so the Strong-AI orientation should not affect what is represented in the Lede section. Wikipedia policy is that only material in the main body of the article may be used in the Lede. FelixRosch (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you mean by "Strong AI" in the paragraph above. I am defending the positions of John McCarthy, Rodney Brooks, Peter Norvig and Stuart Russell, along with most modern AI researchers. These researchers advocate logic, nouvelle AI and the intelligent agent paradigm (respectively). All of these are about as far from strong AI as you can get, in either of the two normal ways the term is used. So I have to ask you: what do you mean when you say "strong AI"? It seems very strange indeed to apply it to my arguments.
 * I also have no idea what you mean by "normative AI" -- could you point to a source that defines "strong AI", "weak AI" and "normative AI" in the way you are using them? My definitions are based on the leading AI textbooks, and they seem to be completely different than yours.
 * Finally, you still have not addressed any of the points that Pgr94 and I have brought up -- if, as you claim, AI research is trying to simulate "human like" intelligence, why do most major researchers reject "human like" intelligence as a model or a goal, and why are so many of the techniques and applications based on principles that have nothing to do with human biology or psychology? CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:02, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You still have not responded to my quote in bold face above that the references in all 8 (eight) opening section of this article all refer to human comparisons. You should read them since you appear to be obviating the wording which they are using and as I have quoted it above. You now have two separate edits in two forms. These are two separate edits and you should not be automatically reverting them without discussion first. The first one is my preference and I can continue this Talk discussion until you start reading the actual contents of all eight opening sections which details human-like intelligence. The other edit is restored since there is no reason not to include the mention of the difference of general AI from strong AI and weak AI. Your comment on strong AI seems contradicted by your own editing of the very page (disambiguation page) for it. The related pages John Searle, etc, all are oriented to discussion of human comparisons of intelligence, as clearly stated on these links. Strong artificial intelligence, or Strong AI, may refer to:Artificial general intelligence, a hypothetical machine that exhibits behavior at least as skillful and flexible as humans do, and the research program of building such an artificial general intelligence, and, Computational theory of mind, the philosophical position that human minds are (or can be usefully modeled as) computer programs. This position was named "strong AI" by John Searle in his Chinese room argument. Each of these links supports human-like intelligence comparisons as basic to understating each of these terms. FelixRosch (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

All I'm saying is this: major AI researchers would (and do) object to defining AI as specifically and exclusively studying "human-like" intelligence. They would prefer to define the field as studying intelligence in general, whether human or not. I have provided ample citations and quotations prove that this is the case. If you can't see that I have proved this point, then we are talking past each other. Repeatedly trying to add "human" or "human-like" or "human-ish" intelligence to the definition is simply incorrect.

I am happy to get WP:Arbitration on this matter, if you like, as long as it is understood that I only check Wikipedia once a week or so.

Re: many of the sections which define the problem refer to humans. This does not contradict what I am saying and does not suggest that Wikipedia should try to redefine the field in terms of human intelligence. Humans are the best example of intelligent behavior, so it is natural that we should use humans as an example when we are describing the problems that AI is solving. There are technical definitions of these problems that do not refer to humans: we can define reasoning in terms of logic, problem solving in terms of abstract rational agents, machine learning in terms of self-improving programs and so on. Once we have defined the task precisely and written a program that performs it to any degree, we're no longer talking about human intelligence any more -- we're talking about intelligence in general and machine intelligence in particular (which can be very "inhuman", as I demonstrated in an earlier post).

Re: strong AI. Yes, strong AI (in either sense) is defined in terms of human intelligence or consciousness. However, I am arguing that major AI researchers would prefer not to use "human" intelligence as the definition of the field, a position which points in the opposite direction from strong AI; the people I am arguing on behalf of are generally uninterested in strong AI (as Russell and Norvig write "most AI researchers don't care about the strong AI hypothesis"). So it was weird that you wrote I was "devoted to the Strong-AI position". Naturally, I wondered what on earth you were talking about.

The term "weak AI" is not generally used except in contrast to "strong AI", but if we must use it, I think you could characterize my argument as defending "weak AI"'s claim to be part of AI. In fact, "strong AI research" (known as artificial general intelligence) is a very small field indeed, and "weak AI" (if we must call it that) constitutes the vast majority of research, with thousands of successful applications and tens of thousands of researchers. CharlesGillingham (talk) 00:35, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Undid revision 626280716. WP:MoS requires Lede to be consistent with the main body of the article. Previous version of Lede is inconsistent between 1st and 4th paragraph on human-like intelligence. Current version is consistent. Each one of the opening sections is also based one-for-one on direct emulation of human-like intelligence. You may start by explaining why you have not addressed the fact that each of the opening 8 (eight) sections is a direct comparison to human-like intelligence. Also, please stop your personal attacks by posting odd variations on my reference to the emulation of human-like intelligence. Your deliberate contortion of this simple phrase to press your own minority view of weak-AI is against wikipedia policy. Page count statistics also appear to favor the mainstream version of human-like intelligence which was posted and not your minority weak-AI preference. Please stop edit warring, and please stop violating MoS policy and guidelines for the Lede. The first paragraph, as the fourth paragraph already is in the Lede, must be consistent and a summary of the material in the main body of the article, and not your admitted preference for the minority weak-AI viewpoint. FelixRosch (talk) 14:41, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * In response to your points above (1) I have "addressed the fact that each of the opening 8 (eight) sections is a direct comparison to human-like intelligence". It is in the paragraph above which begins with "Re: many of the sections which define the problem refer to humans.". (2) It's not a personal attack if I object every time you rephrase your contribution. I argue that the idea is incorrect and unsourced; the particular choice of words does not remove my objection. (3) As I have said before, I am not defending my own position, but the position of leading AI researchers and the vast majority of people in the field.


 * Restating my position: The precise, correct, widely accepted technical definition of AI is "the study and design of intelligent agents", as described in all the leading AI textbooks. Sources are in the first footnote. Leading AI researchers and the four most popular AI textbooks object to the idea that AI studies human intelligence (or "emulates" or "simulates" "human-like" intelligence).


 * Finally, with all due respect, you are edit warring. I would like to get WP:Arbitration.
 * I support getting arbitration. User:FelixRosch has not added constructively to this article and is pushing for a narrow interpretation of the term "artificial intelligence" which the literature does not support.  Strong claims need to be backed up by good sources which Rosch has yet to do.  Instead s/he appears to be cherrypicking from the article and edit warring over the lede.  The article is not beyond improvement, but this is not the way to go about it. pgr94 (talk) 16:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Pgr94 has not been part of this discussion for over a week, and the same suggestion is being made here, that you or CharlesG are welcome to try to bring in any cited material you wish to in order to support the highly generalized version of the Lede sentence which you appear to want to support. Until you bring in that material, WP:MoS is clear that the Lede is only supposed to summarize material which exists in the main body of the article. User:CharlesG keeps referring abstractly to multiple references he is familiar with and continues not to bring them into the main body of the article first. WP:MoS requires that you develop your material in the main body of the article before you summarize it in the Lede section. Without that material you cannot support an overly generalized version of the Lede sentence. The article in its current form, in all eight (8) of its opening sections is oriented to human-like intelligence (Sections 2.1, 2.2, ..., 2.8). Also, the fourth paragraph in the Lede section now firmly states that the body of the article is based on human intelligence as the basis for the outline of the article and its contents. According to WP:MoS for the Lede, your new material must be brought into the main body of the article prior to making generalizations about it which you wish to place in the Lede section. FelixRosch (talk) 19:45, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * As I have said before, the material you are requesting is already in the article. I will quote the article again:


 * This article has gone to great pains to stay in synch with leading AI textbooks, and the leading AI textbook addresses this issue (see chpt. 2 of Russell & Norvig's textbook), and comes down firmly against defining the field in terms of human intelligence. Thus "human" does not belong in the lead.


 * I have asked for dispute resolution. CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Arbitration ?
Why is anyone suggesting that arbitration might be in order? Arbitration is the last step in dispute resolution, and is used when user conduct issues make it impossible to resolve a content dispute. There appear to be content issues here, such as whether the term "human-like" should be used, but I don't see any evidence of conduct issues. That is, it appears that the editors here are being civil and are not engaged in disruptive editing. I do see that a thread has been opened at the dispute resolution noticeboard, an appropriate step in resolving content issues. If you haven't tried everything else, you don't want arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, dispute resolution is the next step. I have opened a thread. (Never been in a dispute that we couldn't resolve ourselves before ... the process is unfamiliar to me.) CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I am now adding an RFC, below. CharlesGillingham (talk) 04:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternate versions of lede
In looking over the recent discussion, it appears that the basic question is what should be in the article lede paragraph. Can each of the editors with different ideas provide a draft for the lede? If the issue is indeed over what should be in the lede, then perhaps a content Request for Comments might be an alternative to formal dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Certainly. I would like the lede to read more or less as it has since 2008 or so:

Artificial intelligence (AI) is the intelligence exhibited by machines or software. It is also an academic field of study. Major AI researchers and textbooks define this field as "the study and design of intelligent agents",[1] where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chances of success.[2] John McCarthy, who coined the term in 1955,[3] defines it as "the science and engineering of making intelligent machines".[4] CharlesGillingham (talk) 19:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * We can nit pick this stuff to death and I'm already resigned that the lede isn't going to be exactly what I think it should be. BTW, some of my comments yesterday were based on my recollection of an older version of the lede, there was so much back and forth editing. I can live with the lede as it currently is but I don't like the word "emulating". To me "emulating" still implies we are trying to do it the way humans do. E.g., when I emulate DOS on a Windows machine or emulate Lisp on an IBM mainframe. When you emulate you essentially define some meta-layer and then just run ths same software and you trick it into thinking it's running on platform Y rather than X. I would prefer words like designing or something like that. But it's a minor point. I'm not going to start editing myself because I think there are already enough people going back and forth on this so just my opinion. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 15:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Follow-Up
Based on a comment posted by User:FelixRosch at my talk page, it appears that the main issue is whether the first sentence of the lede should include "human-like". If that is the issue of disagreement, then the Request for Comments process is appropriate. The RFC process runs for 30 days unless there is clear consensus in less time. Formal dispute resolution can take a while also. Is the main issue the word "human-like"? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes that is the issue. CharlesGillingham (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I have a substantive opinion, and a relatively strong substantive opinion, but I don't want to say what it is at this time until we can agree procedurally on how to settle the question. I would prefer the 30-day semi-automated process of an RFC rather than the formality of mediation-like formal dispute resolution, largely because it gets a better consensus via publishing the RFC in the list of RFCs and in random notification of the RFC by the bot.  Unless anyone has a reason to go with mediation-like dispute resolution, I would prefer to get the RFC moving.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I am starting the rfc below. As I said in the dispute resolution, I've never had a problem like this before. CharlesGillingham (talk) 05:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)