User talk:Y-S.Ko/Archive 1

thanks

for adding so many great quotes by (and about) economists. ~ DanielTom (talk) 10:44, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words. Y-S.Ko (talk) 23:00, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Electrostatic potential maps

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Electrostatic potential maps, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikiquote is not" and Wikiquote's deletion policy).

You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Votes for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. ~ UDScott (talk) 17:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

I thought this problem more seriously. I think that you are right. Thank you for your comment on "Electrostatic potential maps". I think it's all right to delete it. Y-S.Ko (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

ping

Hello. This discussion might interest you: Wikiquote:Village pump#Category:Chemistry. (Main concerns are quotability and the narrowness of the topics [not many notable quotations about them].) Cheers, DanielTom (talk) 22:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for teaching me about that. Y-S.Ko (talk) 22:59, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Ayn Rand

Interesting quote – it immediately reminded me of a similar story:

«Barbara Branden, a close friend of Rand's, recalled a dinner catastrophe that resulted from the first meeting between Rand, the libertarian economist Henry Hazlitt, and Ludwig von Mises, the greatest intellectual defender of freemarket economics of the 20th century. "The evening was a disaster. It was the first time Ayn had discussed moral philosophy in depth with either of the two men. 'My impression,' she was to say, 'was that von Mises did not care to consider moral issues, and Henry was seriously committed to altruism. ... We argued quite violently. At one point von Mises lost his patience and screamed at me.'»

Cheers! ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Alan O. Ebenstein

A page that you have been involved in editing, Alan O. Ebenstein, has been listed for deletion. All contributions are appreciated, but it may not satisfy Wikiquote's criteria for inclusion, for the reasons given in the nomination for deletion (see also what Wikiquote is and is not). If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikiquote:Votes for deletion/Alan O. Ebenstein. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Thank you. Jusjih (talk) 01:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikiquote:Limits on quotations

Hi Y-S.Ko, I noticed you just enlarged the Alan O. Ebenstein from size 10k to about 20k, and I wonder if you are taking into account the Wikiquote:Limits on quotations — Mdd (talk) 22:55, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me of limits! Y-S.Ko (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Y-S.Ko, I think in general you are doing a great job here on Wikiquote, but some of your recent edits such as to the Jürgen Habermas lemma (see here) raise similar Limits on quotations-concerns. There is also the thing, that these quotes are placed in the "quotes about the author" section, while large parts are not primary on the work or impact of the work of Habermas. Could you consider trimming those down to the more relevant parts? -- Mdd (talk) 09:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Y-S.Ko, If have undone your recent edits to the Perry Anderson and ‎The Road to Serfdom lemma, because those lemma's violated two Wikiquote:Limits on quotations restrictions: the length of quotes and the maximum lines of prose to use from books, which is 1.25% of the total content of a book. I guess you just had the first limit in mind, but I invite you to do the math on the second limit as well. Please keep both limits in mind. -- Mdd (talk) 23:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Formal warning

Y-S.Ko, looking into the larger edits you made since the above message two years ago, it seems that you violated the Wikiquote:Limits on quotations at least a dozen times. Therefore I hereby give you a formal warning, that if you continue to violate Wikiquote:Limits on quotations you will be blocked here. -- Mdd (talk) 15:20, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Francis D. Wormuth

I have placed some merge candidates for this page, which you recently created. It does not appear that this person is notable enough for a page. But the quote is a good one. Perhaps it would be better to place it on an appropriate theme page - I have suggested a couple (or it could even go on both). Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 14:12, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Y Done I looked into this some more and resolved the situation by adding some more general data and quotes. -- Mdd (talk) 22:22, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Assumptions

Hi -S.Ko, I restored the quote here, because the quote is also present at the Assumption lemma. I try to follow the policy, that quotes from one source should at first be added all together, and can then be scattered in thematic articles (not in the last place due to possible limitation of quotation boundaries). -- Mdd (talk) 21:30, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Just for the record: I made the same "mistake" yesterday (and just corrected it). The result is that, I think, the first chapters are not within the limits, the whole book (still) is. -- Mdd (talk) 12:30, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Advice

I noticed you rarely use edit summaries. Please do. That way, people can understand what your edits are about. Usually, when people make huge changes to an article without edit summaries, people tend to assume that it is vandalism. Illegitimate Barrister 13:15, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

When creating new articles with preexisting material from other pages, it's good to at least link to said pages in the edit summary (attribution) so people can find the original contributors, and their edit history. (E.g., you can simply say "moved from [page]".) ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

"Subtopic"and overly peculiar topic pages

I thank you for your work in creating pages, but I believe that your recent creation of such on extremely particular sub-topics, like Albert Einstein and politics, Thomas Kuhn and truth, very peculiar combinations of topics, like John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek, and peculiar phrases like Turtles all the way down are neither necessary nor advantageous. I believe creation of such pages can be very confusing and confounding to people, and I believe that such quotes that as had previously been on pages for the authors of subjects of them should simply remain there, and such pages generally should not be created. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:25, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The same is true for the page Shut up and calculate which creates a page for a very specialized joke that on Wikipedia simply redirects to Interpretations of quantum mechanics. We do not generally create pages for mere quotes as a subject, and I do not believe that a page for such a relatively obscure phrase is either needed or desirable. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 00:35, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

There are possibility that sub-topic pages can be confusing. However, I also think making independent pages can be better to see quotes about specific subjects. I think there are people who want specific sub-topics. Also, there are already precedents, sub-topic pages such as Last words in Shakespeare, William Shakespeare quotes about death, William Shakespeare quotes about life, William Shakespeare quotes about love, William Shakespeare quotes about war (5 sub-topics, 1 person). I don't know why only William Shakespeare has a right to have five sub-topic pages, and I don't know why Albert Einstein have no right to have sub-topic pages. Sub-topic pages have possibility to be useful. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 09:08, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

The Einstein page is pretty long, and thus could possibly stand being divided into subpages.  That said, the Einstein subpage you created (Albert Einstein and politics) doesn't do this at all.  The one connection between the two is Einstein's [flawed] essay "Why Socialism?" (A) which you left on the main Einstein page and (B) to which you add a link to your subpage, even though the practice of creating subpages is usually the opposite, where (A) the content is moved from the main page to the subpage and (B) a link to the subpage is added to the main page.  allixpeeke (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I added some quotes of Einstein to Albert Einstein and politics. Is it better if these quotes are deleted from main Albert Einstein page? --Y-S.Ko (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

This is just my opinion, and others may disagree with me, but I would say you should move the entire 'Why Socialism?' section to the subpage and delete it from the main page, replacing it with "{{Main|Albert Einstein and politics#Why Socialism? (1949)}}" on the main page.  As for other quotes on the main page, I would say (and, again, some might disagree with me) that you should only delete them if both of these requirements are met: (A) the quote was extracted from one of the following sections: "1890s," "1900s," "1910s," "1920s," "1930s," "1940s," "1950s," "Attributed in posthumous publications" (in other words, don't delete anything from any of the sections below "Attributed in posthumous publications," save for entire sections (e.g., 'Why Socialism?')); and (B) the quote is solely focused on politics (as opposed to being focused on multiple topics, e.g., politics and science, or politics and religion, etc.).  Hopefully I'm not being confusing, and hopefully I'm not off-base in making that recommendation.  allixpeeke (talk) 00:38, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I think you may've misunderstood what I meant.  I don't think "Why Socialism" should have it's own page, but rather should have been transferred in its entirety to Albert Einstein and politics as it is an entirely-political article.  allixpeeke (talk) 07:28, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, I moved some more quotes over, including my favourite Einstein quote in which he says that war is murder.  At some point, we may wish to create an Albert Einstein and religion article, too, but I've no designs on working on such a page tonight.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 10:16, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Does Max Weber on methodology merit being a separate article from Max Weber?  In the Einstein case, we're dealing with a very long page, but the Max Weber page isn't tremendous, and I have to suspect the Max Weber on methodology won't get very long, either (unlike the Albert Einstein and politics page).  As it stands, the Max Weber on methodology is a stub, so I would greatly encourage you to simply merge it with Max Weber.  allixpeeke (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

History of polymer chemistry

I moved the page to polymer chemistry.  Maybe one day, the page will get so large that it would make sense to split some of the quotes off to subpages (e.g., "history of polymer chemistry"), but until that time, it seems to make sense just to have the quote at polymer chemistry.  Cheers, allixpeeke (talk) 15:06, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Recommendation

You create pages for many people, and that's great.  But when you do, try to remember to include a {{DEFAULTSORT:Sirname, Givenname}} in the page.  This way, when Wikiquote users look for people using the categories pages, the people for whom they are looking will be listed by their sirnames instead of their givennames.

I just edited Roger Garrison to add {{DEFAULTSORT:Garrison, Roger Wayne}}, David Laidler to add {{DEFAULTSORT:Laidler, David Ernest William}}, Andrew Gelman to add {{DEFAULTSORT:Gelman, Andrew}}, Benno Moiseiwitsch to add {{DEFAULTSORT:Moiseiwitsch, Benno}}, Daniel Kuehn to add {{DEFAULTSORT:Kuehn, David}}, Jason Brennan to add {{DEFAULTSORT:Brennan, Jason}}, Travis Norsen to add {{DEFAULTSORT:Norsen, Travis}}, Carsten Held to add {{DEFAULTSORT:Held, Carsten}}, Detlef Dürr to add {{DEFAULTSORT:Dürr, Detlef}}, Clara Schumann to add {{DEFAULTSORT:Schumann, Clara}}, and Maximilian Schlosshauer to add {{DEFAULTSORT:Schlosshauer, Maximilian}}.  It would be cool if you just automatically did that whenever you create a page for a new person.

Also, I notice that none of these names have been added to list of people by name.

Neither Roger Garrison nor Andrew Gelman has been added to list of people by name, G.  Neither Clara Schumann nor Maximilian Schlosshauer has been added to list of people by name, S.  Etc.

In addition to making sure to include {{DEFAULTSORT:Sirname, Givenname}} whenever creating a page for a new person, I likewise recommend that you add each person whose page you create to the list of people by name.

Sincerely,
allixpeeke (talk) 16:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Native language

If I may inquire, what is your native language?  allixpeeke (talk) 00:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Korean language. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

I reverted MAJOR revisions to the United States page

I just reverted some of the MAJOR changes you made to the page for the United States. I see NO need for a stripping out of comments of US presidents, nor any need for a separate page of segregated quotes "Presidents of the United States on the United States." I believe such breakdown of VERY specialized pages is extremely unwarranted. I have also restored MANY of the images that were removed, though I did not restore some that seemed more recently added, and in an order that seemed somewhat unorganized, in my brief glancing at the them. It might perhaps be useful to re-organize the page — but I do not agree on FILTERING it out in quite so extensive, extreme and sudden a manner as you did without ANY discussion of such an edit with others of such EXTREME changing of CONTENT. ~ ♞☤☮♌Kalki·†·⚓⊙☳☶⚡ 05:08, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

You seem a pretty good judge of notability and niche topics based of the moe article. could I get your opinion on some of my edits?

Could I get your opinion on my edits to graffiti, video games, computer, brain and animation? No one ever questions if a contemporary director or an actor is significant; but contemporary scientists and artists are always suspect unless they have a wikipedia page. I think it's strange crowdfunding is getting targeted for deletion yet moe isn't, perhaps Peter1c is too distracted by me to have heard, I'll let him know. CensoredScribe (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Could I get your opinion as to whether my citation fixes are "subtle vandalism" or if it is rather Daniel Toms' uncivil and disruptive behavior that warrants correction?

[1] I have a very long and sorted history with Daniel Tom, and although they normally have some basis for their reverts, this is a very clear cut matter of whether my recent citation fixes are correct or not, which I believe they are as every single style guide suggests ending citations with a period and my other grammatical fixes such as italicizing titles and using commas between entries (or periods in the case of the APA) are also near universally implemented. I've been copying their language substituting meat back for incompetent as I assume all editors are made out of meat, while incompetence is in fact a legal term.

Sorry for bothering you with this mess, I thought being a wiki gnome was welcomed, but I guess not. I wouldhave at least liked knowing what I did wrong from DT, but I guess I don't deserve that as "the most incompetent editor ever". CensoredScribe (talk) 18:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Pages related to South/North Korea

Thanks for your culling of non-notable quotes on pages related to these topics. One complaint however: when you took out these quotes, you also removed the images that were on the page. I understand not wanting to keep the captions, but the images should probably remain (with either descriptions of what they depict or different quotes as their captions). I made an attempt on the South Korea page to restore some of the images. with pretty benign descriptions of them as captions. Could you maybe try to restore images to the other pages you edited as well? Thanks. ~ UDScott (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring some images of South Korea page. I restored some images of other pages. --Y-S.Ko (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2017 (UTC)