User talk:Chan-Ho Suh/archive5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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

Contents

[edit] Untitled

I've been having run-ins with this guy Friday who deletes my articles whie they are still in development without even flagging them for deletion. I don't want to get in trouble for restoring deleted content, but if he just deletes them wihout giving them a chance for discussion and/or editing this seems to be counter-intuitive to creating articles. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by In Defense of the Artist (talk • contribs).

I'm not sure why you are mentioning this to me. Do I know you? In any case, I took a look at the discussion on Friday's talk page. It doesn't appear to me he is acting inappropriately. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 20:43, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requesting copyedit for Fly to the Sky

I'm just a high-schooler so my writing isn't too sophisticated. Recently, I was trying to improve the Fly to the Sky page. I was wondering if you could copy-edit? mirageinred 17:06, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page comments

Thank you for experimenting with the page User:Jbaber on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 23:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but there appears to be some confusion. No need to thank me for "experimenting". It was actually a kind of vandalism. And I have my very own sandbox! All mine. I will look at the welcome page...but it's always changing!! What's up with dat? For great diligence! --Chan-Ho (Talk) 23:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] JSJ decomposition

According to Jaco (page 3 of An Algorithm to Construct the JSJ Decomposition of a 3-manifold.) the phrase "closure of" that you removed should be there. Which of you is right? R.e.b. 02:08, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is a matter of terminology, mostly, that can confuse people who intepret the terms literally. There can be nonseparating tori in the JSJ decomposition. For example, consider a hyperbolic link complement with two boundary components where you glue the boundary components together. The JSJ decomposition is the torus that results from this gluing. But the closure of the single component that is the complement of the torus is obviously the whole manifold, which is not atoroidal or Seifert-Fibered. So saying the "closure of M-T" is bad.
This kind of ambiguity arises from the fact that either closure or "M-T", etc. needs to be defined appropriately. Usually, as a sloppy shorthand, something like "M-T", in this context, really means evacuate the interior of a closed regular neighborhood of T; some, like Hatcher, choose to use a different notation for this operation. Some (perhaps Jaco) may mean the complement, in which case "closure" has to mean something else like say, the metric completion of the complement from an arbitrary path metric on M. So sometimes people do say stuff like "closure of the complement", but it's understood by those in 3-manifolds to not mean "closure of the complement" but something like I described. And I think a good number of people choose to avoid this kind of misleading usage.
I should emphasize, however, that the way JSJ decomposition is written, this is all avoided. There, the phrase "cutting" is used. Cutting along a surface is a precisely defined operation (the evacuation procedure I described above). Using "closure" in addition to this is, I think, confusing and liable to trip people up, partly because it starts them thinking about the set theoretic complement. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 05:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the confusion is caused because there are 2 different versions of the JSJ decomposition. Jaco goes on to take the tori as the boundary of the characteristic (Seifert) submanifold, which requires that every non-separating torus in your version is replaced by 2 parallel copies. This second version has more tori, and has the word "closure of" in the statement. (Also Jaco seems to have incorrectly omitted the minimality condition: I dont see why you cant just add lots of parallel copies of tori in his version.) R.e.b. 14:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I see now. Yeah, I guess it's not a terminology issue after all. Although if "closure" is to be added, I would prefer "cutting" to be removed, and just say "complement".
Jaco has the minimality condition in the description of the torus decomposition. This minimality condition needs to be transferred over to his statement about the characteristic submanifold. So one takes the maximal Seifert fibered submanifold so that it's complement is atoroidal. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 17:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] S. M. Stirling

Thanks for the help on this, and thanks too for reverting the vandalism of my talk page. Whoever this guy is, he has a serious axe to grind. - Merzbow 06:44, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Minor clarification... I just noticed it was actually someone else who helped with my Talk Page, but the other thanks stands. :) - Merzbow 06:48, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Marcu

If you are ever in Berkeley, check out the "Editorial statement" on the Danut Marcu. Mhym 06:14, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Title Saitama mathematical journal.
Location(s): Math QA1.S28
Shelved: Unbound issues on Display Shelves - Alphabetically
Library has: 1(1983)-

I'm hardly ever there, and it seems unlikely I would be looking for this if I were! The less time Wikipedia interferes with my life the better :-) --Chan-Ho (Talk) 09:38, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

Hi, there. I just added myself to your low-dimensional topologist page. Thanks for maintaining such a list; I imagine this could be quite useful. I too am working on a dissertation, so I haven't edited much yet, but I look forward to working with other low-dimensional topologists when I'm done and have a job.  :) VectorPosse 10:16, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I imagine things will get even busier and busier after that! Anyway, my edits have been becoming more and more of the minor kind. Once I finish off a few things I promised, I don't envision spending much more time on Wikipedia. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 00:39, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, well it was good to have you around for a time anyway. I'd be happy to host the LDT list if you decide to leave for good at some point. Let me know at some point down the road. VectorPosse 05:59, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ropo

Well, that was a year ago... it's probably contributions to a page that has since been deleted, likely a template. Most of Ropo's work has been likewise deleted. But it was a long time ago so it shouldn't matter any more; I'll strike the tag. (Radiant) 09:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Ah, now I got it. A known Ropo sock made his userpage for him. See here. (Radiant) 09:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ExplorerCDT insight

Thanks for providing the link to the hoax investigation on my talk page; disconcertingly, it establishes User:ExplorerCDT's history, which is good to know in future (and... sigh... current) dealings with him. Regards, JDoorjam Talk 20:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On recent edits of Geometrization

Dear Mr. Suh, I have added the bit you have removed on the extent of Perelman's contribution to geometrization. My mistake, I must say. I should have adopted a stronger tone. There is nothing speculative to this, I am afraid. Perelman has said in the very paper that he would not clarify theorem 7.4 there. Xi-Ping and Huai-Dong were quite precise over this fact in the updated version of their article, and said that their proof of geometrization would have to use the weaker results I have mentioned. The announcement of Science magazine's "Breakthrough of the year" also alludes to this. And I may have not added links, but I did reference the sources, which are the very aforementioned articles. What I must concede, though, is the very last bit: their announcement of a proof for geometrization still awaits widespread endorsement. However, that theorem 7.4 is necessary for Perelman's prof to cover Geometrization, why, this is stated by Huai-Dong and Xi-Ping verbatim. Would you not like to reconsider this removal?

Incidentally, I am no mathematician, so I only transcribe what the researchers actually said.

Sincerely yours. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.39.191.190 (talk • contribs).

It may be that what you are trying to say and what you wrote are quite different. I can't tell. All I can say is that your wording was speculative and suggested things beyond what was actually said in the primary sources to which you refer. For example, as you have observed, Cao and Zhu have emphasized in their revised paper that the "complete proof is due to Hamilton and Perelman", so your wording that Perelman "stopped short" of a proof is not what was said by them. On the whole, there are just multiple things wrong with your edit. If you still disagree, you can bring it up on the article talk page. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 05:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

Chan-Ho Suh said (regarding the iPod article): This article is much improved from when I last really perused it a few years ago. It has a chance now, in my opinion, to make it to FA, whereas before, the candidacy was basically shot down. If you have suggestions, IE, please make them. People are listening. - 21 December 2006

Thanks for your support Chan-Ho! It's appreciated. You've motivated me to continue working on the iPod article. I'll try to bring it up to featured standard.--IE 17:07, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Impossible Puzzle

I don't know very many impossible puzzles, in fact list 10 right now all that have articles in Wikipedia because I don't know that many of them --Independentdependent 22:47, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I know from experience there are many impossible puzzles. If you delve into the puzzle literature, or hang around mathematicians, you would too. Sometimes the impossibility isn't intended and not discovered until much later, and sometimes it's intentional, as in the case of the 15-puzzle. If you want to learn more "impossible puzzles", you may want to look at material by the famous puzzle master Sam Loyd, and books by Martin Gardner. Sometimes you can find them in books on magic tricks or bar tricks. I don't know what the number of such puzzles is on Wikipedia, but that's irrelevant. Scarcity of these puzzles on Wikipedia (if that is true) can just as well be part of an argument to delete Impossible puzzle. After all, all that is on there is a paraphrase of another article, a couple links, and a definition stating that an impossible puzzle, is, well, a puzzle that is impossible to solve. Policy states dictionary entries should be deleted from Wikipedia. If you want to vote "keep" on the article, you better do so on the AFD page rather than on the talk page. Several people have suggested that if there are enough of these on Wikipedia, it's far better to have a category. I agree. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 01:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Notability (science)

I just discovered your comment and bumped it down for more discussion. Can you elaborate on how mathematics publication is different from other sciences? ~ trialsanderrors 20:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I am fully familiar with these and I corrected the spelling so it was correct.TellyaddictEditor review! 17:08, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • The reason I corrected the spelling was because the term: generalized is American english and generalised is british english and I believed that to be correct, I also removed the red link as the chances of it being created were very slim.TellyaddictEditor review! 17:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Your mediation skills are good.--IE 00:50, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm flattered, but I deny being a good mediator. Everyone involved is editing in good faith, so it's simple enough to straighten things out. That's not always the case. By the way, nice job on the iPod pictures! --Chan-Ho (Talk) 15:27, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mathematical joke

Is there a Wikipedia article that would describe the type of humor Colin Adams uses? If not, you should start it. ^_^ V-Man737 01:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi! To tell you the truth, I was kind of leery of doing that reversion, as I knew it was almost inevitable it would lead to a request for further explication. "Mathematical humor" is really more than puns or even jokes. For example, things like mathematical fiction can fall into that category. The type of humor Adams uses is, to some degree, like the kind you might see in something by Lewis Carroll. Perhaps that should be called mathematical whimsy. Such math fiction utilizes parody and satire to great effect.
For a sample of what Adams may write about, see [1], which lists some titles of articles. For example, one story is 'a retelling of the Three Little Pigs in which the pigs are trying to get Ph.D.'s in mathematics and the wolf is trying to "blow a hole" in their proofs'.
In any case, it seems to me to be very difficult to explain what "mathematical humor" is, except that it is a kind of humor that often requires being a mathematician to fully appreciate. When I see the mess that is mathematical joke, it makes me realize that an article on mathematical humor is DOOMED. (One problem with the mathematical joke article is that most examples are the kind of pedestrian humor that non-mathematicians would most likely appreciate more than the actual mathematician.) --Chan-Ho (Talk) 03:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I kind of thought so too. Adams' work, to me, seems to resemble an allegory, would there be room in Wikipedia for Mathematical allegory, or is that more about story problems? V-Man737 04:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Well, why are you asking me? :-) I have no idea if there's "room". I expect if it is not carefully written and researched, someone will AFD it. One thing that would really help is to make sure from the start to clearly define what the article is about. Then stick to that definition and add some sources and examples. For instance, what has been written about mathematical allegories? If there isn't much, then it will be difficult to write this article. A list or category (for books like Flatland) may then be more appropriate. By the way story problem redirects to word problem (mathematics education), which itself is rife with problems. Anyway, I would say what we're discussing is substantially different than what is commonly called "story problem". --Chan-Ho (Talk) 22:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Hrm. I'll just leave it alone for now. V-Man737 08:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] commons:User:Chanho

For the purpose of voting for the commons picture of the year, I created the account commons:User:Chanho. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Christina Sormani

Hi, Chan-Ho!

You put a PROD tag on Christina Sormani about 5 weeks ago. Somebody else deleted that tag. Today I put the article up for deletion (AfD). I don't know if you'll see this before your long vacation is over, but I figure you might appreciate a heads up. Enjoy your holiday! DavidCBryant 20:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] UC Davis & Yale Blue

Thanks for striking a balance between my changes and that other fellow's. Good job using citations and everything. Smarterray 21:11, 1 March 2007 (UTC)ray

[edit] Re: Joyce Hatto article

Thank you for reverting it to Feldspar's version. While WP:3RR is policy, WP:POINT is a guideline, and given that I had already reverted twice today, my edit seems (by my estimation) a worthwhile exception to that guideline. Various anony, dynamic IP users kept making edits that may violate WP:BLP (not Hatto, but her husband), undoing "our" rv's. These "contributors" ignore the Talk page, and I'd already used RV at least twice, the users kept using different IPs making it impossible to chat with them, and so my elaborate wording seemed the only way to go. --Otheus 11:41, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I hope you will accept some advice, as I think you are somewhat unfamiliar with what is accepted practice. Trying to go around 3RR in that way will not "fool" any admin, and I wouldn't do that again. If your actions had been more persistent or extreme, a block is possible; violating WP: POINT is in fact a blockable offense, depending on the exact circumstances. BLP specifically says removal of potentially libelous, poorly sourced material, etc., does not count toward 3RR. So feel free to just expunge such things and not worry about 3RR. Of course, ultimately your actions should be defensible if any questions arise. If you need more editors to help, the BLP noticeboard is the best place to start with. Also, I don't know if you noticed, but 3RR says you should not exceed 3 reverts within 24 hours. It's possible to still get blocked for coming close, but generally that does not happen unless there is some other kind of misbehavior, e.g. patterns of coming close and then starting up again when the time limit is pass. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 13:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, I am still somewhat new and trying to figure out how to properly balance the various policies, guidelines, etc. On the one hand you have WP:Rules, and on the other hand, I've seen some vicious (unnamed) admins who really like to use their power. So, thanks again for the advice.
What is/where is the "BLP noticeboard"? --Otheus 13:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard; there's also a link to it on the BLP tag I added to the talk page. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 13:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] csd g4

Ah, my mistake. I only saw the first AfD, saw that that one said delete, so I speeided it under g4. My mistake, I'll restore it. It's not showing any edits in 20 days( before my deletion) so I have no idea how I came acorss it actually.--Wizardman 03:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] John H Conway

Glad you liked the John Horton Conway photo, and thanks for deleting the previous vandalism.Dan Hoey 18:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Torus animation

Hi Chan-Ho, thanks for your comments on FPC. However I feel that you misunderstood a few points... The discussion was long, for sure. But why did you claim that, according to me, the animation was not demonstrating an homeomorphism, when I wrote several times that it could certainly be with the right choices? The solution given by Salix doesn't surprise me; I could certainly have done something similar if I had wished (it's actually very much like making the two steps of my solution into one). The point was that, from the previous comments, I felt that other people were at risk of making the last three mistakes. Looking at the rest of the discussion, I think I was right: even after I had warned about mistake 4, users Kieff and Trialsanderrors were close to making it, I think. And why do you call nitpicks the first two arguments, when three mathematicians agree with the risk of confusion? And how should I take your authority argument about you being a topologist? I am not devoid of experience in this field, though certainly not as experienced as you, and I think I have a quite good idea of how research works there. Looking back at what followed from my remarks, perhaps I should not have made them, since I knew the problem could be solved; but I had expected to get accurate answers much sooner, from people telling whether the risks of mistakes seemed serious to them. Instead of that, nobody understood... So I don't agree with you when you call the animation perfect: people's understanding is superficial. I am a bit surprised that you didn't understand the purpose of my remarks. --Bernard 21:33, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

While I'm at this, here is the kind of idea that I would consider better for illustrating homeomorphism or homotopy:

With an animation between the two (yes, I finally think that it is not a serious problem even for illustrating homeomphism, at least with proper warnings), and preferably with a polar grid drawn on the right set and continuously deformed to match the left set. Also, we could have an animation of a square with proper identifications of edges being deformed to a torus or a Klein bottle... All these ideas are really better I think: they are not ambiguous and convey more important mathematics. --Bernard 22:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I read your comments carefully enough, I think. I can see that I must have misunderstood you somehow, but I did actually look over all your comments, including your question to Salix Alba and the comment you left at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Graphics/Torus, where you said "The image is a better illustration of homotopy than homeomorphism (see also the comment from SurDin on Talk:Homeomorphism),and more importantly, the transformation that is suggested by the animation is not actually an homeomorphism. By this I meant the transformation between the first and the last frame of the animation." I hope you can see why I would take you to be saying that there is no homeomorphism depicted between the first and last moments of the animation from such remarks.
As for my "authority argument", you realize it was only in response to your authority argument? You relied on stating your mathematical background several times in responding to people and insinuating they were wrong. I felt it was only fair game to say hey, I'm a topologist and disagree with you.
By the way, I don't call the animation "perfect", but I said it is great. There is a difference in the language. While you say that others are in danger of some misconception, I don't get that impression from what the others said. This only highlights the difficulties in explaining these kinds of things with words. And it certainly doesn't help when you nitpick to the degree that I believe you did.
If you think animating your image is fine, I really have no idea why you are against the coffee mug animation. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 23:35, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I can see how you understood my comment on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Mathematics/Graphics/Torus which was indeed dubious, but it was a shortcut to my comments on FPC.
I would have prefered not making any authority argument on FPC. I waited some time to do this, and only when I honestly thought that others were not understanding my mathematical comments. You will notice that, in the end, mathematicians did understand. What clue did you have that I did not know enough topology? Notice also that you are disagreeing on something I really did no say.
Not that is it so important, but you did write "This is a perfectly good isotopy". It is true it was about the isotopy and not the animation. One thing that would have truly helped would have been if the nominator or creator had had the necessary mathematical background. Thas was not a normal situation.
The main difference between my proposal and the coffee mug animation would be to make it clear, with the addition of a moving grid, which point goes where, and also to be a simplier 2D animation. You may be overestimating people's intuition if you think they can understand, with the previous animation, the concepts of function, continuity and bijection -- all of this in 3D. --Bernard 01:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hyperbolic 3-manifold

I noticed that you reverted my edit on Hyperbolic 3-manifold so I changed it to something that is (I think) more appropriate. Leaving it pointed to a disambiguation page isn't right, so if the article on complete metric spaces isn't the right place either, could you just de-link it? Thanks, Sapphic 01:48, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Great, it's a correct link; there are several possibilities there because of equivalent ways to define completeness in this context. I tried to find a correct one but gave up after a bit. Somehow I missed the first item on the disambiguation page. Thanks for spending your time on this. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 03:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you for your kind words...

I hope that you will be an "early adopter" and help me brainstorm about the nicest way to present confirmation of credentials via a userbox, and also help by verifying your own.--Jimbo Wales 07:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I will seriously consider doing so. Regarding the userbox idea, I have no good suggestion at the moment but I will ponder upon it. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 04:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Klein bottle SVG images

They seem to be redraws of my Image:KleinBottle-folding-<NN>.png images, published at Commons — see commons:special:allpages/image:KleinBottle-folding there. I found those SVG versions recently, and I like them more than my old PNG drawings, so have put them into the article. PNG images are still used in some Wikipedias, eg. in Polish. --CiaPan 11:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Oops, I guess I accidentally slighted your contribution. I found your conception of the images pretty slick then! It is nice to see that others work to redraw these things though. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 04:15, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
That's OK, I really don't care — I've put those images into Public Domain, so User:Inductiveload (or anyone else) is not obliged to refer my earlier contribution. I actually hoped someone will make better drawings, and expect my pictures eventually vanish from Wiki. image:smile.png CiaPan 15:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Misleading Edit Summary

There is nothing misleading about the edit summary. It is merely an admonition to have a sense if proportion in the biographies of mathematicians, established and upcoming. The three names mentioned are Fields medallists, and the Wikipedia articles on them are stable versions, not stubs. If the talk page is any evidence, you have been holding out against similar criticisms for a while now. I personally agree that the subject is notable, but the hagiography is unwarranted, certainly at this point in time.

I want that notice removed from my talk page in 24 hours. 72.79.88.51 19:18, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

You have an odd way of communicating. Giving an edit summary consisting of a partial alphabetical list of Fields Medalists (which I recognized) is not helpful. If you don't want your edits mistaken as vandalism, please do not remove large portions of articles without explanation. You are free to remove whatever notices you want from your talk page, but it will exist in the page history for other editors to notice, if you blank more pages in the future. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 04:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You have an odd way of patronising. Whatever happened to "assume good faith"? A less cryptic edit summary might have come across as belittling the subject (given space constraints), something I didn't want. If you did recognise the names, good for you, but you had no business levelling a vandalism charge. I don't care if the notice stays in the page history, but for our mutual credibility, it's best if you remove it. 72.79.88.51 05:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you are so offended and that I mistakenly judged what now appear to be a "good faith" edit for vandalism. But I make no apology for reacting appropriately to the situation at hand. If you make a grossly poor edit that blanks a lot of content and include only a highly misleading edit summary, I don't see how any reasonable person could assume otherwise. You can consider that a violation of AGF if you wish, but that policy has to be coupled with common sense. --Chan-Ho (Talk) 06:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me expand on what I mean by my last remark about AGF. The thing that made me label your edit as vandalism is your edit summary, not your actual blanking per se. Your edit summary was so unhelpful, it was to the point of looking like misdirection. This is a common tactic by many vandals. That is why I stopped assuming good faith. At some point one must stop such assumption, as then we would never be able to tag vandals' pages. I did not consider that an edit summary of "Bombieri, Borcherds, Bourgain" could be accidental (as indeed it wasn't) and since it made no sense, I assumed the worst. Some people probably wouldn't have, that's true. But some people would have continued assuming good faith even with an edit summary like "Blanking hahahaha!" --Chan-Ho (Talk) 06:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
You seem convinced that the edit was grossly poor. You have a right to your opinion. But sometimes "editing out" as important, if not more, than "editing in". If you had assumed good faith, you would have thought a little more about the edit summary and it probably would have made sense to you (since you appear sensible). Nearly a year ago you wrote that the page should be cleaned up to conform to a higher quality, yet not one sentence was taken out in all this time. What better way to do that than cut it down to essentials and watch where the community goes with it? Or get some independent corroboration that any of the stuff I removed belongs to an encyclopedia in the first place? Less is more. 72.79.88.51 13:01, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "principle of least surprise"

Thank you. You don't know how long I was trying to remember that phrase.  :) AlistairMcMillan 19:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I appreciated your comments at my RFA. Thanks for taking the time to speak on my behalf. CMummert · talk 02:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/a/User_talk%7EChan-Ho_Suh_archive5_e8a3.html"