User talk:Fred Hsu/Archive 1

Old comments

I came across your page on autostereogram's and was impressed enough to come by and tell you. I love the pages that are loaded with instructive images and diagrams. I was palpably impressed. Really, I even commented aloud to myself. --Clngre 02:34, Mar 21, 2005 (UTC)

Awesome job updating the autostereogram page with tons of valuable content and images. Thanks! --Whiterox 15:18, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Autostereogram

I've nominated Autostereogram for Featured Article status, and I see from the talk page that you were quite involved with creating the fantastic article that is there now. I thought you'd like to know, both for self-gratification and so that you have a chance to take part in the process. I don't think I know enough about the subject to address many of the issues that could be raised, especially as I don't see any problems with it at all! Skittle 16:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Monobook

Congratulations on getting the dates tab in your monobook to work. Feel free to use it on the rest of your watchlist and any other pages in the category or elsewhere. Keep up the good work. bobblewik 18:58, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Executive order

No problem. Question though, are executive orders in fact law? I think so, but am not sure V. Joe 00:20, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autostereogram

There's an unwritten rule that you need to wait two weeks from the close of the previous nomination to uncontroversially renominate an article. This one seems like a bit of an odd case -- it got so very little input in its so-very-long time of FAC; I'm not sure what happened there. You do seem to have addressed the objections, as far as I can tell, but maybe your best bet would be to try another Peer Review first, to really make sure all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 02:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good plan in general. I was wondering what happened with this nom too; hardly anyone seemed to be commenting, and some of the comments seemed to bear little relation to the article that was there. I was going to renom if you didn't, when you'd finished tweaking, but it's probably better if you do, since you'll know when you're done. I'd like to help with the article if I can, but I really know so little about the subject. If there's any slog-work you want done, let me know. Skittle 08:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job. Are you Freddie in There.com? I recognized the dolphin board in the Autostereogram article. Stuff like yours is what first got me into designing [netrider6 in There].--Viridis 03:36, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Nice to see you here. I haven't logged in for the longest time, but I still check out the There forums sometimes. And once in a blue moon I'll get an email from some There user asking me to relist some of my stuff in auction :) Fred Hsu 04:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work getting Autostereogram to be a featured article! -AED 03:45, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, too, for your many additions today. Fred Hsu 04:03, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

River Out of Eden

My apologies for not replying to your messages earlier. I have been quite inactive on wikipedia recently. Well done on the rewrite of the article, I'd say it was very successful, and a nice article is now in place. Keep up the good work! Mushin ^talk 23:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stereogram image

Image:Autostereogram.png seems to have no information about the software used to generate it, and hence no idnication of the terms under which that software does or does not release such work. Could you please expand the information there? Thanks. -Harmil 13:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a program to generate it. See Creating Stereograms in Talk:Autostereogram. I'll add more info to these images tomorrow, after this Today's Featured Article vandalism dies down.

On your site

I came across this short story on your site, and I'm wondering what the copyright status on it is and what policies you have on linking and derivative work. Thanks. --Euniana/Talk/Blog 02:49, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote that short story, as well as the other one (Play) :) I just updated the Short Stories page to clarify authorship. Thanks for bringing this up, so I can correct it. Fred Hsu 17:58, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I should have read your sentences with more attention. Feel free to link to it, if you enjoy my short story (or my pages). As long as you give me credit at the end, feel free to derive work on it. Fred Hsu 18:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. I asked because I came across that wonderful story the other day and decided to dig into it. It took me a bit of crunching and looking over references, and I ended up with this, which I reckon would probably make an interesting read for other people. Cheers. --Euniana/Talk/Blog 19:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Now, that is most amazing. I don't know how you managed to translated it to English so perfectly. Do you intend to keep it up on your website permanently? If so, I would like to link to it from my own page! Fred Hsu 20:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Thank you for your kind words. However, you forgot to sign. Fix it. NOW. jk.--SweetNeo85 03:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, just did :) Fred Hsu 11:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedia versus research assignment for Mitochondrial Eve

Wikipedia is a general audience encyclopedia. If an article requires that a book on the topic must be read first in order to understand the article, the article is not appropriate for Wikipedia. The Mitochondrial Eve article is bad enough, without the: "Read a book or two then come back" tag being added. KP Botany 23:14, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Issue was hopefully resolved in the talk page. Fred Hsu 17:12, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Color blindness

I've now responded on the talk page. In case you haven't read it, the previous section on the talk page is related. I'm hoping our discussion will make it clearer for editors such as Jjean3 as well. --Ronz 16:55, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added my thoughts on that one as well. I agree with you there. But, I did not write the Visolve software, nor am I asking people to test it. These are two different issues. Please do not group them into the same category. Can you please restore the external link, until we come to an agreement on the talk page? Thanks. Fred Hsu 17:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unhappy with this situation and think moderation might be necessary. You don't appear to be reading what I've written and are responding with uncivility and some hostility. What do you think? --Ronz 21:14, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ronz, what leads you to think that I am not reading what you wrote? Please see my comment on the talk page: Talk:Color_blindness#external_links. I believe I addressed your concerns. Have you address mine? My main problem is with the seemingly arbitrary selection of links for removal. Fred Hsu 21:42, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm awaiting some response from you concerning the incivility and hostility. Looks like I'm not going to get any.

As for removal of links: I've given more information about their removal than the contributors have for their inclusion. Sorry that you don't like the level of detail in my explanations. --Ronz 21:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you stop with claims of what my perspective is? [1] --Ronz 03:43, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Online forums and wikipedia talk pages are really not conducive to 'civilized' discussions. The 'feeling' of invicility and hostility was reciprocal :( If we talked face to face about this issue, I am sure things would have gone much better. I apologize for putting words in your mouth. I am doing research on this topic in the next few weeks. I'll try to create sub-articles on this topic to address tools, tests, etc. when I feel more confident about these issues. I'll check the original external links and see which ones I can salvage. Fred Hsu 04:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Ronz 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your image

You might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Village pump (news)#Use of a wikipedia image without any notice as it looks to be your imaged, licensed under the GFDL which a site publisher has not properly fulfilled the license conditions Nil Einne 14:40, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I followed up on the Village pump page. Fred Hsu 15:36, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images used in color blindness article

I regret that I failed to properly offer a rationale for the images uploaded for use in the Color blindness article. I have found a better example which is ineligible for copyright protection. As such alterations of that original image is also ineligible for copyright protection.

SonPraises 17:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Commons...

Hi,
could you please see this page and add appropriate license tags (I guess mainly GFDL) to your images without them? It would help us very much in the "Clean the Commons!" project. Thanks in advance, /odder 08:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mhm... They all have GFDL on them (search for GFDL) on each page. I am not sure how else I can tag them. I'll take a look tonight. Fred Hsu 19:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, everything has been already fixed by my bot. /odder 15:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monterey Bay

You've got to remember, it's not my article, it's wiki's. So feel free to change it, just I think the entrance belongs there, as the article is about the facility not the kelp pool. Also, that aquarium/window section no longer exists, I was all around it for 3 hours today. I have a picture of the largest window of tuna, sharks and assorted fish if you'd like me to put it up. I also have one of the current kalp pool/aquarium thing.. sorry, i forget the name. anyway, let me know; Ard0^{(Talk - Contribs)} 05:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article nomination for ocean sunfish article

After lots of work on the article, I've nominated ocean sunfish for Featured Article status. I noticed your post at Talk:Ocean sunfish, and thought you might be interested in taking part in the nomination discussion. I hope to see you there! PaladinWhite 01:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OS

I'm done with my pass of Ocean Sunfish, have at it. Thanks for the good work, it looks like a good article. (Auto sterogram looks pretty kickbutt as well) -Ravedave 05:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Java ogg video player

I saw your message on User talk:Gmaxwell about the video you uploaded. He's alrady been told it's not working. The video you uploaded is fine (I played it in VLC)- it's the player that's broken. Raul654 04:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks! Fred Hsu 04:25, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean sunfish on The Fish Portal

Well, I always thought the ocean sunfish was an interesting article. And it did get the most votes for July's selected fish. Feel free to come nominate and/or vote yourself for the next selected fish if you want. --Melanochromis 02:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ocean Sunfish

		The Fauna Barnstar
		Thanks for the great work on Ocean sunfish, it wouldn't have passed FA without you. Ravedave 19:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most ancient common ancestor

I'm sorry to see your personal attack upon my article, most ancient common ancestor, was successful. Perhaps worse is the fact that you COMPLETELY MISUNDERSTOOD what the article was about. This was NOT a typo for 'most recent common ancestor.' Rather, it embodied the idea that if humans evolved from multiple origins, but later crossbred, there would be a point in time when a first 'common ancestor' of everyone would emerge. It never did seem to cross your mind that, contrary to the 'mainstream' ideas (and past mainstream science has often proven incorrect, such as the assertion that the moon's craters were due to volcanism), species integration has been shown to be possible in other animals, such as birds.

Note that the 'recent single origin hypothesis' is more akin to the "Adam and Eve" mythology. To believe that all humans are descended from just one single mutation in a single proto-human seems apallingly bizarre. In fact, our entire construct of 'species differentiation' is a fuzzy line...different dog breeds are clearly diverging (it would be physiologically impossible for the smallest breed of dog to give birth to a Great Dane).

However, not all speciation is 'differentiation'. A little-known and thought of idea is that similar species that evolved in separate locales analogously could potentially merge if their genomes are fairly similar. Since it has happened in birds, why not in primates as well? You tell me.

In China, they say that Mao Zedong was "70% right, 30% wrong." Such thinking--a multivariate view...seems useful here. To presuppose one is 'right' without considering the alternative hypotheses is dangerously closed-minded. Using the machinations of 'circling the wagons' is not, in the long run, conducive to free thought flow. Thanks for contributing to the mental bottleneck of new ideas.Ryoung122 02:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the deletion nomination and discussion can be found here. Your article did not give the impression that you just wrote in my talk page. Besides, none of the cited references supports your theory; they talk about 'mainstream' theories of human evolution. Citing random references does not make your own whim a real scientific theory. Besides the name you invented really makes no logical sense. Think about it. I am quite proud I got this article deleted. Fred Hsu 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pride often cometh before stupidity. From the article about Richard Dawkin's book, "River Out of Eden":

River out of Eden From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (Redirected from River Out of Eden) Jump to: navigation, search
River out of EdenRiver out of Eden (subtitled "A Darwinian View of Life") is a 1995 popular science book by Richard Dawkins. The book is about Darwinian evolution and includes summaries of the topics covered in his earlier books, The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype and The Blind Watchmaker. It is part of the Science Masters series and is Dawkins' shortest book. It also includes illustrations by Lalla Ward, Dawkins' wife.
River out of Eden comprises five chapters. The first chapter lays down the framework on which the rest of the book is built, that life is a river of genes flowing through geological time where organisms are mere temporary bodies. The second chapter shows how human ancestry can be traced via many gene pathways to different most recent common ancestors, with special emphasis on the African Eve.

Note the above text says "different most recent common ancestors"---an oxymoron, yes. But, think about it. If there are more than one 'recent common ancestors' then there most be a MOST RECENT and a MOST ANCIENT. What part of that do you not understand? Ryoung122 03:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please make sure you read most recent common ancestor first, and make sure you understand it. MRCA is often qualified. That passage is talking about tracing MRCA via different genes. That there is a MOST RECENT one doesn't automatically give you a MOST ANCIENT one. Sigh. Fred Hsu 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If two separated populations can naturally interbreed and produce fertile progeny, they are a single species. Perhaps you do not grasp the meaning of species? Fred Hsu 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you do not grasp the concept that the lines between 'species' change over time. If they didn't, then evolution would be impossible. Ryoung122 03:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As for your 'population merging' theory, perhaps you are not familiar with the 'Out of Africa Again and Again' theory mentioned in Mitochondrial Eve. See the book The Ancestor's Tale where this is discussed. Nobody is saying that a single mutation on a single gene on a single proto-human created a new human species. I don't know where you got this idea from. Please read books first. Fred Hsu 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, if my idea was actually already espoused in Richard Dawkin's book, then it's not an original idea and its not original research. Hence the reason for deletion was bogus.Ryoung122 03:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'your idea'? In an enclopedia? Dawkins does not espouse most ancient common ancestor. I did not say he supports your theory. Please don't quote my writing out of context in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Content review. Why don't you buy the book and find out yourself? Fred Hsu 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you are starting a new article on Species integration. And you just pasted the second hit from google (out of a few hundred hits) into the reference section. Good luck on this new endeavour. Viva original research. Fred Hsu 02:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note I didn't write the article. Wow.Ryoung122 03:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did not? Fred Hsu 03:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

I didn't write the linked/referenced article. I did start the Wiki-stub article. There is a difference. Don't forget to fit the out-of-column issue now!Ryoung122 02:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I promised myself to come back and edit my first wikipedia entry after I reverse-engineered the creation process of various forms of autostereograms from Magic Eye picture books. I verified my theory against the excellent discussion on stereogram in Pinker's How the Mind Works and by writing a program to generate autostereograms. March 2005

Sounds like 'original research' to me. Wikipedia is NOT THE PLACE for such material. Please conform to Wiki policies or I may be forced to monitor the new articles you have created. (Tongue-in-cheek). Fact: Jimbo Wales edited his own biography on Wikipedia. Rules are not always followed to the T. That includes you.Ryoung122 02:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bought and read all books I cited in that article (which I completely rewrote). Everything in that article has proper reference. Whether I reverse-engineered the algorithm first is irrelevant. The article went through many rounds of copyediting and peer review. It is now a featured article. Do you think the wikipedia community will have declared it a featured article if it contained even a trace of original research? Fred Hsu 02:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

William Seegers

Here's a 'present' for you. It's a cited source. Of course, the journalist got the death date wrong and misquoted me on the number of US vets remaining (4, not 3). But citations count more than correctness, I suppose. Since I talked to her on the phone, only 1 know I was misquoted.

http://www.philly.com/philly/obituaries/20070729_WWI_vet_whose_freethinking_took_him_far.html Ryoung122 23:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's great. I don't follow gerontology, but yeah, I think it's fascinating that some people live surprisingly long. I have no objections to your writing hundreds of articles on people who lived really long. Just like some people care more about the Simpsons, others care about really old people. I personally am more interested at the moment in articles on evolution. I don't see how your citation about William Seegers has anything to do with MRCA or Multiregional hypothesis though. Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People do dream up stub articles

In User talk:Ryoung122 you said "People don't simply dream up an idea and create a stub for it." If only that were true. You should see some of the stuff unregistered users submit through Wikipedia:Articles for creation. I imaging registered users also create such articles from time to time. Fortunately, that's what {{fact}} and a couple of weeks later, when the unsourced content is removed, {{db-nocontext}} is for. :( By the way, if you have the time, please help with the Articles for creation backlog elimination drive. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. Right now I am expanding the rendezvous points table in The Ancestor's Tale. Fred Hsu 03:11, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smile


LOZ: OOT has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!

Mitochondrial Eve

Can you point out exactly what part of the reasoning is wrong ? I know there is a difference between mtDNA and identical ancestor point. I wuold like to knowwhy, if not for the reason I exposed, the mitochondrial Eve has to be older than the identical ancestor point ? User:Donvinzk Aug 4, 2007 (signature added by Fred Hsu)

Please add signature at the end of your sentence in talk pages. I did it for you this time. Please see the discussion on Talk:Mitochondrial_Eve. Fred Hsu 15:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I must get a little used to wikipedia User:Donvinzk

No problem. Welcome to wikipedia! Fred Hsu 22:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't beat'em, join em

Congratulations, Fred, on passing the test. You managed to delete both articles

most ancient common ancestor and species integration (I can see how the vote is going already). It should be noted that, in both cases, the articles perhaps should have been 'renamed' instead of deleted. I can give clear evidence of the 'idea' pre-existing the article creation, even if the PHRASING used for the article title wasn't 'commonly used'. Further, I consider the mis-use of 'Mitochondrial Eve' to make the public believe that everyone here on Earth descended from a single man and woman 130,000 years ago to be the worst scientific 'hoax' of the last 20 years. But, you say, that's not what was really alleged. However, we all know the lay public is quite gullible and use of the names "Adam" and "Eve" were bound to be misleading.

Ok, now for the real point of this message:

Perhaps you'd like to nominate this article for 'rename':

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_living_United_States_senator

Clearly the IDEA of an 'oldest living senator' is of some interest, but the phrase 'earliest living United States senator' is complete nonsense.

That deviates, of course, from my creations...I created them partly for the same reason that Benjamin Franklin attached a key to a kite...they were meant to attract lighting, to get idea discussions flowing. And in that I suceeded, even if the articles were 'killed'. Let's, for a moment, go back to this diagram:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Multiregionaltheory.gif

The idea, even among MAINSTREAM science, of what it takes to be 'human' is quite controversial. Was 'Lucy' human? Do 'humans' include ONLY homo sapiens? ONLY species in the genus homo? Or does it include other species in the human evolutionary tree? Note one outside idea was to re-classify chimpanzees in the genus 'homo'.

If we argue that 'human' refers to any species in the genus 'homo' and that (as the multiregional hypothesis does) that original migrations of 'homo erectus/ergaster/antecessor/etc' out of Africa led to 'founder populations' in Europe, China, and elsewhere that eventually evolved and then 'integrated' into one species today, 'homo sapients.' In that context, the argument was that, due to 'recent' interbreeding, we can find a 'most recent common ancestor' as recent as, perhaps, 7,000 years ago. Consider, for example, the Native Americans. An original 'founder' population migrated from Asia to North America perhaps 35,000 years ago. In the past 500 years, MOST of the native Americans have either been killed (become extinct) or intermixed with the 'white' European colonists. If we did a DNA test between a mixed-race Native American and a white American, we might find that they share a common ancestor perhaps 200 years ago (in colonial times). However, if we compare a Native American who has NO ancestry from the recent white migration of the past 500 years, then they would still share a COMMON ancestor BECAUSE the Native Americans could be traced back to Asia and eventually to migration out of Africa, along with the Europeans. Perhaps, if we go far enough, we can find a 'common ancestor' some 50,000 years ago.

Now, comparing the two, it is possible that the mixed-race Native American has both a 'common ancestor' 200 years ago (from the recent intermixing) and another one 50,000 years ago. Each one points to a separate event, however. To simply state that, since Person XY and Person YZ shared a common ancestor a mere 200 years ago and that ancestor lived in Europe, that we must conclude that both migrated from Europe, would be an incomplete view...that one branch of the family tree traces to a recent European migration does not preclude a much more ANCIENT, roundabout common ancestry...tracing the Native Americans back to the migration from Asia, and eventually to the group of Euro-Asians that migrated recently out of Africa, perhaps we find a most 'ancient' common ancestor in Anatolia some 50,000 years ago. Further, if we calculate ONLY the 'most RECENT common ancestor' then we are missing the whole point. The mixed-race Native American can STILL trace his/her ancestry back to ancestors that migrated from Asia some 35,000 years ago.

By analogy, it could be that just as the recent European migration may have skewed the data, it is possible that a relatively recent massive influx out of Africa some 60,000 years ago makes it appear that earlier migrations weren't successful...when in fact what has happened is we are finding what we are looking for, but not looking at the big picture. Through one ancestral line, someone in Europe could trace their ancestry back to the '60,000' migration. But using another ancestral tree, the same person could perhaps trace their line back to a '100,000 year ago' migration or...controversially...one 500,000 or 2 million years ago.

The real point is NOT that we can prove that the earlier migrations still have living descendants today. The point is, that using traces such as 'Mito Eve' and 'Y-Chromosomal Adam' DO NOT PROVE that all our human ancestry today cannot be traced back further than 60,000 or say, 130,000 years ago. Calculating 'most recent' common ancestors only tells us about prevalent recent migration, but not about when 'founder' populations arrived or if they survived. As I stated, a 'most ancient' common ancestor would be the earliest 'common ancestor' that is considered 'human'...a caveat to eliminate the 'our most ancient common ancestor is the sponge.' And why would identifying the 'most ancient HUMAN common ancestor' matter? Because if the most recent can point to a recent migration, then the 'most ancient' would point to the 'starting point' of mass human migration out of Africa. In that perspective, one need not be a 'multiregionalist' to see the importance of such a concept.

As for 'original research'---few ideas are truly 'original'. We build our ideas on the work of others, perhaps adding only a small fractionionated change. I do believe the argument for keeping 'most ancient common ancestor' was strong. There were already articles on 'most recent common ancestor', 'Mito-Eve' and 'Y-Adam' and 'identifical ancestors point'--but all are quite limited by boxed-set thinking.

In the Middle Ages, alchemists attempted to turn 'lead' into 'gold.' Then the idea was discarded as nonsense and 'impossible.' However, with the advent of the nuclear age, it is now possible to turn lead into gold. Simply not finding the solution does not mean an idea is necessarily wrong.

Likewise, the idea that two species can 'integrate' into one has been around for quite some time...and, while largely discredited, like 'parthenogeneis' there have been examples where the idea just won't die. The evolutionary tree is more complicated than we often think, and doesn't always work the way we think.74.237.28.5 08:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Species Integration

Thanks for your note fred, anytime you need some help, just message me. Best regards --Achidiac 09:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Achidiac (talk · contribs), Rdpaperclip (talk · contribs), T3Smile (talk · contribs), and 60.241.91.14 (talk · contribs) have been blocked as sock puppets. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Achidiac. -- Jreferee t/c 16:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Young (gerontologist)

Congratulations, Fred, on your new article. If there's one thing I do learn, it's that in order to get better, one must respect/honor their opponents. So, I'm 'throwing in the white flag' for the time being concerning creating articles that deal with 'human evolution.' It is clear that evolution itself has become a religion, and a 'state' religion at that, whereby only ideas that 'tow the line' are accepted. Of course, sooner or later a paradigm shift will come along and history will view things differently. Ideas that were once paramount in their own time will fail (e.g.. the moon's craters were created by volcanism) and ideas once laughed at have been proven correct (e.g. Wegener's 'continental drift' idea from 1915). Likewise I see the 'single recent origin hypothesis' as currently argued to be too cut-and-dry...the insinuation that we cannot trace our human ancestry back to any migration out of Africa earlier than 60,000 years ago requires '100%' failure of all previous migrations. But even if the idea is proven correct, statistical calculations such as Y-Adam are, in fact, correlations at best; any connection is indirect.

However, that is not what I am writing about. If I have exposed myself (some may view me as a problem-causer) the Wikipedia process has also been exposed as a human foible. I could have easily created my own article using a sockpuppet, and linking my own pages to it, and then minding my own business and everything would be fine and a year later, no one would know or care that my personal article existed or that I created it, or that I used sources to back it up which were not 'third party' sources...such as David Allen Lambert. I have tested the notion that creating an 'autobiography' on Wikipedia is 'not forbidden' even if 'strongly discouraged.' I have tried to see if people would approach a subject rationally or not. It seems that rationality went out the window long ago as the 'vote for deletion' for

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Robert_Young_%28gerontologist%29

resulted in questionable tactics employed by both sides. However, the essential questions remain unanswered, and cherry-picking arguments seem to be the vogue. Moreover, most articles for deletion end after '5 days' of listing, but this one is still open.

To me, the biggest 'lie' on Wikipedia is the Wikipedia:crap argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CRAP#What_about_article_x.3F

In reality, lots and lots and lots of marginal articles are created and not only not deleted, but not even nominated for deletion. For Wikipedia to argue that comparisons can't be made is the same as arguing that baseball doesn't have a 'steroids' problem: denial isn't going to fix things any time soon.

However, the argument was made not that THIS article is SIMILAR to article X but EXCEEDS article X (by a large margin). Further, if Article X exists for quite some time, then it becomes more likely that perhaps a general consensus is to keep it....

So, in the same sense that everyone is tired about hearing Barry Bonds and his chase for 756 home runs, so even I'm tired of this current debate. Although I did get a surprise 'keep' vote from my worst Wikipedia enemy (Fyunclick), it does seem that the majority of people either can't separate reason from emotion, or are too callous/fast/loose to actually do any research on the subject before making a decision.

Thus, I suggest you do a little research. If you feel you can't vote fairly, then that is up to you. However, I'd like to see this over and done with, one way or another. And while my ideas in 'evolution' went nowhere, it seems that my arguments in cases such as Mary Ramsey Wood have been accepted. Other past cases, such as Charlie Smith (centenarian), have been famous for being fraudulent. Notably, someone (not myself) used me as a reference for that case. Hence I can separate the "I" and think in the third-person: if I see that I'm being used as a reference time and again, perhaps that means I have contributed something to the field, and having an article would be useful to linking together disparate references.

The FACT of the matter is, age-debunking has long been essential to answering the question 'how long can we live'? and can we do anything to slow the aging process. I get the most support from those who know the most about the subject. That alone says enough.

Finally, the article wasn't simply about me. I plan to create articles on other notables in the field (and have already done so). The article was created because I saw a need to link the Mary Ramsey Wood case to other debunked articles, something a 'user page' doesn't do. However, if we have to I'm sure someone will create an article about me when/after I die. One of my 'pet peeves' is that if someone dies at an extremely old age, we run and put an obit in the paper...but often few want to hear/write about them while still living. It is part of the process of 'legend-building' that we turn older people and dead people into 'immortals'. Guess what? Jim Morrison was just a man.74.237.28.5 20:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, as I said elsewhere already, I have come to understand that you mean well in everything you do. I am really surprised that you always remain calm even when all odds are against you and people say mean things about what you write (including myself). As I said, I would be glad to have a drink with you if we have a chance. Fred Hsu 21:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About evolution-related articles, please understand that in my two deletion nominations, not once did I question the validity of your idea of separate humans species merging into one modern species. For the record, I don't think that is the case; based on best evidences I have from reading books, I believe modern human has already been a single species (from the time of its speciation), and while it dispersed around the world, never ceased to interchange genes. But all ideas deserve a place in wikipedia, if they are backed by scholarly research and properly cited. The problem with your articles is that you invented some names, claimed they are scientific terms, then found irrelevant papers as references. This is simply not acceptable for an encylopedia which aspires to beat up the Britannica. I hope you understand. And, please don't quote selective parts of this paragraph as my support for your articles ;) Fred Hsu 21:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About your autobiography, I refrained from voting on it, lest people see my vote as an attack on you personally.

About the CRAP rule, you see, like you said, there are many many articles in wikipedia which should never have been added. But the truth is that pretty much nobody notices them, and they are left alone for the time being. That some article X is worse than Y is no argument for not deleting Y. This rule makes perfect sense to me. If someone cares enough about the bad article X, they will delete it (if not contended), or nominate it via AfD. If no one cares enough to spend time to go through AfD, they are left alone. I noticed the most ancient common ancestor article because you added links to it to many article that I extensively rewrote and closely monitor. I noticed the Species Integration when I looked at your Contributions page recently, but paid no attention at the time. When I was looking at the new identical ancestors point page recently, I noticed that there was a section about species integration. When I looked into the references more closely, I realized they had nothing to do with the article, and the article name was obviously invented by you. So I nominated it for deletion. It takes a lot of time to go through AfD. I don't enjoy it; trust me. I would rather spend time working parental expenditure and The Ancestor's Tale Fred Hsu 21:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Species Integration, Part Deux

This story is a typical example of 'species integration':

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070922/ap_on_sc/catalina_bison;_ylt=Amlp0T9V8cM.Y1xcUrILZ7BxieAA

Cows and Bison are seen as separate species, yet interbreeding has meant that about 98% of bison have at least some recent 'cow' ancestry. It is an artificial construct for us to think that the boundaries between species are so black-and-white that, once separated, they can never be re-integrated. Basically, these species diverged due to a long period of geographic separation, and they converged when that separating barrier was lifted.

By the way, hoping you're not that Democratic fundraiser in trouble with the law.Ryoung122 07:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was not me... it was my brother ;)

About exact definition of species and interbreeding, why not check out species, ring species and hybrid? The species boundary is often muddy; nobody denies this. But species don't 'integrate' the way you believe, Robert. Fred Hsu 15:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Please do not add low-quality images.

I know most of those are low-quality images. It's something I have been experimenting with my cellphone and my camera. Because some of those buses that don't run anymore, it's really hard to obtain some of those pictures. Sorry if I annoyed you or anything. I had no intention of annoying anyone on those SFMTA pictures.

The articulated bus picture was taken from an angle because I didn't get to it fast enough. I had another picture of that exact same bus, but, because the rear got cut off, I decided not to upload it. I could try a panoramic picture.

The image where the buses were stored at Presidio Division is a similar image found in the archives at the San Francisco Public Library, taken in the 1950s.

Again, I had no intention of creating work and annoying other users, and you. If I bugged you or anything, I'll just find a way to get more clear pictures of things for Wikipedia. I will remove the same image from US 101 article. That's on me. Thanks!

Goodshoped35110s 02:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in your talk page, I have no doubt that you mean well. I left the US 101 article image alone, because I thought it was appropriate for 'that' article. I see that you removed it. But I believe it's OK for that page (it's talking about the route, not the bus). I myself have had some of my images replaced by other newer, better images; I don't take it personally :) Fred Hsu 06:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can You Help Me?

Hi, I don't think you remember me from back when I put the faulty ETI image, but, if you do, I need some help. I have recently created a page over at Wikimedia Commons that has the images of Muni. You may notice that the page has 4 images left; that's to curb transit foamers to take over the page. So, if you can, can you help?

This page was created to relieve overcrowded conditions at the Muni site over at Wikipedia. If you can, please help upload pictures to commons, then placing them in the appropriate galleries. IF you can, please help. Your help is greatly appreciated. Thanks!

Goodshoped35110s 04:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have been busy lately. Will take a look when I have time. Fred Hsu 15:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I got it all set up. But, if you want, that's OK too. -Go od sh op ed 02:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I completely forgot, not that I have anymore pictures to upload. I don't live in the Bay Area :( Fred Hsu 03:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you did. I mean, you did contribute significantly to the San Francisco Bay Area, you live near the SFBA, though? -Go od sh op ed 03:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, those were my wiki-vacation pictures. I took them with the intent to upload to wikimedia. See my page. In the rare case that you find more pictures of use from that page, I can tell you where original-resolution images can be found. Fred Hsu 03:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhhhh. It's OK. -Go od sh op ed 03:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're Wrong, Thank You!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071017/ap_on_sc/early_seafood

Early seafood, makeup found in S. Africa By SETH BORENSTEIN, AP Science Writer 1 hour, 54 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - In one of the earliest hints of "modern" living, humans 164,000 years ago put on primitive makeup and hit the seashore for steaming mussels, new archaeological finds show.

(actual text deleted) Fred Hsu 01:42, 18 October 2007 (UTC) ___[reply]

By the way, saying that 'mitochondrial Eve' dating to 160,000 years ago means that humanity started at that time is like saying that humanity started in the 1600's because Obama and Cheney shared a common ancestor then. In reality, mito-Eve and Y-Adam are statistical tricks.Ryoung122 01:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, you completely misunderstand mtEve. Please actually study the field first. Thanks. And I removed the copyrighted material as well. I don't want such material on my talk page. The link is good enough. Fred Hsu 01:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On second reading, perhaps you don't mean to say that mtEve is the start of humanity. Then, I don't know what you are trying to say. I never said mtEve is the start of humanity. Perhaps you are again trying to prove that new scientific discoveries still happen everyday, invalidating the long-established 'truth'? As I have said before, there is no truth in science. Only current best theories. New evidences challenge current theories either is explained by old theories or by newly formulated ones. What's the problem here? Fred Hsu 01:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]