User talk:KYPark

From Wikiversity
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Welcome!

Hello KYPark, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon Button sig.png in the edit window makes it simple. To get started, you may


And don't forget to explore Wikiversity with the links to your left. Be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage, and see you around Wikiversity! If you're a twitter user, please follow http://twitter.com/Wikiversity. --Ottava Rima (talk) 12:35, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Invite to History of Ottoman Empire Course[edit]

Hi! If you want to be student on History of the Ottoman Empire course, you can learn History of Ottoman Empire. Also you can be assistant student and professional student about History of Ottoman Empire. You can ask any questions, doing homeworks and making quiz about History of Ottoman Empire. Good works... --Bermanya 19:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

{{İnvite ottoman empire course}}
What a tricky template! -- KYPark [T] 07:55, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Warning[edit]

Do not make edits like you did at my talk page. Discussion needs to go on the Wikiversity:Colloquium if you want the proposal to happen. I posted a link so everyone would go there. That is not an excuse for you to attack me or to keep things in your subspace instead of going to the Colloquium. If you keep up the attacks, it will be a sign that you do not care about proposing (as the Colloquium is the only place for that) and that you only care about being disruptive. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Click here, I started a discussion for you. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:47, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Ottava

Thank you for suggesting my proposal to the Colloquium. Before I go there, however, I have to protest against the way you've been doing with my proposal.

From the beginning, you did not like my proposal to go to the WV Colloquium but the WMF, and User:Darklama was against your insistence as such. At last, you unjustly blamed him as if he had had things backward, making him upset and protesting.

In fact, he's been absolutely keen on Wikiversity:Namespaces/Proposals for new namespaces. To me, he's minded so that you would not look ignorant. But his first comment was "This sounds like a typical suggestion for a new namespace, that requires discussion and proof of consensus by the Wikiversity community." Respecting his expertise, you might have insisted no more.

User:Adambro moderatingly advised you toward the Colloquium. It took you a whole day to follow his advice minimally, if not worse. Prior to that and the reasonable conclusion of the talk, you hurriedly hid rather than archived my serious, if not strategic, proposal and the long series of our serious follow-on talks thereon away from the sight of the WV readers at large.

I've never been attacking you but protesting against injustice you are supposed to have done me as well as Darklama and perhaps the readers at large.

I would not waste my life attacking you, why should I? but fighting back whenever injustice is done especially to me. As above, you yourself are warning, threatening, in effect attacking me. Is it related to what you deleted as shown in the red box below?

Nevertheless I have to protest against your deletion of the following from User talk:Ottava Rima#Cite namespace:

Whether this or User talk:Ottava Rima/Archive#Hi Ottava Rima, what an ambiguity, injustice and distortion to my original courtesy visit in return and constructive proposal stating:

Thank you for visiting my user page. I wish you could do me justice and help me a lot.

May I propose via you the creation of a "Cite:" or the like namespace that would work similar to the "Template:" namespace, that is, on the basis of transclusion?

From User:KYPark/Hi Ottava Rima

Isn't this a hopeless case of getting more and more emotional and unjust, resulting from making false references and inferences annoyingly? Very regrettably anyway --KYPark 03:18, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Very regrettably again --KYPark 03:30, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I missed making one vital comment regarding the subpage User:KYPark/Hi Ottava Rima you seem to mind. This never aims to attack you but to contain whatever I make reference and inference regarding the new namespace. Actually it has evolved quite a lot since. This would serve as my basis on which I may make a Wikiversity:Proposal for a referential strategy or the like, as I mentioned before, as you should remember. Should you doubt, open the revision history and find how much I've worked on it. --KYPark 03:50, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Other wikis[edit]

I've seen systems for tracking citations at other wikis, for example the French Wikipedia. It should not be too hard to do the same here. --JWSchmidt 14:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your concern and comment. I'm yet to look around them. Meanwhile, I think it's up to the WV community what option it would take or figure out from a variety of hardships and benefits. Anyway, we could start and evolve from the least hardship.
--KYPark 01:50, 26 June 2010 (UTC)
I followed your link to the French WP, and found such a librarian catalog-card kind would be definitely the last choice of mine. I wish the structure of Cite pages could remain simplest, except for the WV hierarchy of sections.
--KYPark 02:12, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Cite namespace proposal[edit]

Thanks for your work on this so far. I'm thinking that it could be helpful to make the proposal on a separate page soonish. It's good to have discussion on Colloquium as we've been doing, but as the concepts mature and the responses become less frequent it could be good to copy and edit the ideas and proposal onto its own page. No hurry and just a suggestion. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 04:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you seen meta:Wikicite? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 10:22, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you understand or explain this?[edit]

Can you understand or explain this? —Moulton 09:13, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

To explain it, wouldn't you need a theory of mind that delved into the psychology of a character like Javert (in Les Miserables by Victor Hugo)? —Barsoom Tork 09:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
Moulton, I take conditioned reflex and confirmation bias far more seriously than nativism and free will. So I admit people vary and they need moral reciprocity for peace in principle, not always in practice. Therefore they welcome or have to fight, including you and me.
-- KYPark [T] 04:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I have noticed that those who imagine they have the upper hand (e.g. via control of Custodial tools) are more likely to choose to pick a fight than to undertake the more difficult work of building bridges, reaching common ground, and crafting peace. What perpelexes me is the puzzle of how to persuade such individuals to lay down their arms and join in the more rewarding work of creative and collaborative problem solving. If you have any insights to share in how to work that problem, I'd be most grateful. —Moulton 04:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Oh no, I'm not such a wise man. But let's look for it together from now on without so hurrying, as persuasion is one of what troubes us most, as I suggested elsewhere. And this may be no good place for getting the job done. -- KYPark [T] 05:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

removal of edits of blocked user to your user talk page[edit]

A blocked user edited your talk page as IP, and Adambro -- and later I -- reverted those edits, per policy allowing the removal of all edits by a user evading a block by editing as IP. These were the same user, I believe, and you may, of course, read the edits in history if you wish, and you may even restore the edits should you wish them to be on your Talk page, and you may respond to them. But please be careful, this editor is blocked for some solid reasons now, even though he may have been unfairly blocked in the past. --Abd 01:41, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I restored them. Moulton 03:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to removal of edits[edit]

Thanks for your information, Abd. And fair enough if the policy and the reasons for blocking are so solid, though I'd believe his overall sanity. He appears a man of honor out there. So I'm so sorry about this "strange case" of a "sane vandal" as if Janus-faced "Jekyll and Hyde". -- KYPark [T] 03:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
KY, you are a Systems Thinker like me. Have you independently confirmed Abd's "solid reasons" to ensure he is on solid ground and not floating on a flight of fancy? Anyway, I did want to make your acquaintance, as I believe we can learn a great deal from each other. If, for some reason, the ad hoc ochlocracy continues to interfere with our communication, is there another wiki where we could converse in peace? —Moulton 03:58, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Moulton, check your musenet email. -- KYPark [T] 05:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
I searched through all my e-mail folders (including my spam folders) and can find nothing from you. Please try again. Moulton 23:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't it mailto:bkort@musenet.org ? -- KYPark [T] 06:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

email[edit]

I tried sending you an email using Special:EmailUser/KYPark. I sent you another email address besides the musenet one. --JWSchmidt 09:24, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarifying the Moulton situation[edit]

Hi KYPark - Please feel free to share your view here: Wikiversity:Request custodian action#Clarifying the Moulton situation. My suggestion is that we consider having a community discussion about the current block in which Moulton is allowed to participate. -- Jtneill - Talk - c 11:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The most critical point, as most eloquently suggested by Abd, seems to me that Moulton should show hard evidence first of all that he is really willing:
  • to resume his normal user account, and then
  • to behave himself especially in respecting the community norms and perhaps administrator's authority.
The first question would be needless to doubt, though some may do. The second is problematic indeed, because he should confess what wrong he has done to the community. As I said on the Colloquium, this is so outdated, say, old Korean stylish, as to be laughable nowdadays, I am afraid.
Were I an admin, I would inform him that he had done so and so wrong violating such and such community norms to such and such effects on the community, and then:
  • ask him if he would do so again, and set him free if he says no. Or, alternatively,
  • tell him not to do so again, set him free, and wait until he does so again.
You may see I as such am childish or simplist, while I see simple is beautiful! Indeed I am too sick and tired of all those talkative and inconclusive talks all over the places to take part in for the sake of participatory communality or democracy.
I was asking you if you are also concerning about the disruptive embodiment of my proposal, as JWS are, rather than the unblocking of Moulton or anyone else, though it is not really in isolation from the former.
-- KYPark [T] 16:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
"Were I an admin, I would inform him that he had done so and so wrong violating such and such community norms" <-- If there were existing consensus on community norms then policies like Wikiversity:Privacy policy would have been put in place two years ago. This is the time for discussion and collaboration, not excluding a scholar like Moulton. --JWSchmidt 16:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, I am supposed to understand your view well. Coincidentally hence independently, both you and I want Moulton to be free. I am so sorry why unblocking him is so hard here nevertheless. Please understand I came here too recently to speak up suddenly as if I were a wise man.
-- KYPark [T] 00:55, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
We all do as good as we can. Wikiversity:Be bold. --JWSchmidt 02:36, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
I have never been freer. I have long dreamed of playing the role of Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas K. Gandhi, or Martin Luther King in a theatrical reprise of their teachings. Wikiversity has given me the freedom to engage in a learning project that I have never been offered before. —Moulton 02:43, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
Go answer Wikiversity:Colloquium#Note from KYPark, Moulton. -- KYPark [T] 01:37, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Category:Augmented knowledge workshop[edit]

Did you perhaps mean for this page to be Augmented knowledge workshop? -- Jtneill - Talk - c 07:22, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In addition, User:Jtneill sent me an e-maile, to which I replied 07:57, 7 March 2011, as copied at User talk:Jtneill#Category:Augmented knowledge workshop. -- KYPark [T] 08:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed another page that you created called Category:Augmenting Human Intellect which looks like it should be in mainspace Augmenting Human Intellect instead. Could you explain what you were intending with these pages so that we can help you organize the content? --mikeu talk 18:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Another category: Category:Charles Moore 2010 WWA --mikeu talk 18:25, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Hi there. First, see my reply to Jtneill as boxed above. Furthermore, you might perhaps better see Wikiversity:Colloquium/archives/July_2010#Proposal_to_create_a_Cite_namespace. This would be quite a workload, I fear. But may I wish you could make good sense of it anyway! Good luck! -- KYPark [T] 08:58, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Secret Garden[edit]

X-shaped.png

-- KYPark [T] 14:25, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

  • PAGENAME : KYPark
  • FULLPAGENAME : User talk:KYPark
  • BASEPAGENAME : KYPark
  • See also : /Sandbox#Paging
Subpages

Category:Authors A etc.[edit]

What are you doing with this? Seems extraneous to me. Was there some particular application you had in mind? --Abd 20:16, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

See User talk:Abd#Category:Authors K etc. --  KYPark [T] 23:00, 18 May 2011 (UTC) ---- This link is now archived: User_talk:Abd/Archive/4#Category:Authors_K_etc -- KYPark [T] 00:40, 16 September 2011 (UTC) ----
-- KYPark [T] 15:05, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

World knowledge, by year[edit]

I like the idea behind your use of 1900, 1901, Category:1900, &c. I would rename them to:

But for now I simply like seeing the work you are doing. Thank you for sharing. SJ+> 21:02, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh no for God's sake, SJ. I thank you for liking my idea, as this may be a positive sign of progress since User talk:Abd#Category:Authors K etc that has remained unanswered. However you may like mine, however, may I cordially ask you to revisit and resolve Abd's in sufficient details first of all before you go ahead? Thanks again for your attention. --  KYPark [T] 11:09, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Charles Moore 2010 WWA[edit]

What is this? It seems related to Great Repeal Bill. But what? This isn't a category, why did you create it as one?

I looked at your old discussion and, frankly, couldn't make heads nor tails of it. --Abd 00:28, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The content was moved to 2010/Moore, to which the above category page was redirected and assigned to Category:To be deleted. Similar steps will be taken sooner or later for the similarly annoying categories with which I had experimented before my cite system was fixed. So take it easy, but you may kindly help me delete them.  KYPark [T] 03:22, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

YesY Done I also deleted the new category you created. We have existing categories, and the fast way to get a page deleted is to place {{delete|reason --~~~~}} on the page, your "reason" would be "author request," that's practically automatic if you are the only substantial author. That will place the page in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. There are also other categories, under. Thanks. --Abd 16:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Many Thanks. --  KYPark [T] 00:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Please log in, if the IP edits to your categories are you[edit]

Please log in, to make it easier to review recent changes. If I see you editing categories, I don't much need to look at it, but if it's IP .... if that's you, please acknowledge, and please do remember to log in before editing. Thanks. --Abd 00:58, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

I was testing if it would take less time to edit without log-in I suspect of slowing my edit too much. Should such be the case in practice anyway, pls advise me if I should log in in spite of that. --  KYPark [T] 03:42, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
You should always log in. Not a Big Deal if you accidentally edit logged out, and there can be reasons for that, but even if it were true that it is slower logged in (I've never heard of that), a tiny amount of time for you may save much time for many editors who are watching Recent Changes for vandalism. Thanks. --Abd 16:04, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
I was not minding "a tiny amount of time for me" but too much an amount indeed. "You should always log in" in spite of that sounds far stronger than I have expected for many wiki years. You mind anti-vandalism while I mind my productivity. Many illegal scripts may be running on my PC. So I often erase all the cuckies and history files, making me log out. Please try to understand I'm in non-trivial trouble indeed in terms of productivity. --  KYPark [T] 00:33, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
It sounds like you have bigger problems than what log-in or not would affect, i.e., those illegal scripts. You do need cookies to log in, but you could clear your cookies and then log in. You don't need history to be logged in. You should understand that "antivandalism" involves many editors who work cross-wiki to keep Wikiversity free of vandalism. It's a big task, so it's many people involved. Not just me.
Meanwhile, I do see the work you are doing to create your citation system, I appreciate how much time is involved. --Abd 00:41, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Please advise me how my log-out and IP use seriously degrade antivandalism. --  KYPark [T] 01:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for my slow response, this got lost in the flow of edits, which is now running maybe a thousand edits per day. Even my watchlist is quite busy. As to your question, recent changes patrollers become familiar with established editors, and there is little need to review the edits of established editors. Routinely, if I see your user name, I don't even look at the specific edit unless I have some special interest. I know you are a good-faith contributor. But if you don't log in, I don't know that. That means that I must spend maybe a hundred times as much time reviewing the edit to make sure it's not vandalism. That's still only a minute, maybe. But multiply this by the global sysops and others who review recent changes. If you have a good reason to use IP, you can do it. I wasn't saying it is prohibited. (If you were doing anything controversial, though, sometimes this is called "sock puppetry," or "IP socking." It can be a problem.) --Abd 19:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
You pressed me enough: "You should always log in." So I complained that your pressure was stronger than I had long expected. Now it sounds much milder.  KYPark [T] 12:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
"You should always log in" was a suggestion. If I'd been ordering you, I'd have written, Log in or I'll block you. I apologize for my unclarity, I did not expect that you would be offended, if you were. Thanks for your response. --Abd 20:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Welcome. -- KYPark [T] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
According to Recent Changes, including logged items (blocks, name creation, deletion), there are less than 400 new items per day. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your information, Ottava.  KYPark [T] 12:27, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
KYPark, I checked for the last 3000 actions in Recent Changes, I think it was Friday night, and it was over 900 actions per day. "1000 edits per day" was a rough impression, and my check seems to confirm it. It's entirely possible that some periods will show much less, it surely depends on the day and other conditions, and Ottava is correct that the number of "new edits" is less, though those other actions do appear in the Recent Changes display, and thus lengthen it. And I don't think it's actually important what the exact number is now. As Wikiversity succeeds in its mission, that number is going to increase greatly, and we should prepare for that. Thanks, Ottava, for checking, and thanks, KYP, for your consideration of all this. Your work is appreciated. --Abd 20:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. -- KYPark [T] 23:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

What's wrong with this wiki edit[edit]

-- KYPark [T] 07:46, 26 September 2012 (UTC) Koreageostub.svg

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

How did we come here at all?[edit]

Whom do you think you dare to conspire to bully?

We are foolish enough to see only the tip of the iceberg, and not to see things far more related to each other than they appear.

So are words we use, and so are ideas we have. Relationship makes everything indeed. Gold is worthless to the dying and dead humans as well as the living and dead animals. So was it to Helen Keller before enlightenment.

A eight-year old girl I know has to do with the smart phone and information search, which became part of our everyday life, young and old, hence namely the information (retrieval) revolution (IRR), well proved by the Apple's and Google's huge successes.

The first step of IRR was the simple permutation index introduced in 1958 by Herbert Ohlman, and coincidentally, the key word in context (KWIC) daringly introduced to the same conference by Hans Luhn, very likely unjustly!

The most revolutionary next step must be the cross-referred (cited or quoted)

  • key work in context, since 1974, to overcome
  • key word in context, in tradition.

This likelihood or affordance was completely dismissed "very likely unjustly" again. I wish this doubt to be cleared up anyway!

Ted Nelson coined and conceived hypertext as a web or "docuverse" of texts where transclusions rather than cross-references were made among them. As such, his is conceptually different from the current hypertext! He happened to invent the word, but not the very idea. His term was simply adopted and adapted for the convenience of ....

The current hypertext proper is definitely no outgrowth of his transclusion patent, but most likely of an unpublished master's thesis concerning a direct approach to information retrieval (DAIR), believe it or not.

Simply put, it was to do without silly key words and works out of context! The traditional information retrieval (IR) is linguistically too simplist to be highly successful. "All experts were wrong," as borrowed from Steve Jobs. What's wrong at all?

Most unfortunate is any word in isolation, wished so much to make magic, while there is no such a thing as "word magic," as perhaps first denied by Ogden & Richards (1923). Then, the easy-going idiom "magic of words" should give way to "magic of minds" in science.

Minds should be really cognitive or cognizant of words otherwise than the ignorant and "Machines That Think" (Aisaac Asimov, et al, 1984) As We May Think (Vannebar Bush, 1945), hence AI.

Though still remaining a fancy idea of AI, Bush's memex (1945) has been very unjustly and unwittingly made the best inspiration of hypertext, which in fact is always already ready to be embodied just by making clickable the cross-referred (cited or quoted) work in context, in sharp contrast to SCI which as a business must be more mindful of cost than effectiveness! (I'd not deny SCI's Wellsian happiness but their cost-effectiveness business.)

The world would know after all who on earth made a fool of it and a hero of Bush.


-- KYPark [T] 11:38, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

http://enc.tfode.com/WorldBrain
http://worldbrain.wiki-site.com/index.php/Main_Page
Category:World Brain

-- KYPark [T] 01:20, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Noam Chomsky reading group[edit]

I see you're not editing much lately, but since you created some learning resources about Chomsky, perhaps we could bring you back? ----Erkan Yilmaz 05:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Literature/1923/Ogden/Leon[edit]

Content at https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/846327.The_Meaning_of_Meaning is copyrighted and does not have an open source license. While excerpts may be posted under Fair Use guidelines, we can't duplicate entire articles. Rather than duplicating the review, you might consider linking to it and providing your own commentary as to why the review is helpful. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:33, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, Dave. I'll reduce it to some excerpts. -- KYPark [T] 20:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Literature pages and Wikidata[edit]

Hi KYPark!

I stumbled upon the 352 pages about publications you created as subpages of Literature, for instance Literature/1977/Soergel (I counted with the API via curl 'https://en.wikiversity.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages&apprefix=Literature/&aplimit=500&format=json' | jq .query.allpages[].title -r | egrep '[0-9]{4}/[^/]+'). Apparently these pages are not connected to Wikidata yet as one get find out with this query:

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?sitelink ?page WHERE {
  ?sitelink schema:isPartOf <https://en.wikiversity.org/> .
  ?sitelink schema:about ?item . 
  FILTER (SUBSTR(str(?sitelink), 33, 10) = "Literature")
}

Try it!

I linked some of them, e.g. The Meaning of Meaning (Q7750820) to illustrate. One benefit of Wikidata is we can manage additional information such as citations, e.g. The Meaning of Meaning (Q7750820) cites As We May Think (Q610709). We can automatically create lists of what also cites this publication:

SELECT ?item ?itemLabel ?date WHERE {
  ?item wdt:P2860 wd:Q610709
  SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "[AUTO_LANGUAGE],en". }
  OPTIONAL { ?item wdt:P577 ?date }
}

Try it!

The data is still very incomplete but together we can build a large knowledge base of linked publications (http://wikicite.org/) Maybe I have catched your interest in Wikidata in general and Wikicite in particular? -- JakobVoss (discusscontribs) 20:30, 14 December 2017 (UTC)