User talk:Chan-Ho Suh/archive2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Info This is an archive of old messages. Do not edit this page. Leave me new messages here.

Hello, I'm happy to see you're interested in discussing Wikipedia-related issues!

Please note that:

  • For new discussions, I prefer you add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading.
  • I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise.
  • Please understand that I have very limited time to work on Wikipedia, so my response may take a long time.
  • Old messages are archived here: Archive1 Archive3

Contents

[edit] Roylee

I noticed that you have interacted with User:Roylee a while ago. You might be interested in User:Mark Dingemanse/Roylee. Also, check out the history of User talk:Roylee if you feel like it. The bottomline is that you're not the only one to have noticed the POV and unverifiability of his contributions. Regards, — mark ✎ 29 June 2005 15:35 (UTC)

Hi Mark. Thanks for the heads-up. Unfortunately, he's not the only editor of that kind I've had to debate with on Wikipedia, and one major reason I'm not editing remotely controversial articles anymore is due to their influence. I don't have the energy or time for that, but I certainly appreciate those like you that do. Perhaps there is hope for Wikipedia after all. --Chan-Ho July 5, 2005 20:08 (UTC)

[edit] Ricci flow

Hi, I am very interested in your comments, and would be glad of help in improving the article, but can you explain in more detail what you think I got wrong in the talk page for that article? See the excellent preprint by Bakas which I cited, and note that I am preparing a similar article on the Calabi flow, as background for a forthcoming article on Robinson-Trautman spacetimes.---CH (talk) 17:03, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about my goof in adding to your user page (I meant to add to your talk page). Also, thanks for the explanation of what you want to change in Ricci flow article--- sounds good to me and when you have a chance I hope you will make the improvements.---CH (talk) 18:22, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

You should realize that my knowledge is more on the 3-manifolds side of things, e.g. topology and geometry, and not so much on the analytic/PDE side. So I don't know how much I can help on the last half of the Ricci flow article, but I'll pitch in where able. That Bakas paper looks interesting; took a quick look, but I may be out of my depth there.
Unfortunately, my time for editing Wikipedia for a week or two at least has run out, and I also have a queue of Wikipedia edits (related to Andreas Floer) that has priority; however, as soon as I come back I will correct the uniqueness issue that I mentioned. --Chan-Ho 18:32, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
Perfect; your expertise complements my knowledge. I'll try to take a look at the book you cited.---CH (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] William Shockley

I just removed an addition you made on July 5, 2005 to William Shockley. You added the third sentence in:

All the other sources listed on the page give the contrary impression.

This is one of the sources:

http://www.pbs.org/transistor/album1/shockley/shockley3.html

As you can see, Shockley was careful to go out of his way to correct people who were led astray by Bell's publicity machine.

Good. I'm glad to see you had basis for your edit.

I wonder if you bothered to read the article before editing it.

Perhaps you should check my edit history before making sophmoric comments like this. You have made ~350 edits, I have made ~10,000 and am one of the founding members of the wiki.

Uh, ok. You're right. Before being so "sophmoric" I should have checked how long your edit list was. And how famous you were. Believe it or not, I did check out your little bio. It was obvious you were very proud (as is even more obvious now) of your number of edits, although I didn't realize that editing Wikipedia from two years ago makes one a "founding member". However, I don't see why that should influence my decision to challenge you to give a reason for your edit.

If you did, I would expect that you would note Shockley's attempts to take the credit away from Bardeen and Brattain, e.g. telling them to their faces their names would not be on the patent, his actions to block them from making futher progress on the transistor, etc.

You are confusing the arguments over the patent with the later history.

I can only come to the conclusion that for whatever reason, you made something up and just added it to the article. Please don't do this in the future.

I can only assume you are a young geek with an over-inflated sense of ego and an underdeveloped sense of decorum.

Over-inflated ego...hm. I'm willing to admit an honest mistake, but really you are extremely thin skinned; it's hard to believe you've been editing a wiki for over two years...Are we done with the character assassinations yet? --Chan-Ho 15:07, September 11, 2005 (UTC)


Maury 12:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Sarfatti

The only edit I did to the Jack Sarfatti article was to remove the redudant '''Jack Sarfatti''' from the article's start. If you compare the two versions, you will see that the previous version started:

Jack Sarfatti Jack Sarfatti is a theoretical physicist...

while my edited version started:

Jack Sarfatti is a theoretical physicist...

This was purely a technical edit without any regard to the meaning of the article's contents. Changing "Jack Sarfatti Jack Sarfatti" to "Jack Sarfatti" doesn't go against any consensus I've heard of, unless it's a Wikipedia policy to repeat people's names needlessly. — JIP | Talk 10:15, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Your response was too quick! What I thought had happened is that the anon had deleted the paragraph about Usenet, and that you had reinserted it while maintaining the intro paragraph to be about Sarfatti's background. I realized my mistake and added a note on my recent edit summary. But I guess you haven't seen it yet.
I'm guessing that as an admin you are staying out of this dispute, sticking with only technical edits. --Chan-Ho 10:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes I saw your edit summary after I posted this comment on your talk page. Thanks for the explanation.
Yes I am staying out of content disputes. I will only interfere if somebody posts outright vandalism such as "JACK SARFATTI ROCKS AND ALL WHO SAY HE IS A CRANK ARE GAY LOSERS OLOLOLOL". — JIP | Talk 10:36, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Sarfatti

You're welcome. As for the block, we strongly dislike legal threats here, and there was even an admin banned for this a while back. Meh. --Phroziac (talk) 05:11, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jack Sarfatti # 2

Sorry, Chan-Ho Suh, but I'm not going to protect it again. This is not an endorsement either of protecting or unprotecting it, but I feel that if I protect it I will become too involved in this dispute where I have already received legal threats. You can list it at requests for protection. Also, judging from the above post, I think Phroziac's already blocked J. Sarfatti, but if he hasn't done so, that accout should definitely be blocked for being a sockpuppet and making legal threats. Thanks! Flcelloguy | A note? | Desk | WS 19:26, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your reasons about the legal threats. As far as I know, you did not receive any yourself (unless by email). Even if you did, why get frightened, especially since you don't use your real identity? And no, Phroziac did not block User:J.Sarfatti; he blocked User:JackSarfatti. Anyway, since you don't want to get involved, I've asked another admin to block this account also. Page protection does not seem necessary at this stage, but I'm certain will be an issue in the future. I guess I better not count on your help for that. :-( --Chan-Ho 20:30, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/User_talk%7EChan-Ho_Suh_archive2_05b6.html"