User talk:Fred Hsu

Savanna theory
Savanna theory. I thought you might be able to shed some light on this due to your work on the MRCA AFD. And you need to update your user page, you've deleted the article you say you're trying to delete, kudos.

My comment about the page...really? This is the page on wikipedia for the savanna hypothesis, and it portrays it as the losing alternative to the aquatic ape hypothesis? Given that I was under the impression the AAH was considered suspect, spurious and somewhat nutter, I'm surprised to see the content of this article referring to it so much, and being so light on its own content. Looks like a coatrack for AAH. WLU 19:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Will take a look. Fred Hsu 02:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Tales in the The Ancestor's Tale
Great work on The Ancestor's Tale. I have started to change the tale titles to the capitalization used in the book itself, and bolded the tale titles as well. I am too busy to finish this off now, but I hope you will continue this trend as you include newer tales. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 09:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ah, I like your new "non-" prefixed subsection names and the tale names in bold. Cool.  I will change the rest of them tonight if you don't get to them first. Thanks. Fred Hsu 11:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would have preferred section headers without using "non-", but I am not sure any of those groups have distinct names as such (e.g. what do you call all "non-primate mammals"?). − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 05:08, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

New story
Remember this? http://stillwatersca.blogspot.com/2006/09/evolution-of-christianity-short-story.html

After a long hiatus, I'm in the process of making another firmly tongue-in-cheek Christianity-related story, "Parva fabula", which is also my first attempt at writing Latin: http://stillwatersca.blogspot.com/1990/11/parva-fabula.html

Still not quite complete, though. I've been posting episodically, and it's up to part five now. Ideas and comments are welcome, if you have any. :3

--Euniana/Talk/Blog 06:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I especially like the ending of segment 5 ;) I posted it to RichardDawkins.net Fred Hsu (talk) 17:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Why did the robot removed a interwiki link?
Hi, the problem is caused by the Chinese traditional (zh-tw)/simplified (zh-cn) double orthography.

The page links to 哈里·謝頓, but if you go to the page, you'll see you actually end up at 哈里·谢顿. This is the same in simplified instead of traditional characters, and when you try to go to a page in traditional characters, you are automatically taken to its simplified equivalent (under standard settings).

Unfortunately, the same does NOT occur when using Special:Export. That's what the bot uses, and when there a traditional title is given, no page is found. Because of this the bot assumes the page does not exist. Some users have submitted this for correction in MediaWiki, but it doesn't seem likely it will actually be solved there anytime soon (see http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9419).

In future change zh links in the Chinese simplified (zh-cn) orthography. Thank you. --Alleborgo (talk) 16:58, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, got it. Thanks for fixing the page again. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Stephenson Book Zodiac.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Stephenson Book Zodiac.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I fixed it. Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

A (somewhat cryptic) thought...
"The History of Science has suffered greatly from the use by teachers of second-hand material, and the consequent obliteration of the circumstances and the intellectual atmosphere in which the great discoveries of the past were made. A first-hand study is always instructive, and often ... full of surprises." I am not a dog (talk) 15:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I do not know what your comment is about. Indeed I do not know if this comment was a praise or an insult.


 * If this was an insult based on something I have done (most likely the recent dispute over Autostereogram and visual perception), I can only say that wikipedia is by its nature a second-hand material. It represents the current mainstream ideas based on first-hand research material. Wikipedians try their best to accurately represent first hand material by writing well thought out articles with proper inline references, as I have done with Autostereogram, Mitochondrial Eve and Parental expenditure, with the last being a term you would recognize, judging by your edit history and the quote above. We should be skeptical about extraordinary claims. Such claims necessarily require extraordinary evidences. I have already ordered the Bennett book despite my expressed skepticism. Until I read the book, I do not have first hand knowledge.


 * Perhaps this was a praise. I did create autostereograms by hand in photo editing programs and later wrote a piece of program to generate them. In fact, I created all images except one in the article. Perhaps you see it as first hand knowledge on the topic in question ;) Fred Hsu (talk) 03:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, um. I'm gently teasing you a little. Try to go back to the original literature (if possible). Try to remember Richard Dawkins is a very good science journalist, good at explaining things, though an average scientist -- but they're not usually his ideas (most of them seem to come from W.D. Hamilton and J. Maynard Smith). Look at his sources and attribute things to them even if you can't read them. Fisher's Genetical Theory is online (p141) if you know where to look, (you don't have to buy it), but his literary style is awful. W.D. Hamilton (1967) gives a better explanation with numbered bullet points. A.W.F. Edwards (1994), looks at the argument and finds that it doesn't originate with Fisher, but Darwin (Descent of Man, 1st ed), though Fisher missed it there because he only had later editions. The point is Dawkins only gives a review. In other words, use both secondary and primary sources. And use "offspring" rather than "child". Maybe I'll fix it when I have time -- that's the idea of a wiki, right? ;) I am not a dog (talk) 09:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You are, of course, right. Feel free to fix the article. Like you said, it's a wiki after all :) But I do have to point out that, were it not for Dawkins' immensely readable books, I would not have contributed to that article or many others on evolutionary biology. Just like Dawkins gives credits to Fisher, Hamilton and Smith every time he expounded on their theories, we should give Dawkins credit for advancing understanding of science amongst the laypeople, eh? Fred Hsu (talk) 13:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Dawkins is a great starting point. I have moved it to Fisher's principle (which is its most common name), and have put in two quotes, which is a start. The rest I'll pull out of Edwards when I have the time, which probably means rewriting your material (sorry). I would however make two points:
 * 1) "Parents' choice of producing children" is very bad language, and possibly a misconception -- parents are, at least in higher species such as seals, incapable of "choosing" sex of their offspring, it is determined by the XY system genetically.  Whether a seal pup receives XX or XY is down to chance, but the probability function of that (the argument supposes) is controlled by genes which are in turn under the influence of natural selection, and natural selection pushes it to equilibrium point (ESS, fitness peak).
 * Of course parents do not 'choose'. Genes do. There should a another article which discusses this type of evolutionary languages. Dawkins explains this way of phrasing evolutionary choices very clearly in almost everyone of his books. I think it deserves an article of its own. It is so much more convenient to be able to say the former. For instance, in the article, i used "Such inequality in reproductive success would give parents (in evolutionary speak) an incentive to produce more boys". I would be nice to be able to link "in evolutionary speak" to an article which explains what this means. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. The basic solution (with equal parental expenditure) is a mixed ESS with pbar=0.5 for either sex (it is actually possible that individual strategies p=/0.5 long as these are equal and opposite they cancel each other out).  There is no choice involved either genetically, though there are strategies.  You unlikely to see "choice" written anywhere, even Dawkins who takes a few liberties with language. I am not a dog (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * 1) I don't think solution the harem paradox is "surprising" since you just derived the solution in the previous paragraph!?!
 * Perhaps did not make it clear in the second paragraph. The first paragraph really is talking about monogamous species, as an introduction to the 50:50 ESS, even though the introductory paragraph talks about seals. The second paragraph is illustrating the sentence "At first, this seems to make sense, if one considers a monogamous species such as humans". The third paragraph then uses the same logic to explain that it follows that even in a harem-based species, the same ratio will be maintained. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that's an unnecessary assumption to make isn't it? I am not a dog (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Hope that makes things a little clearer? I am not a dog (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't mind at all that you are improving it (greatly). That's the wiki spirit :) I am quite busy lately, so I won't be able to help you much. But obviously you already put a lot of thought into it. I trust you will do the right thing. Fred Hsu (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * BTW, if you mean to replace the seal example with something else, I hope you find a good example. It took me a while to figure out how to best structure the paragraphs to make them "flow". I hope you keep this flow, unless you can think of a better way :) Fred Hsu (talk) 03:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Fisher's principle, previously "parental expenditure"
Hey, I am not a dog, I am not quite happy with your treatment of the parental expenditure. Perhaps you are still working on the article, and will add back what I believe were good points in the original article. If so, please add a under-construction template to the article. If not, please read on.

I think you have greatly reduce the quality of the article in the name of citing first-hand reference. These should be two compatible, not mutually exclusive goals. A wikipedia article aspires to be encyclopedic in citing reference, and to be accessible to the lay people. I do not think your new version as of now is accessible to anyone but those who already understand the concept. Compare this to the previous version.

Specific problems I have with the new version (despite the excellent replacement references) are:
 * You dropped the problem statement. Why does the 1:1 ratio require any explanation in the first place? Of course you know. But a layman does not.  There is no mention of monogamous vs harem-based species (at first, a layperson may forget that each mating requires exactly one male and one female). There is no mention of the puzzle of the seemingly bizarre 1:1 ratio in the face of male seal's 2-to-3-times weight which a layperson may imagine contribute to more "expensive" upbringing.
 * There is no example with real animal and real numbers (weight, harem ratio) to illustrate the article. Perhaps Fisher never addressed these additional issues (e.g. weight acquired after nursing period). But there is no need to exclude such derived work, simply because Fisher did not discuss it (again, I don't know if he did not). We do not limit the article on natural selection to only things Darwin said either.
 * You dropped the connection between Fisher's principle and gene-centered view of evolution. Why? The seal example shows how natural selection does not work to benefit a group of animals nor individual animals.
 * Quoting a paragraph of Fisher's text is no substitute for a few well-written paragraphs which illustrate the problem as well as solutions for the lay people.
 * The 1:1 "sex ratio" vs 1:1 "parental expenditure" is no longer explicitly discussed.

In general, I feel that you have turned a well thought out article into a stub with excellent first-hand references. I spent many hours thinking about the logical flow, the problem statements and the explanations for these. You obviously spent many hours already rewriting it. Please figure out a way to recycle my material.

Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 00:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Fisher's model is not gene-centric, indeed that only comes later with Williams (1966) and Dawkins (1976). The level of selection it concerns is the individual.  One of the model's assumption is that .  This is not the case Y chromosomes are inherited patrilineally; mitochondrial DNA and W chromosomes are inherited matrilineally.  Suppose a new which kills some percentage of male embryos occurs in mitochondrial DNA; it puts itself at a selective advantage because instead of a male dead-end, by killing the male embryo it gives other copies of itself a chance to be in a daughter.  However, this skews the sex ratio in favour of females, and there is then selection pressure on nuclear modifier genes to suppress the action of the male-killing mtDNA.  That is an example of gene-centric thinking.  Fisher's model isn't, though as we note, Fisher rejects group selection and it is an early non-group selectionist model.
 * Hamilton's explanation, in what is a landmark paper (I do have a copy), is the best that I know of and indeed others have said the same thing. It is introduced without parental investment to make the argument clearer.  That in the comes in the second part where Fisher's original argument is displayed.  I cannot do better than Hamilton, and I doubt you could either.
 * Every fact in biology requires explanation. Simply stating a fact (that for most species the sex ratio it is 1:1) implies the question; it does not need to be asked as a rhetorical trick, doing so just looks amateurism (unless you're perhaps writing a pop sci book).

Or turn it on its head; the sex ratio is 1:1 due to the XY/XO/WZ sex determination system, what's the parental expenditure going to be?

I am not a dog (talk) 14:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Does philosophy belong in visual perception?
I was going to offer to send you a PDF of:

Bennett, M. R., & Hacker, P. M. S. (2001). Perception and memory in neuroscience: A conceptual analysis. Progress in Neurobiology, 65, 499-543.

I see above that you have ordered Bennett and Hacker's book. If you still want the article however, send me an e-mail (if you Google search using my real name, I am the first hit, from which you can find my e-mail address). I imagine that working through an entire book will take a little longer than working through this article. Nevertheless if Bennett and Hacker write as persuasively and as clearly in their book as they do in their article, then I am sure you will be convinced, if not of their position, then at least that saying something like "An autostereogram ... [creates] a three-dimensional (3D) scene ... in the human brain" is a challengable assertion. For example, where does the 3D scene exist in the brain? How does it fit? As usual with challengable assertions, it requires a citation. And as I am not a dog points out, that citation has to contain (primary) evidence about the assertion, rather than merely being another person's use (secondary) of the assertion. Robert P. O&#39;Shea (talk) 15:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I should receive the book shortly. Thanks for the offer. Let's take this slow. I don't think there is a need to rush to change the article on autostereogram just now. You may want to try the other visual perception articles first. But I promise, I'll get back to it. As you can see, I have been slowly merging your changes back.


 * Since I am reading the book you recommend, perhaps you can check out Pinker's How The Mind Works as I suggested before.


 * I must confess I have not read that book. But I have read some of Pinker's other works. He is a smart guy and I am sure his explanation of autostereograms is correct. He is also very careful about the language he uses, and I very much doubt he says anything like, "The brain tricks itself" or "a 3D scene is created in the brain". I did poke around the web a little to get a sense of what is in Pinker's book, and this seems to show that he does not provide the evidence you are searching for. The title of his book is not "How the Brain Works" but "How the Mind Works". Pinker is a cognitive psychologist and he does not care how the brain works. He treats the brain as a series of modules, a series of black boxes, designed to accomplish various tasks. The author of this page, http://flowstate.homestead.com/pinkass.html, clearly has read the book and criticizes it for not dealing with the brain. Robert P. O&#39;Shea (talk) 06:45, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * In the Preface, Pinker said the book intended to weave "the computational theory of mind" and "natural selection of replicators" into one cohesive picture. In page 8, he said "The next problem is seeing in depth. Our eyes squash the 3d world into a pair of 2D retinal images, and the third dimension must be reconstituted by the brain." Let's both refrain from making comments on books we haven't read, until we read them. Fred Hsu (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * There is no mystery to how the brain re-creates the 3D scene. It's a known problem with known solutions.Fred Hsu (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I can tell you that you are wrong about this. Depth perception is a thriving research area with lots of unsolved mysteries. Here are some of my contributions to this research:
 * Blake, R., & O’Shea, R. P. (1988). “Abnormal fusion” of stereopsis and binocular rivalry. Psychological Review, 95, 151-154.
 * O’Shea, R. P. (1983). Does stereopsis have a fusional component? Perception & Psychophysics, 34, 599-603.
 * O’Shea, R. P., & Blake, R. (1987). Depth without disparity in random-dot stereograms. Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 205-214.
 * O’Shea, R. P., & Crassini, B. (1982). The dependence of cyclofusion on orientation. Perception & Psychophysics, 32, 195-196.
 * O’Shea, R. P., & Crassini, B. (1983). Vertical disparities lead to the “induced effect”. Vision Research, 23, 113-114.
 * O’Shea, R. P., Govan, D. G., & Sekuler, R. (1997). Blur and contrast as pictorial depth cues. Perception, 26, 599-612.
 * Robert P. O&#39;Shea (talk) 06:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * That the brain perceives 3D scenes are known for decades.


 * This is unknown. As Bennet and Hacker say, if this were true it would be astonishing. We would want to know how it is that a brain can do something that we hitherto had evidence only for humans doing. Robert P. O&#39;Shea (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do I live on a different planet from you? Are you saying that monkeys don't perceive 3D scenes and can jump around in a forest without 3D perception? You have NEVER clearly stated what exactly is it that makes humans special. Why can't you pin down the entity which is doing the perception?  If it is not a tangible organ such as the brain, what is it?  The soul? But I should wait until I have time to read your book before I opine further. Fred Hsu (talk) 16:07, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * And I have cited first hand researches.


 * Some of what you have cited could be classed as primary sources. The bibliography contains most of these. But the rest, including Pinker and even Julesz's and Tyler's books, are secondary sources. Robert P. O&#39;Shea (talk) 06:59, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an article on autostereogram, not visual perception. Let us focus on autostereogram not visual perception. For pete's sake, Julesz invented the random dot stereogram and Tyler the random dot autostereogram. If I am not to cite their workk throughout the article, who should I cite? Bennett? Magic Eye popularized autostereogram, and credit is given to them throughout the book. Pinker's book is the first one I can find which discusses autostereogram in a language a layperson can understand (compare this to Julesz). Kinsman's is the first book which shows software program for generating autostereogram.


 * If you can find better first-hand references to this article, please do add them. If not, please stop your baseless attacks. Fred Hsu (talk)


 * If you bother to read any of the references in the article, you would know. Please do not confuse this problem with the rewrite of parental expenditure.


 * On looking at your correspondence about it, I seem to see the same pattern. Someone makes some changes to an article you feel you own, and you reject them. Perhaps you could check Ownership. Robert P. O&#39;Shea (talk) 07:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It is human nature to look after something you have spent time and effort cultivating. Anyone who has spent time doing major editing work or rewrites on article will invariably run into conflicts. No ones owns any article, but some prefer to watch particular set of articles they care about to monitor how they grow over time with improvement from other editors. Good improvements are welcomed. Detrimental edits are fixed or removed.


 * If you do not buy my argument, check out the history page for mtEve. When I rewrote the article, I actively incorporated previous revision into the new one, and recycled good material and article flow. Rewrites should build upon the collective wisdom of previous editors. And the rewrites should be improvements, not a step backward. New changes must comply with existing references, or cite new references. You do not want to turn a paragraph previously inline-cited into a non-compliant one. Compare the revision before I rewrote it to the version right after major edit.


 * For another example, check out rewrite of MRCA. See how careful consideration was given to work by previous editors. See how the article was made even better by subsequent edits by other and myself.


 * Please do not confuse genuine care with narcissism. In the case of "parental expenditure", I applaud the new editor's effort to cite Fisher and Edwards. But let's not pretend that the new revision is a 100% improvement. It is like editing the article on evolution to make it cite only Darwin, to trim out any other insights not directly attributed to Darwin, and then referring readers to books for these "advanced topics". Fred Hsu (talk) 15:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I said that any wikipedia article is necessarily second hand material, because wikipedia is not a research journal.


 * Yes. That was to misunderstand that user's comment. Robert P. O&#39;Shea (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * No original research is allowed. Wikipedia articles are summaries of well-received, published first-hand material. The autostereogram article is a second hand material just like all other wikipedia articles. But it cites first-hand research. On the other hand, your changes to the article goes against all cited first-hand material and are not backed by mainstream research. I'll read your book first before I opine further, if you don't mind :) Fred Hsu (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * If you are happy to keep the article full of challengable assertions, original (uncited) research, and confusing explanations, then I am happy too. Robert P. O&#39;Shea (talk) 07:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Lastly, let me say "thank you, Robert". You have actually added many valuable information to the article. See how I am slowly merging them back in.

What you originally perceived as "redundant" material are in fact not redundant. The article is structured in a way to help readers understand the concepts behind autostereograms gradually. So, 3D perception is only hinted at in the initial sections, and only explained later. If you bore readers who click on some autostereogram link to see this page with visual perception in the first few sections, they will stop reading. This is a wiki after all, if a reader desires to interrupt their autostereogram reading, they can alway click on 3D, visual perception, depth, etc. to read details on these topics.

You have actually added to the redundancy by trying to explain many concepts which are discussed in later sections. Your additions do not help people who already know about this concepts, but are simply trying to understand what an autostereogram is. Your additions do not help novices to visual perception, because a few words will not clearly explain these concepts either. When you make edits to a well-established article, you should always read the full article first. Consider how it is structures and make your changes accordingly to preserve context. If you disagree with the whole structure, you should discuss it on talk pages first. Fred Hsu (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ArtRage
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article ArtRage, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because 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 Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. GDallimore (Talk) 09:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I see that this issue has been resolved. Sorry about my late response. I've been away from wikipedia for a while. Fred Hsu (talk)

Mitochondrial Eve
Mitochondrial Eve has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Articles are typically reviewed for one week. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Xasodfuih (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry about late response. I see that many have jumped in and enhanced the article. I think it deserves GA-hood now. But I don't have time to fight for it at this moment. Fred Hsu (talk)

Hi
Hi. Ahhhh, creepy winky person! Run away :D. --Airplaneman (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey. I see that you and I share many interests in common judging by your user page. If I know you in real life, do tell. I have a hard time convincing real life friends to contribute to WP. It would be a pleasant surprise. Ah, and that sentence about creepy head on my user page, eh, it was inserted by a colleague of mine anonymously. Fred Hsu (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Depthmap
Hi; I'm trying to do a stereogram of dolphins (in the pattern too). I saw the depthmap you uploaded but the resolution is too low for me. Do you know where I can find a file with better res (about 2000(w)x1500(h)). Thanks Caiaffa (talk) 20:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Su-Hua Highway


The article Su-Hua Highway has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * redirects to nonexistent page

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -Zeus-u 23:07, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have rescinded my PROD per creation of the targeted page. In the future, you might want to create the real page first, then the redirect, otherwise it can get quite confusing. -Zeus-u 23:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

You are too fast. Thanks for the concern. Please check my User Contributions page before you do this manually next time though. I think I know what I am doing. The thing is that these Taiwan-related pages are underdeveloped. They suck. I am trying to sort them out and link them to the Chinese articles, properly. I'll leave them in good shape when I am done :) Fred Hsu (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Huatung Highway
A tag has been placed on Huatung Highway requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content. You may wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Eeekster (talk) 02:55, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: Huatung Highway
No worries - thanks for sticking out the rapid tagdeath. With the huge number of new pages coming in, sometimes tags get applied a bit too quick. :)  Flying Toaster  03:06, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Consolidating all my Wikimedia accounts
I am requesting a rename on Commons. My current Commons name is Fredhsu. Fred Hsu (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation of your article
Hi, I am currently working on the translation of your article on autostereograms into french because I think that it is a shame that it stays only in English. I have already started a bit (as you can see here), but I thought that it would be more polite to ask you if you agree. Thanks, Guiguiiom —Preceding undated comment added 15:17, 13 March 2010 (UTC).
 * Wow. That's great! There is no need for ask for consent. Even though I did write the bulk of what you see now, many people have contributed before and after my rewrite. I do not own what you see on the page now. Please translate away! Thanks for the heads-up. Fred Hsu (talk) 17:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Your image
Hi Fred. Yes, those are better places. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Nuclear Fuel Cycle
You recently made extensive edits to the article Nuclear fuel cycle. It is evident from your edits that you are not an expert in the topic. It may make sense to have a section on basic concepts, but virtually none of the material you have written is worth keeping. NPguy (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not. Perhaps you are. If so, you are welcome to re-work it as you see fit. I do not agree that the material I added are not worth keeping. If you believe you are right, please point me to an article where I may find similar summary of the nuclear fuel cycle starting from mining of uranium to how it is used in power plants to how plutonium may be generated as byproduct to how fuels may be recycled which leads to several related topics in nuclear waste management, maximization of scarce uranium sources to nuclear proliferation.
 * I could not find such summary in my days of research here on Wikipedia. So I sat down and wrote one. I am ready to be enlightened when you are.
 * I did move the whole Fuel Cycles section to the bottom, because this is in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not written solely to benefit the experts. Wikipedia is read by easily 100 times more laypeople. And the way this article was structured did not help the laypeople, thus my recent change.
 * I am done with my edits, and I've removed the under-construction template. Please do not just remove my changes. We can discuss on my user talk page or on the article's own talk page.
 * ThanksFred Hsu (talk) 00:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Mohonk Mountain House pic
Although it's a nice pic, I took it out of the article because the Shawangunks are not the Catskills. Daniel Case (talk) 04:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for spotting this mistake. I should have read the text more closely before adding that picture. Fred Hsu (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

GA review of Most recent common ancestor
I've made comments at Talk:Most recent common ancestor/GA1. --Philcha (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. It's most appreciated. I'll follow up on the talk page. Fred Hsu (talk) 00:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

file:JingSi Hall at Tzu Chi University delete Tzu Chi Univ.?
Hi,I have the proposal for you. 您的提供的華蓮靜思堂的照片)commons:file:Taiwan 2009 HuaLien City JingSi Hall at Tzu Chi University FRD 8410.jpg), 靜思堂是慈濟基金會的本部會堂, 不是慈濟大學的附属施設. 因此 想從JingSi Hall at Tzu Chi University 改名在到 JingSi Hall. 您是不是可以贊同麼？ --Kstigarbha (talk) 00:55, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Images of Chiang Kai-shek statues
Hi, I thought you'd like to know that several of your images of Chiang Kai-shek statues are being, and may be removed due to Taiwan's lack of a freedom of panorama law. --Gyrobo (talk) 02:16, 8 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Will take a look. Fred Hsu (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

translation help
Hello i was wondering if you could help me translating the a chinese phrase in the following image it is a painting deppicting i believe the Wanli Emperor but im not sure of that and i believe those characters above the sitting emperor could give e the information i need, thanks.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, initially i tought it depicted the Emperor receiving the army he sent to fight the Japanese invasions of Korea (1592–1598) in 1593, but since you tell me it speaks of Ningxia perhaps its part of a celebratory set of paintings deppicting Wanli's "Three Great Campaigns" sort of like the paintings Qianlong ordered two centuries later for his Ten Great Campaigns.--Andres rojas22 (talk) 18:12, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Amazing how much the information of this image differs from what i tought it was, i've checked some of the pages that pop up to 平番得勝圖 campaign against barbarians and all corroborate what you said about being in 1575, from what i could understand with the machine translator they speak of a war in gansu or somewhere near tibet and mongolia by tibetan and/or mongol barbarians, they speak of several provinces so i don't understand really where it is. It speaks of 5 scenes in 14 screens the one in wikipedia is apparently the first, please see if you can clear the picture out with these pages if you could translate the name of the leaders because i cant find information in english of a military campaign in 1575  --Andres rojas22 (talk) 13:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ArtRage Macaw Screen Capture.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:ArtRage Macaw Screen Capture.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — trlkly 10:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Er, trlkly, you uploaded a newer version of said screenshot and replaced my earlier version, yourself. I don't know why you didn't just upload your newer .png version, in place, to replace my file. Perhaps you didn't want the .jpg suffix to mislead people. I'll let this file get auto-deleted. Fred Hsu (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank You for the Wikipedia Picture
Hello, My name is Duane Hurst and I recently made a free (non-commercial) English web site to share information with people. I added links to your Wikipedia/Wikimedia freeware picture (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Taiwan_2009_WuHe_County_Tea_Plantation_FRD_6216.jpg). I also gave credit to you on my web pages for your work. Thank you for sharing with the public. My website is:

http://www.freeenglishsite.com/

I add pictures such as yours to one of the following major sections of my site: 1. World section - contains information and over 10,000 images of every world country and territory. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/world/index.htm

2. USA section - contains information and images of every USA state and territory. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/world/usa/index.htm

3. English section - "Mel and Wes" lessons in conversation format. Stories are located in various USA states and world countries such as China, England, Germany, Japan, Mexico and Thailand. Each lesson has many slang terms and idioms, which I link to my Slang Dictionary. This eventually will have over 5,000 terms. Currently, it has about 3,000 slang and idioms. I regularly add new lessons and slang terms. Link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/english/lessons/index.htm Slang Dictionary link at: http://www.freeenglishsite.com/english/slang/Eslang_a.htm

Prior to retirement, I taught English at several private and public universities in the United States.

Please share this free site with your friends. I hope all will enjoy the pictures and find the English information useful. Sincerely, Duane Hurst in Utah, USA

Email address: duanerhurst@freeenglishsite.com --65.130.202.239 (talk) 16:44, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Image discussion at article 17 Mile Drive
A discussion is underway about images on an article you have contributed to. Please help find a consensus for the article stub at: Talk:17-Mile Drive.--Amadscientist (talk) 05:48, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks (MRCA)
Thanks for addressing the MCRA issue I brought up. Apparently I have not logged into Wikipedia since 2011, so I just now received your note. This issue is relevant to some research I was doing at the time and that I expect to return to someday, so perhaps I'll resurrect the reference at some point. -- Calion | Talk 18:50, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


 * You are welcome. Your inquiry triggered proper clean-up of that article. Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 00:17, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Well, how can I refuse when you gave me a barnstar? Of course, please use them away for good purposes. Keep doing the good work. I'll email you as well. Fred Hsu (talk) 20:25, 7 July 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Lead image reversion: Radio-controlled aircraft
Just picked up your message, Fred. In a rush right now, but I do have my reasons for the reversion and will comment, as requested. Cheers, John -- Jmc (talk) 09:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

December 2017
Hello, I'm Meters. I noticed that you made a change to an article, 3D selfie ‎, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. The material I removed is unsourced and WP:UNDUE. This is an article about 3D Selfies, not a promo for one particular company. Per WP:BRD either take it to talk or leave it out. Don't keep restoring it. And it's not appropriate to create a completely unsourced article in article space and then start linking to it. If you have not finished the article with WP:RS then it should not be in article space at all. Meters (talk) 06:23, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Replacing images
Please take more care when inserting your images into articles that (1) the image which is being replaced isn't a better representation and doesn't require being replaced, and (2) the image you're inserting actually improves the article. As the photographer, you are (naturally) not necessarily the most unbiased judge, but it is possible to look past your own prejudices and make those determinations as neutrally as possible. In a couple of cases I looked into, I found that your judgment was not correct and have reverted you. I am not going to look at all of your edits -- all of which appear to have to do with inserting your images -- because I hope this warning will be sufficient: Wikipedia doesn't exist to be a showcase for your photography, please do not try to make it one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:41, 1 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi, . I think there are some misunderstanding here. It seems that you are referring to this original lead picture of Blue Wing Inn that I replaced with this picture. While the latter is still a mediocre picture, the original was pretty bad. This is already evident even when they are both used as thumbnails (original vs replaced), not to mention when one clicks on the thumbnail to compare the actual images (original vs replaced).
 * But I think that was not your main point. From your edit history, it appears that I stepped on your toes by properly moving existing images to where they belonged, before I added this picture to the Pitches section showing street musicians choosing a good venue to pitch - in this case attracting a whole class of school kids in a field tripe to sit down and listen. It is in fact the only picture on this article showing pitching, musicians and audience. I made five separate image moves with commit comments to explain them plus the new image at the end (here). You simply reverted them all (here).


 * That is a pity. But I don't care enough about the article that you feel you personally own. So I'll let it go. You may want to revisit my image relocations. From your own user page, it seems like you care about ensuring that every single edit incrementally improve quality of Wikipedia articles. Think about how those 5 images in the Pitches section, before my changes and after your revert. Some show a few elements of "Popular pitches tend to be public places with large volumes of pedestrian traffic, high visibility, low background noise and as few elements of interference as possible", while others none at all. That image I added speaks to "Pitches". Thus the addition. But this will probably fall on deaf ears.


 * You then went on a mission to revert other changes I made, including the Blue Wing Inn. That was probably done while you were not in a good mood. Your comment here about the fact that "all I do" is to insert images is also not factually correct. If I look at your changes on a particular day or two, and conclude that that is "all that you do", you will probably not be happy about such comment either. Please stop. Thanks. Fred Hsu (talk) 03:59, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Enhanced Chopstick article
It looks good! -- Sjschen (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)