User talk:Erxnmedia/Archive 7

CfD nomination of Category:Political prisoner

I have nominated Category:Political prisoner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Offenbach (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Death of Neda Agha-Soltan

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Death of Neda Agha-Soltan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. J Milburn (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the way I saw it, I was removing an unsupported claim. Moreover, the statement was already contradictory, because it stated that the division is in fact documented by Google maps and Yahoo -- where do you think Google got that information and what other documentation did you possibly need? Anyway, if Google maps is not enough documentation for you, here's a map of Riyadh's districts with the seal of the Riyadh Municipality in the top left corner. And here's another version of that same map on the website of King Saud University. And here's an interactive map on the Riyadh Municipality's website showing the fifteen branch municipalities. If you zoom in, you will be able to see the city districts, or alternatively, you can click on the first of the three drop-down menus on the right side of the page and find a list of every single district in the city. I realize that you probably don't know Arabic and perhaps that is the reason why you were unable to find this information that I found in about 2 minutes, but if you don't know the language, that does not give you license to just make things up as you go. -- Slacker (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

So now that you've written a better explanation above, can we insert it in place of your deletion in the article? Erxnmedia (talk) 23:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

a sample atheist position w/regard to soul

you said "I am not an atheist, but I gave it my best NPOV shot to summarize the atheist reservation about souls." so i thought you might be interested in the position w/regard to souls of at least one atheist (me). and i didn't think it appropriate to post on the article talk page ([WP:FORUM]]):

If you examine the etymology of the word "soul", you'll find that, as far as we know, it developed its modern meaning from the considerations of the ancient greek philosophers (Soul#Socrates_and_Plato / Soul#Aristotle), namely, the word "soul" was developed as a concept to explain why/how living matter moves the way it does - unpredictably, nonlinarly, complexly, etc. not like water or gas or solid, not like "in-animate" matter. i.e. it was a philosophical idea used to explain the animation of "living" tissue.

as a philosopher at the time that logic was developed, plato's reasoning probably went something like this: in order to affect matter thusly it had to be distinct from matter, and thus it had to be non-matter. (this premise that it had to be distinct from matter is where the reasoning is weakest - and where i would argue is simply wrong)

i would argue, and i'm sure etymologists would general agree, that the current christian idea of "soul" is an evolution of this meaning.^{presuming the christian concept of the soul came from the bible -- well the bible was originally written in Hebrew, which as far as i know is not a descendant of latin.}

while i'm sure that the idea was rather practical at the time, from a philosophical and scientific scientific standpoint we now have much better -- as in more complete, reliable, fuller, falsifiable, more descriptive, more rigorous, etc. -- (albiet far more technical) explanations for animation ("anima"). i am refering to self-organized criticality, non-linear dynamics, Self-organization, complex systems, emergence, dissipative structures, etc.

from here it's a matter of principles of reasoning, such as parsimony, falsifiability, etc. but really the point is that while back then it was a pretty good explanation, today it is a pretty bad one, esp. in light of modern explanations, which basically do everything better.

i hope i haven't offended or bored you. it just sounded like you were curious. so i thought you might be interested. cheers. :) Kevin Baas^talk 18:47, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I am self-aware. This is an interesting observable which is unexplainable in the sense that I also believe that (a) while I can probably make a machine which, by the Turing test, seems self-aware, (b) I do not believe that such a machine will actually possess self-awareness in the same sense that I do. So if my belief is right, atheists are wrong, and if it is wrong, atheists are right. Put differently, in a godless world, men can be gods (create life) -- or create souls, however you want to put it. But I don't think so. Erxnmedia (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

In the turing test, if the machine passes, that means that you thought you were talking to a human. and in as much as you believe humans to be self aware, you would believe that which you think is human to be self-aware, which in this case is the machine. but nothing of the test or its results speaks to the existence or non-existence of souls or deities. Kevin Baas^talk 18:35, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

From that article's definition of self-awareness it looks like it's merely the ability to distinguish between the hardware (the thing thinking) and the software (the thoughts). This would be quite a trivial task for an information-processing machine, and neither requires nor implies the existence of a soul. Kevin Baas^talk 18:40, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Assyrian International News Agency

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Assyrian International News Agency. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assyrian International News Agency. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Aetna article

Please see comments about your contributions to the Aetna article at the Aetna talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Aetna

Thanks, Danieldis47 (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism

A tag has been placed on National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for organizations and companies. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Codf1977 (talk) 13:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism

A tag has been placed on National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Codf1977 (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Leslie Greengard

The article Leslie Greengard has been proposed for deletion because under Wikipedia policy, all biographies of living persons created after March 18, 2010, must have at least one source that directly supports material in the article.

If you created the article, please don't take offense. Instead, consider improving the article. For help on inserting references, see Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or ask at Wikipedia:Help desk. Once you have provided at least one reliable source, you may remove the {{prod blp}} tag. Please do not remove the tag unless the article is sourced. If you cannot provide such a source within ten days, the article may be deleted, but you can request that it be undeleted when you are ready to add one.  Chzz  ►  17:47, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Assyrian International News Agency for deletion

The article Assyrian International News Agency is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assyrian International News Agency 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Tijfo098 (talk) 06:29, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Autopatrolled

Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:

• This permission does not give you any special status or authority
• Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
• You may wish to display the {{Autopatrolled}} top icon and/or the {{User wikipedia/autopatrolled}} userbox on your user page
• If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! Acalamari 21:29, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

EVH1 domain

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of EVH1 domain, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.cellsignal.com/reference/domain/evh1.html.

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. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 06:30, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

This kind of copying is strictly forbidden on Wikipedia. Please read WP:Copyright and do not do it again! Thanks, Theleftorium ^(talk) 13:49, 9 June 2011 (UTC)