User talk:Jiejunkong/Archive1

Manifold Destiny

Hello, Jiejunkong!

I have heard about your dispute with Chan Ho. I have read the subject article, and I have reviewed the contents of the talk page.

In my opinion, you are in the wrong here. Chan Ho has repeatedly explained to you what the NPOV means to most of the editors on WP. I agree with Chan Ho's interpretation: when arguments like this one take place, a well written article ought not quote extensively from either side of the argument. It should instead attempt to explain clearly and in a neutral tone of voice what the argument is about, and provide links to the actual statements being made by both sides, so readers who care to dig more deeply can form their own opinions.

I believe you owe Chan Ho an apology. I will be watching this article, and you, for a while, to be certain that you understand and adhere to the NPOV policy.

Have a great day! DavidCBryant 01:04, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may also want to know that issues such as this are commonly discussed on the talk pages of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mathematics, which overlooks articles about mathematics. linas 01:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear David C. Bryant, I don't agree to the interpretation that NPOV means deletion only. In particular, if you justify your deletion-only policy by accusing the "extensiveness" of factual quotes, then I don't agree with you and user "Chan Ho" on the definition of "extensively". I have read all the letters from those interviewees (people interviewed by Nasar in "Manifold Destiny") who have publicized their reactions to the article "Manifold Destiny", and from the landslide reactions, I believe it is necessary to show the relevant contents of one of them as an example. The quoted part (of Professor Stroock of my random selection because Stroock's letter is the first one listed in the wiki article. Other letters are equally qualified) serves as a factual example. On the other hand, I couldn't even find 1 supporting letter for Nasar from those interviewees. In particular, I have created a wiki page for every interviewee in the article "Manifold Destiny" (except Dr. Yuri Burago because he has no home page and I cannot find enough information in English). The fact is "biased" as it is. NPOV refers to Neutral Point of View. It doesn't mean balancing "biased" fact by denying the content showing. In all cases, you can always change the words and sentences to state a fact without violating NPOV, but you cannot launch a denial-of-service attack by deleting the fact constantly and instantly (In other words, Factual contents can always be neutralized without deletion. Do you agree?) You are welcome to change the factual contents (i.e., to neutralize the fatual contents), but I don't see the rule of deleting factual contents is imperative.

I believe you owe me an apology. I will be watching this article, and you, for a while, to be certain that you understand and adhere to the NPOV policy by keeping facts on wikipedia.

Have a great day! --Jiejunkong 02:46, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV discussion: Does quoting Stroock's statements violate NPOV?

NPOV refers to "representing fairly and without bias all significant views that have been published by a reliable source". It doesn't mean wikiusers must balance the number of characters of the verifiable statements from two sides, or reduce statements from both sides to a few harmless sentences. In contrast, Daniel Stroock, Michael Anderson and Joseph Kohn were all interviewees of Nasar when she wrote the article. Their views are "significant views", and the quotes are from reliable sources. In regard to the quotes of their statements, NPOV only means "representing fairly and without bias Daniel Stroock/Michael Anderson/Joseph Kohn's views that have been published by a reliable source". I am really surprised to see that NPOV is interpreted to be constant & instant deletion, and used as a weapon to threaten other wikiusers.

The verbal threat comes from this user. He is "watching" me. I am worried. :-) --Jiejunkong 04:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For wiki-users who are confused by the above paragraph, see Manifold destiny and its talk pages for the argument about whether Stroock/Anderson/Kohn's statement should be included in the wiki-article's main content. --Jiejunkong 06:20, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your well-reasoned statement of your position, Jiejunkong. Please allow me to explain my position again.

I am not threatening you. You have no reason to be worried. I'm watching you and your actions, just as you have every right to watch me and my actions. You cannot possibly be harmed when someone's eyes receive the electromagnetic waves that have been reflected from you. Perhaps the electromagnetic waves will hurt you, but the other fellow's eyes certainly won't.

I read your exchange with Chan Ho quite carefully. Twice. And I looked at the revert war that got started. Then I formed my opinion, and I came to your talk page, and expressed it to you. Now you apparently want to fight with me. Fine. So be it.

I believe the article Manifold Destiny represented all significant views fairly and without bias before you laid a finger on it. I think two of the changes you made harmed the article (and Wikipedia, indirectly). I am particularly disturbed by your contention that plagiarism is OK (see the material that was reverted by David Eppstein). I am not here to hurt you, or to threaten you, but to defend the integrity of the article.

I do not claim to be infallible. I know that I make mistakes. But you are also human, Jiejunkong. Please do yourself a favor and ask someone else -- a neutral party -- for their opinion before deciding that we have to fight each other. And have a great day! ;^> DavidCBryant 13:06, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a :-) behind "I am worried" in my talk. So you know there is indeed no worry. Take it as a random humor, since we both do some research on randomness (this is again a humor that may not reach you).

I believe you are intentionally planting some far-fetched "crimes" on my back. (1) First, you said "your contention that plagiarism is OK". This is your specious speculation. I always despise irresponsible deleters (many of them are teenage students who just act as a wikipedia robot). My intention is always presenting two-side stories as much as possible (I'm strongly against deleting factual contents and then explaining things using under-the-table connotations). In Cao-Zhu's case, my personal judgement is that they committed "unconscious plagiarism", which means they think it was optional to refer to the unpublished source. The academia doesn't give much credit to unpublished source without peer review. I work in academia and I can assure you this is true. This is also one of the reasons why Perelman's 3 landmark papers, which are posted on arXiV without peer review, have raised so many controversies. (2) Second, the integrity of the article is not ensured by your words, but by wikipedia's rules like NPOV. You wield the NPOV rule as a weapon without even knowing what the rule says. It is so weird to talk about integrity of the article in this way. I think you should stick to wikipedia rules rather than your personal opinions. My belief is, as long as the rule says it is valid, you cannot delete it no matter how ugly or offensive you think it is. Those things that are offensive to you may be the truth. At least in the system using these rules, you are biased and destructive. --Jiejunkong 21:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps saying "your contention that plagiarism is OK" was a slight overstatement. I'm sorry if I offended you, Jiejonkung. But please look at the material to which I referred.

This is again a controversy. On one hand, based on the online file name of Nair's report, Nair and New York Times accused Cao-Zhu of having committed plagiarism. On the other hand, due to lack of peer reviews, online notes are not considered as formal publications in academia. It is optional for authors to refer to volatile online links. Even arXiV.org ePrint papers are not considered as formal publications in academia because of lack of peer reviews. This is also one of the reasons why Perelman's three landmark papers ... [emphasis added]

The page history clearly indicates that you wrote this. Dr. David Eppstein removed this material and made this edit comment: "It is NOT OPTIONAL to cite material that you are using verbatim, online or not. Remove strange attempt at justifying plagiarism."

So maybe you didn't intend to say that plagiarism is OK. But that is what you said. I wasn't the only person who noticed this. Dr. David Eppstein apparently thought the same thing I did. Please read his comment again and think about it, Jiejunkong. Much of the misunderstanding arising on the "Manifold Destiny" page comes about because you don't think in English. You think in Chinese, and then translate your thoughts into English. Most of the people using the English Wikipedia really are native English speakers, and they will draw conclusions based on the actual English words in front of them. They will not understand that these words, translated directly into Chinese, mean something slightly different, because they cannot speak Chinese.

I have never said "plagiarism is okay"! And it is true that "citing volatile online links is optional" (Again, I don't see any problem in my sentence). The reason why Cao-Zhu must offer the apology to Kleiner-Lott is not because of "citing volatile online links is optional", but due to the fact they did an almost-identical copy of Lemma 43.3. In this identical-copy case, even if you get the idea from dinner-table smalltalks, you are obliged to give the credit to Kleiner-Lott when there is a 3rd-party witness can prove the existence of the oral communication (e.g., by tape recording). This doesn't change the fact that "citing volatile online links and oral talk is optional in academia (but citing formal publication is imperative in academia)". (1) The 1-side story for Nair and New York Times is discovering the fact that the proofs are nearly identical. (2) The 1-side story for Cao-Zhu is that they are relying on the fact "citing volatile online links is optional". I tried to present both sides of the story. It is likely I have some point of view in the write-up, and other editors can neutralize it (not by deletion/blanking of course). But it is quite improper for David Eppstein to blank the entire paragraph and to create some obviously malicious charges against me. Later I added the paragraph back with a rewrite. And you can see my view clearly from the "unconscious plagiarism" link. My view is like this: Kleiner-Lott must get the credit, and Cao-Zhu's oversight of a Lemma proof in a 325-page paper with hundreds of theorems is also a credible story to me. Any practice that relying on stating something by connotations is improper and not NPOV. In contrast, putting everything on the table is NPOV. --Jiejunkong 23:29, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, there's no need to belabor the point. I think you have good intentions, Jiejunkong. That's why I'm spending so much time writing on your talk page -- if I didn't care, or if I really thought you're a bad guy, I wouldn't bother. Does the stuff I just pointed out make sense to you? I don't want to hurt you, and I'm not making fun of you. I just want to prevent further misunderstanding. DavidCBryant 12:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, to David C. Bryant, I just asked a neutral party who knows nothing about math but was chosen into jury for several times. He says you are biased and destructive if you don't follow the rules in the system and take personal justice in your own hands. He also says for many times the rules are cruel and offend as many people as you can imagine, but you cannot go against the system. --Jiejunkong 22:07, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's a rather craven attitude. I come from a strong American tradition that says one should think about the rules, and obey them when they are fair and just. But when the rules are wrong, they must be challenged. To do otherwise is to accept tyranny, and to crawl on one's belly like a worm, instead of standing up proudly like a man. I don't care if your friend wants to be subservient. I want to be free!!! DavidCBryant 12:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS Most likely the reason your friend was chosen for jury service several times is that the judges and lawyers want people who don't think for themselves on the jury. But that's another subject.

Man, you have watched too many Mel Gibson's movies. I have read many history records of China. You sound like Chen Sheng or Mao Zedong when they were at your age. :-) --Jiejunkong 00:07, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check User:Frances benoit and User:Drv12's contribution lists. I think people will understand the reasons why I wrote the section "What I don't like here" on my home page. --Jiejunkong 05:51, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't like that either, Jiejunkong. Have you read about sock puppets? I think these two "new contributors" just might be sock puppets. DavidCBryant 12:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha, in Chinese it is called "recently bought jacket", or simply "jacket". I can tell it was not you. We only had some different views of the same rule. That guy is different. --Jiejunkong 23:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly do want to be your friend.

Hello again, Jiejunkong!

Believe it or not, I really do want to be your friend. I do not want to offend you, or hurt you in any way. I also want to stick up for what I think is right in every situation, no matter how difficult that may be. Anyway, I want to extend the olive branch, and I hope you will receive what I am saying now in that spirit.

My main beef with you is that you apparently think (EN-4 tag on your user page) you speak English at the "near-native" level. That may be so -- I have no evidence to the contrary. I have never spoken with you, face to face. But I have seen quite a bit of your writing, and I can assure you that your writing obviously flows from the pen of someone who speaks English as a second language. Please let me demonstrate with verbiage I have lifted from your user page.

I am a researcher with Ph.D. degree in wireless network and network security areas. Currently I am doing research and development in a Los Angeles based network company. My hobby includes my R&D job and traditional Chinese writings, such as poems (古詩詞格律)，literatures (古文) and official history records(二十四史).

I note two glaring idiomatic errors, and another that is merely stylistic. A native English speaker would write ... with a Ph.D. degree in ... "Los Angeles based" really ought to be "Los Angeles-based". And a native English speaker would never in a million years say "literatures" when referring to a single language, such as Chinese. It should be "literature", without the s, unless one is making specific reference to the literatures of two or more distinctly different ethnic or linguistic groups.

Thank you for the English lesson. I have learned Chinese since I was born, but I am still learning. The more you learn, the more you feel you are ignorant. "Los Angeles based" is acceptable to most of my friends who visit my page, so I think it is fine. As to the term "literatures", I mean "古文". Your translation is wrong, and I thank you for your effort. Chinese-English translation is amazingly hard because the two languages belong to two completely different language families.--Jiejunkong 04:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

* Two-side stories presented here.

This may be a mere typographical error, but "Two-side" really ought to say "Two-sided".

Google side error "monte carlo algorithm" now, you can find experts in my area use the term "one-side" "two-side". I guess English is somehow flexible. I remember that many British guys think American guys cannot write because British people write "favour""colour" and American people write "favor""color". Well, as long as people in your community think you are okay, then you are okay.--Jiejunkong 04:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those IQ250 who are very good at explaining things using under-the-table connotations.

This is almost perfect, Jiejunkong. But a native English speaker would almost certainly say "Those with an IQ of 250 who are ...", or maybe "Those with genius-level IQs who are ...". By the way, who ever heard of an IQ of 250? The highest ones I've ever read about were estimated at ~200 - 210 (Goethe, and some French guy whose name slips my mind right now). ;^>

250(二百五) has some special meaning in some dialects of Chinese language. Sorry I cannot write IQ250 as "IQ of 250". It is different.--Jiejunkong 04:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those irresponsible deleters who just act as a wikipedia robot. Deletion is much easier than insertion---mark the lines and click the "Save page" button. It takes much more time to figure out a better write-up than to delete something. If they fail to come up with a better write-up, they will delete it.

The first sentence would read much more smoothly as "Those irresponsible deleters who act like wikipedia robots."

There are many kinds of wikipedia robots. They even have home pages here. What I mean is a robot doing deletion. Any of them qualifies.--Jiejunkong 04:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Something about the way you phrased it seems strained and unnatural, somehow. The next sentence would read more smoothly if it said "...just mark the lines and click ..." Again, a small thing that falls very heavily on the ear of a native English speaker. The last sentence is OK, grammatically, except that the antecedent of "it" is somewhat less than crystal clear. Something like "If they cannot improve the verbiage that is already there, and they don't agree with what the previous contributor said, they will just erase his words" would express the same sentiment clearly and unambiguously.

Thank you. I don't like deletion, so I will rewrite it.--Jiejunkong 04:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the water that's already under the bridge I don't suppose you'll take my words at face value, Jiejunkong. I'm not going to get in a fight with you about the NPOV thing ... I'm willing to let others form their own opinions on that score, and I'll let them decide the issue. Interpretations of complex policies like that are always subject to majority vote on Wikipedia, anyway.

I support you for asking for better interpretations of complex policies. As long as the same interpretation of any rule is applied to all contents fairly and without bias, I support the interpretation unconditionally.--Jiejunkong 04:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't think I disrespect you because I notice the small flaws in the way you write English. I have a great deal of respect for anyone who has learned more than one language. And you must be a smart guy to have written a thesis and earned a Ph.D. degree. So let's make a deal. I'll leave the NPOV dispute up to the consensus process. Would you please respect me, and not automatically revert every edit I make? I really do want to improve Wikipedia, and I really can improve the idiom and the style of the "Manifold Destiny" article, if you'll let me.

Please don't think there is anything personal. It is just a collision of different interpretations of something, in language or in wiki-policy. As to your statement "not automatically revert every edit I make", you know that it is a false statement. I have never reverted your grammatic corrections and other neutral corrections. Those are your contributions to wikipedia, and I support all constructive moves. This is not a deal, but a habit. --Jiejunkong 04:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and Merry Christmas! ;^> DavidCBryant 02:46, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the English lesson. "In thy orison, be all my sins remembered. " Merry Christmas to you too! --Jiejunkong 04:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]