User talk:Chan-Ho Suh/archive3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of old messages. Do not edit this page. Leave me new messages here.

{{wikibreak|Chan-Ho|around the middle of March 2006 - modulo short bursts of editing to revert vandalism or clean up his user pages :-) }}

---

Contents 1 Thanks for your help! 2 Thanks for birthday wishes 3 Thurston 4 Hello, Chan-Ho 5 Davisites vs. Natives 6 User pages as external links 7 Andreas Floer - Verifying of information 8 Examples of topological spaces 9 Cornell Edits 10 Dr. Hwang Woo Suk article - picture 1990s 11 Brandt 12 Have a nice time 13 Thanks 14 users by alma matter 15 hi 16 hello 17 Your plea 18 Thanks for your comment... 19 Wishing you success 20 Thanks again 21 Thoughts on Wikipedia 22 Talk:Controversy over Cantor's theory/Archive1 23 Selector calculus AFD closing 24 Thank you for the fine footnotes 25 Mathematician AfDs 26 Vlastimil Pták 27 Yes, but you don't give

[edit] Thanks for your help!

Thanks for showing me how to do links to wikipedia articles correctly. Also thks for welcoming me to wikipedia.

Mjg0503 03:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for birthday wishes

Hi Chan-Ho, thank you for your birthday wishes. We appreciate you work very much, keep on! Michael & Detlef from Berlin

[edit] Thurston

Thanks for all the work. XaosBits 15:38, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hello, Chan-Ho

Remember to take care of the cats, ok? Twinxor t 02:25, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Davisites vs. Natives

You may want to reconsider your recent repeated reverts, changing "Notable Davisites" to "Notable Natives" in the Davis, California article. Please refer to the Merriam-Webster dictionary for the definition of "native" in this context [1]. This article is about an American town, so American usage and spelling pertain in this instance, in accordance with Wikipedia policy. The Oxford English Dictionary (OED) has no standing here. --Quicksilver^{T @} 06:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

You mean the definition listed at your link:

Main Entry: 2native Function: noun 1 : one born or reared in a particular place 2 a : an original or indigenous inhabitant b : something indigenous to a particular locality 3 : a local resident; especially : a person who has always lived in a place as distinguished from a visitor or a temporary resident

somehow contradicts my rationale for my reverts? It doesn't seem so, especially in light of definition 3. I think using the word native here is better because definitions 1 and 3 is more inclusive and less likely to cause problems in the long run.

BTW, I did check Webster first and noted it agreed with OED. I should have been more precise. I apologize for any confusion. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 07:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[copying discussion over to talk page for Davis, California; please continue discussion there]

[edit] User pages as external links

Using a Wikipedia User page as an external link is an inappropriate use of User pages. User pages are not to be used as personal websites. If the people who have that page would like to find another host for their material, then they are more than welcome to do so. User:Zoe|^(talk) 02:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

It's hard understanding what you mean. Are you just against the use of a user page being linked in the article, what you refer to as an "external link"? (I thought the definition of an external link was a link that was external!) In that case, why do you just rollback instead of being a good editor and removing the link without removing the rest of the information?

Given your explanation, I will re-add what you deleted with the modification that the user pages links are not included. Ok? --Chan-Ho (Talk) 02:56, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Andreas Floer - Verifying of information

Hi Chan-Ho, thank you for your kind proposal; it seems to be a good idea and we completely agree. Please do what you think is right! We will provide you with any material and information needed, no problem at all. Rolf of Erkabo 08:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

... And: Keep cool! Since in fact and reality there is no self reference whatsoever in the Andreas Floer case, you will find a way. Cheers from all Four of Erkabo 14:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

That's funny. I wasn't worried about self-referencing in the article...it's just coincidence that I happened to learn about all this Wikipedia goings-on like the Adam Curry thing at this time. I thought it was interesting and so listed them on my user page. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 02:48, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If so, all the better! Rolf Erkabo 07:33, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Examples of topological spaces

Hi, I had moved the Alexander horned sphere to Category:Topological spaces because that cat seems to be a collection of specific examples. But perhaps it is misnamed -- perhaps it could be moved to a new Category:Examples in topology ? linas 21:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, the horned sphere is not a topological space; it's a particular embedding of one space into another. That's why I moved it back. Category of topological spaces should be reserved for topological spaces, whether examples or not. However, note that the category contains subcategories and more general classes of examples are contained in them. That's why it looks like it only contains specific examples, e.g. Hawaiian earring.

I think the proposed new category is vague and would end up being too big. Almost anything would be an example. I don't see what the problem is with the current system. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 03:58, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'm not convinced there is a rational "current system". The division of articles between Category:Topology and Category:General topology seems vague. It seems, to me, that one could make arguments for many of the articles to be moved from one to the other. Also, some/many of the articles in both of these categories start with the phrase "In mathematics, xxx is a topological space", and yet there would probably be a lot of resistance to move these to Category:Topological spaces. My gut feel is that some house-cleaning is needed, but I doubt I could do it without stirring up lots of passion. linas 18:01, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Linas. I have not really paid much attention to these categories. Thanks for bringing this to my notice. I would say from my brief look just now at these two categories that: 1) some articles, as you say, could be moved from one to the other. Some, such as Tychonoff's theorem, you could probably make a strong case for moving to General Topology.

2) Per "xxx is a topological space", certainly some articles, such as manifold, are appropriately listed under a tighter subcategory such as Manifolds. I think that such articles (with this beginning) should probably be in Topological spaces unless there is a more suitable category.

I suppose you may upset some people if you start moving things around, but I think you would be able to do a successful house-cleaning if you first outline in a more or less exact manner why one article belongs in one category instead of another. Get some feedback first and then begin cleaning. I suggest my comment 2) above is a good start. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 18:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cornell Edits

Hey Chan-Ho, I was slightly amused to see my name in your edit comment in the Cornell University article history. Thanks for cleaning that section up - good to keep the page about my alma mater in shape, and not too braggy :) Thanks! - JustinWick 23:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Justin! I'm glad you didn't mind my edit. Sometimes people have little exchanges in the edit summaries -- probably not a great idea, but I think, sometimes very appropriate. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 22:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Hwang Woo Suk article - picture 1990s

Hello, i have received your note in my talk page; after conducting a better research upon the picture i uploaded to wikipedia receintly stating it was dr. Hwang working in a lab, i have to say it was not him. The picture was replaced for another one, which i believe is valuable in order to illustrate the article. If my contributions were wrong or if i made mistake please let me know so i can fix it, thank you, cheers. :) HappyApple 01:33, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Always glad to help!, i hope article's quality be improved day by day, but keep an eye on NPOV edits.

In my personal opinion, (talking as scientist -well as an undergraduate student) i belive this article should be focused whether doctor's experiment were successful or not and less complaining if he cheated or lied, i am not a specialist regarding cloning or biology (i am chemist and i see things from a molecular point of view) but as far as i know it seems he succeded by cloning dogs from somatic cells, and not only that, he is pioneer working with stem cells, among other studies; i feel controversies happened just in recent weeks should be analysed and people should dont state him as liar (like previous edits) i dont think its fair stating that. A better balanced version is what i wish to see and this is what i have been working on these days, i hope i am doing it well, anyways contributions are always welcomed and if i made mistake feel free to change it, your edits are valuable too.  :) cheers HappyApple 00:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC) .

[edit] Brandt

I reverted to the version I had earlier protected i.e. I undid Splash's unprotection. These edit wars are very harmful, especially with an article that is being watched closely. We're making ourselves look childish. On the substantive issue, I have no opinion one way or the other. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I realize sometimes it is appropriate for an admin to revert a page before protecting it. I don't believe this is one of those times, especially since you did not revert to a consensus version. Indeed, the version that best fits the phrase "consensus version" is the version before the redirect (the one I reverted to). Remember those AFDs?

My comment on your talk page was out of concern that your actions could reflect badly on you. Especially given your history of editing on that page and your interaction with Brandt. I believe the normal course of action is to get someone else to do the protection for you.

While I appreciate we may look childish, I would do everything again (my revert, comments in talk pages, etc.). I believe I acted as "grown up" as I could have, considering the circumstances. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 04:42, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Have a nice time

Hi Chan-Ho, have a nice time! Till January! All the 4 of Erkabo 06:35, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hey, thanks for the comment (about CFD). I thought that was pretty immature, and I'm glad you agree with me. Have a good day! -- Chris 05:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] users by alma matter

More and more of us are getting this added, you might wanna do the same: Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Cornell University -- Cornell Rockey 00:28, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, seems to be a good idea. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 02:41, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hi

Thank you for your advice. Unfortunately and surprisingly, Graham was personally uncivil to me even before multiple revisions, and continued to rant at me and about me to others, calling me names, as a middle-schooler might do, in an impolite, immature manner. All I want is a neutral point of view in the article and civil treatment on Wikipedia. Other readers share the same opinion about the Apple article; see the comments on the discussion page. It contains too much unverifiable opinion. It is not supposed to be an editorial filled with hearsay. I will not work on it anymore, but I hope someone does. Again, thank you. MathStatWoman 12:51, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] hello

You were one of the people who edited the Apple Computer Article, so I contact you after I read my watchlist. I am an old, retired professor of computer science, and I thought that I could add a bit to the article since I was there when Apple introduced its new computer before they called it by any name, later to be the Macintosh.

But I had my words wiped away, and got a rude message; the message follows:

The stuff you're trying to add to this article is inappropriate. The article is Apple Computer, the company, not Apple Macintosh, the machine. The statement needs putting in its proper context, backed up with a reliable source. The seeding of Macs to universities prior to its launch is not that notable in any case. Before diving in and annoying any more people, why not take a look at wikiproject:Macintosh and see where your contributions might be more usefully received. Graham 15:06, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I did not know I was "annoying any more people" and did not know that I could not edit the article with interesting information from my university days.

Please tell me: is this how Wikipedia is, with such rudeness and insult? I suppose I should stop although I just started. I do not want to be "annoying" as this Graham claims.

I hope you can advise me. Is everyone so rude as this Graham? If so, the Wikipedia is not a pleasant place.

DeveloperFrom1983 15:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Puh-leese. Sockpuppetry is pointless. Graham 15:21, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

While the timing of his/her first edit indicates possible sockpuppetry, I don't find it so compelling as to make the determination. Many people are attracted by a dispute and sign up for their first account to make their voices heard. I think it's best to assume good faith now, rather than regret it later. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 20:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi. So, incivility is not rampant by any means on Wikipedia. However, the relative anonymity of the Internet, as you probably know, offers the oppportunity to behave less politely and socially than one might in real life. An additional complication is that written communication, without the benefit of body language or familiarity with the other person, can often be misinterpreted or cast in a different light than intended.

I think it's good to realize that there is a large, thriving community around Wikipedia, and it will very likely be that you will not get along with everyone. But ultimately let's remember that we're building a useful reference, and I think all long-term contributors realize that it's best to put aside differences and put the project ahead of personal feelings. In many cases people are able to make amends, and even if they don't end up liking each other, at the least they are able to gain each other's respect as a contributor.

I believe Graham to be a good contributor that has made valuable contributions to articles and discussions. Unfortunately, you have been drawn into a dispute between him and another (new) user MathStatWoman, because he regards you as this other user in disguise. This dispute, as I understand it, started because Graham was insulted by MathStatWoman's initial comments. I can understand why he found the comments patronizing, but I believe he made a mistake by biting a newbie. An ideal we should strive for, (but one which I myself cannot always follow) is to be more patient with newer, less experienced editors. I know Graham follows this ideal also, but unfortunately in this case, his feelings have gotten the better of his judgment. But as I said, even from such an inauspicious start, not all is lost and I am hoping for reconciliation. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 20:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your plea

As soon as I contributed to the Apple Page, this editor, Graham, immediately wrote to me "don't be a baby" and called me a "fool" and a "sockpuppet". (I did not even know what that meant), and so on. If I responded to him on the wrong page, his User Page it is because I linked to it accidentally, and did not realize I was not on the Talk page. Also, I did not know he was a senior editor. Someone recently taught me, as a newcomer, to use tildas, so I thought it was ok to discuss that with him, too. I meant no disrespect. I thought I was passing on info that was given to me. I am not enjoying this contentiousness. Why did Graham think it was appropriate to call me insulting names, instead of helping a newcomer? I think he owes me the apology. MathStatWoman 20:42, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't wish to prolong this, but I think you're being a little disingenuous. I didn't call you a baby immediately, that was after several reversions. The history will show this to be the case. The change I made to the text originally was perfectly reasonable, and in fact we have an edited version of that same text now. However, there was obviously something about it that rankled with you; my impression was that it was because it wasn't promoting the Mac in the way you wanted to see it promoted. This was demonstrated by your initial change which included several erroneous but advocative statements. It is not Wikipedia's place or policy to advocate anything, so I reverted to my neutral version. At that point, you made another edit, which was basically to delete the whole thing. This struck me as an act of petulance, not to mention throwing out some perfectly acceptable text. That was what prompted the 'baby' remark - you appeared to be throwing a tantrum as a result of not getting your way with your original edit. As far as helping a newcomer, I am happy to do so if they demonstrate a willingness to be helped. In this case I wrote a perfectly affable comment on your user page which pointed out why the 'facts' that you had put in were incorrect and non-neutral, and hence why I had reverted them. You didn't respond to that, but instead persisted in reverting changes until you were warned about the 3 revert rule. In the midst of that, you added the comment to my user page. I don't see that you were 'passing along' a tip about using four tildes, because every single one of my comments was signed in this manner already - it's a very automatic thing for me, so it's not as if I would have missed one out by mistake, and indeed I did not - so what was the purpose of the so-called 'tip'? Again, it seemed as if you were willing to enter into a tit-for-tat exchange of smart-alec remarks, but NOT into a sensible discussion about the actual article text in question. I don't consider myself a 'senior editor' - there is no such thing within Wikipedia. However there are experienced editors and I would think I am one - that is why I found the 'tips' about correct editing techniches both patronising and ironic, since they were not even put in the right place. Given your unwillingness to debate the article, but instead just constantly revert and whine about impartiality, etc, I'm afraid I rather lost patience at that point. This was compounded at the same time by the fact that as soon as you were warned about the 3-revert rule, you logged out and continued to attempt to revert using your 'anonymous' IP address. As a newbie you may not know that this is not only perfectly visible and obvious, but also considered a breach of etiquette. This is what being a sockpuppet means by the way. While this kind of thing might be tolerated by other editors, unfortunately I have neither the time, energy nor the natural disposition to deal with this type of behaviour with infinite patience. As I said, I do not suffer fools gladly - and some people will insist on putting themselves into that category by their actions. Early on in the exchange I offered the advice to take thing a little slower and take the trouble to understand where efforts can be best directed, and how things are done. This was well-meant and offered perfectly amicably; my only motivation is for the betterment of the article. However, it was ignored. I'm afraid that you brought the entire situation upon yourself from start to finish, and as a result I do not feel I have anything to apologise for. Further, your attempts at personal appeals to a number of other editors, including Chan-Ho, (to whom I do apologise for taking up so much space on his talk page), and Stan Shebs, in an attempt to try and build up some sort of consensus against me is also a fairly childish act. Don't you realise I already know these people, and vice versa? The right way to go about things is to use an article's talk page to discuss the points you feel need changing, make suggestions, build consensus that way, focussed on the article, and not on other people. Had you followed this course as suggested, you would have found me prepared to bend over backwards to reach an accommodation with your changes, as I have done with hundreds of other editors in thousands of other articles. I hope you can at least try and see my point of view. I'm perfectly willing to put it all behind me, it really is nothing personal, and nothing I will ever lose any sleep over. What you have to do now is demonstrate that you have learned something from all this. Wikipedia is for the most part a lot of fun, and I hope you will stick around and continue to make valuable contributions; but like any well-established community there are good ways to do things and less good ways - usually the fun goes out of it very quickly if you don't or won't figure out the good ways. Remember, your right to edit is equal to everyone elses, but only equal, not greater. In addition, the quality of what you contribute matters - the survival of a piece of text over time is a highly Darwinian phenomenon- make it fit, robust and interesting, and it will survive. If it doesn't survive, you know it wasn't good enough. That's how it is, you might as well get used to it. On every single edit page it states: If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. That's why you must accept reversions with good grace: it's just our version of natural selection. Graham 05:44, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so what I think is that it would be a good idea for both of you to not interact as much as possible. Feelings have been hurt on both sides, and it would be wise to not leave messages on each other's talk pages or edit the same articles, or do anything to escalate the situation. Also, since it's clear you are both watching this page, I ask that you not make remarks that could appear derogatory to the other person on my talk page. If you wish to address comments to me about this matter without making comments about the other person, that would be ok. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 07:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. However, you may wish to review the exchange in the light of the following, posted on Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser - CheckUser confirms that user:DeveloperFrom1983 (talk • contribs) is a sockpuppet of user:MathStatWoman (talk • contribs). Kelly Martin (talk) 17:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC) --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by GRAHAMUK (talk • contribs).

I had noticed your checkuser request and was wondering when it would get a response. I hope you will take this as constructive criticism, but I think you should have waited for the results before you proceeded with some of your comments. In any case, you appear more than vindicated. I had been wondering about DeveloperFrom1983's most recent edits to talk pages. Anyway, relax and let the admins take appropriate action now that the evidence has come in. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 00:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, good advice, as usual. It's a little hard to relax when this user is going around making exaggerated accusations against me to a variety of editors, all the while acting in such an incredibly two-faced manner. I'm just not used to that, I really do assume good faith by and large. I'm afraid I am utterly gobsmacked, truth be told, and just not sure how to deal with it. Graham 00:50, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

It's easy to give good advice, just hard to follow it :-) I'm not sure how I would have dealt with this kind of thing (maybe just avoid Wikipedia for a week). --Chan-Ho (Talk) 00:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, you know how hard that can be - I'm a certified Wikiholic... though at times like these it's easy to get discouraged. I appreciate the constructive criticism - normally I wouldn't have been too quick to lay such an accusation, but to me it was blindingly obvious given the revert war with MathStatWoman and the fact that this "new" user seemed to pick up exactly where she left off, using the same language, etc. I just needed proof... Now I have it I will relax, but at the very least she owes me an apology. Graham 01:01, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your comment...

... on my talk page. Ambi is now simply not talking to me, which I suppose is more civil than telling me that I'm clearly trying to waste people's time and piss them off (always nice to have someone tell you what your motives are, eh?). Anyway, thanks again for the support. JDoorjam 14:49, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wishing you success

Hi Chan-Ho, wishing you success and all the very best! Till later. Cheers! The 4 of Erkabo 07:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support! Hopefully this will be the year I finish. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 01:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks again

... this time, for rv'ing vandalism on my user page. There's no reason to think you'll need it, but I've added your user page to my watch list; maybe I'll get to return the favor. JDoorjam 04:39, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts on Wikipedia

Glad you read what I wrote... it was rather late and I really do have to clean it up a bit...

In real life, I used to very much be an idealist (and at heart, I think I still am... which is actually the root cause of my cynicism, the dissonance between ideal and reality). Now I'm mostly a pragmatist (with idealist sympathies) and I... get annoyed by some of the extremism on Wikipedia. Of course, I believe everyone should have the right to their beliefs etc, but while Wikipedia may some day turn into something that represents "the collective knowlege of mankind" right now it really is just a kick-ass hobby project.

I find the "social experiment" part of Wikipedia fascinating - I hope someone publishes a wikibook on the subject. I'm concerned by what I see as inefficiencies in the system, however some of it is inevitable.

Have a good one. - JustinWick 19:51, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Controversy over Cantor's theory/Archive1

Good comments/edits you made to the Petry article. You might like to look over the talk archive, if you have not done so already. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 22:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Selector calculus AFD closing

Hi Jitse. Does it appear to you, as it does me, that the closing was premature? I thought it was up to the discretion of the closing admin whether to extend the closing deadline if there was consensus forming. It certainly seems to me that there was significant comments being made and very likely that some sort of consensus would have formed. It's also rather strange that the AFD discussion would be closed so soon after some comments were made that I think would have swayed voters. Do you think a deletion review is appropriate or what? --Chan-Ho (Talk) 21:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It is true that the closing admin may decide to extend the deadline, but this is done mostly (at the moment, almost exclusively, it seems) when there are just one or two people reacting on the nomination. I do think that admins should use this possibility more often.

I'd probably also have closed the AfD of Selector calculus as no consensus, mainly because I don't find the reasons for deletion very strong. The question that AfD answers, at least in theory, is: should there be an article about selector calculus? The current article is very bad, but I'm not 100% convinced that it is so bad that it should be deleted completely. I could live with it if everything but the first sentence is deleted (in that case, it should of course be merged with Heim theory). I asked HappyCamper for his opinion; he is well versed in Wikipedia matters and he seems to have looked into Heim theory.

I don't think that deletion review would change anything. My advice is to accept that there is an article (or at least a redirect) at Selector calculus and to try to make the best of it. We can always nominate it in a month's time if we still think that it should be deleted.

By the way, it's a cute photo you have on the top of this talk page ;) -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:18, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for the fine footnotes

in the Andreas Floer article. They make it look better! If you find some more citations that could be used, please let me know, I'll put them in (hopefully by then I will know how to make those footnotes). Will Zehnder take the hint about the fiftieth birthday? He has not answered yet. Maybe eventually it will result in something that can go into the article as citations. Cheers Rolf Erkabo 16:34, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematician AfDs

Hi there. If you're wondering why I have been defending Geoffrey Martin and Hiroshi Haruki, it's because even though the deletion policy says that academics are notable only if they make a "significant contribution" to knowledge, I have come across a lot of bios of "Islamic studies" lecturers, whose articles do not state how they have furthered their respective fields (they are not known for making any new theory, except perhaps for doing TV show interviews defending bin Laden, Hamas etc and attacking Israel; they all seem to be written by Islamic contributors who are trying to swamp WP with muslim stuff) are always defended by " is a published academic". That's why I always vote to keep any math/scientist who has any papers, because at least they derived or performed a new experiment; it doesn't bother me if they get 0 citations, or the work is an obscure novelty. compared to band-cruft and random websites and reality-show contestants, I feel that any mathematician who has derived two new lines of stuff is good enough, because apparently being a fundamentalist apologist is also. Regards,Blnguyen | Have your say!!! 03:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I hadn't been particularly wondering, as I usually see many kinds of viewpoints in AFD discussions. I feel your rationale and actions are, in the end, counter-productive. We don't really need to fight cruft with more cruft. In particular, I don't like it when people do things on Wikipedia to make some sort of point rather than focusing on bettering encyclopedic content. But of course, you are free to do as you choose. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 04:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vlastimil Pták

Thanks for the help. I had added few bits on biography and few links (by guessing their relevancy). Pavel Vozenilek 20:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. Nice additions. I think it should be safe from an AFD now. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 04:12, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Yes, but you don't give

H Chan-Ho,

I'd like to point your attention to Finite type invariant, where the following line appears:

We give the combinatorial definition of finite type invariant due to Goussarov and (independently) Birman-Lin:

immediately followed by the end of the article. --Trovatore 17:51, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Hmm...yeah. I've been meaning to get to it. I actually have a crappy version as a rough draft; I will merge that in, although it is rather substandard. It's probably better than leaving the article in its current state. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 04:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)