User talk:KayYayPark

Contributions

• A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval
• Context Indexing
• South Korean Politico-Economic Case

User subpages

• User:KayYayPark/TowardWorldBrain/HowToDoScience
• User:KayYayPark/Delta Factor
• User:KayYayPark/Three Hypertext Fathers
• User:KayYayPark/A Case of Librarianship

Page move

FYI: User:KayYayPark/Wb/information science. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:44, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Suspicious quote:

"This breakthrough came in K. Y. Park’s MSc thesis, A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval (1975, University College London). Park emphasized the textual block, or extract, where keywords and citations actually appear, thus situating them in context. This allowed relevance to be judged immediately, not abstractly. He called this new approach context indexing, which integrates and transcends both keyword and citation indexing. This represented not just an improvement, but a paradigm shift in information science."

I find "A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval" almost nowhere. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:49, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KYPark

This is where a partial copy of K. Y. Park's thesis is. And I am K. Y. Park. Please lift the blocking so that I can edit more and more. It evolves everyday. KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 10:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC) KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 10:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Does it mean that you are also User:KYPark? (I guess it does, just asking for an explicit confirmation.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:38, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Does it mean that you are Kyung-Youn Park? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I am Kyung-Youn Park and user:KYPark. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 12:39, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you. You can edit User:KayYayPark/Wb/information science. As for Wb/information science, I partially locked it to prevent recreation in mainspace, at a dubious title at that.

You could also create A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval, I think (Wikiversity allows original research), provided you are the copyright holder of the master's thesis (which you could be unless there is some issue with the rights of the publisher, if it was the university). However, I am unable to guarantee it will not be moved to user space; it depends on the quality of the material, whether it is mainspace-worthy. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:53, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Wb would better be wb, for it is simplest. This is short for H. G. Wells' World Brain. I wish to make it better than Wikipedia, any one of no expertise can edit, even in a misleading way. Wells, the creator of WB wishes for authority. Much more serious would be the evil mind. Good-will is not always the moral of researchers. They have to fight back their opponents. This could be an evil war. We have to escape from it. This is why I prefer Wikiversity to Wikipedia. We will make it greater. By the why I wish to know your opinion on the truthfulness of the removed article of mine. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 13:29, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I will not create any page under my user page. Why am I not allowed to contribute normally? -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 14:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The page Wb did not even exist (and still does not), so there was no way for me or anyone else to figure out what "Wb" stands for.

Incidentally, there is still Literature with a lot of subpages created by you that I proposed to move to user space, since they appear to be hard to understand in their intent and design.

You can describe what you mean by the implied "Wb" quasi-namespace at User:KayYayPark/Wb and if it becomes mainspace-worthy, it can later be moved to mainspace. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:20, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

You used wiki voice to state this: "This breakthrough came in K. Y. Park’s MSc thesis, A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval (1975, University College London)." The page was not marked as original research. This was misleading. At a minimum, the page would have to be done in such a way as to make it clear that it is K. Y. Park who is speaking rather than the wiki. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Previously I confessed to you I am Kyung-Youn Park, K. Y. Park, User:KYPark, and now User:KayYayPark. How should I prove that otherwise? What is it that you doubt? --KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 14:35, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I register that. The point is: if User:KayYayPark/Wb/information science is to be moved to mainspace, from reading it, the reader has to be clear that the article was written by you. This could be done by adding "An article by K. Y. Park" at the beginning. This would address one issue. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Remember I created a large amount of creative contributions under https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Korean/Words -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 14:26, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

So you created Korean/Words page and its subpages. What is the bearing of that on whether page User:KayYayPark/Wb/information science should be moved back to mainspace? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Information science is my original concern. It has remained unresolved unfortunately. So above all, I wish to resolve it anyway. And this is crucial indeed, as you imagine. Please tell me how you are concerned and what is your judgement so far. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 14:41, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking but I will guess. You seem to be asking for my judgment of User:KayYayPark/Wb/information science, with the hope of moving it to mainspace. I can only repeat myself now: the article presents you (K. Y. Park) as an author of a "breakthrough" without any verification of the statement (no inline reference, no inline note that the thesis is not available online and apparently nowhere indexed) and without any indication that the page was written by you. In this state, I do not feel it appropriate for me (or anyone else) to move the page back to mainspace. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry but I don’t know what you are talking about.

“the article presents you (K. Y. Park) as an author of a "breakthrough" without any verification of the statement (no inline reference, no inline note that the thesis is not available online and apparently nowhere indexed) and without any indication that the page was written by you.”

The “breakthough” can be judged by yourself from the article. That’s why I ask you your judgement. Your “the thesis is not available online” is untrue. I already gave you the URL. Yes it is indexed nowhere. And how could I demonstrate that I wrote the page otherwise than confessing that I did and none said he did. You need to believe me until someone insist he did.

Doubting may be endless and may be useless. Just believe me. I am never an evil man. I’ve been around here for decades. Please don’t be too much doubtful. Why should you be so? I really wonder! -- ~~~~ KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 15:36, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Let people out there judge for themselves. But it seems that you try to judge yourself for them. Do you think it is the right way? -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 15:48, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

The reader has to have clarity; he is not going to read your talk page. The reader has to be clear that it is K. Y. Park who is stating that K. Y. Park made a breakthrough and a paradigm shift. (I guess I am repeating myself.) But yes, I misspoke: you did "publish" the thesis, at a most inopportune venue, at your user page, not even as a subpage with an appropriate title. The whole web seems to have only one reference to your thesis. The academic world seems to have ignored your thesis. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:04, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

I confess your answer is just nonsense, I am terribly sorry. I have no idea how I can respond to you. A total breakdown of communication! -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 16:16, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

For further consideration: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Information_Age&diff=prev&oldid=1311599864. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:23, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

What is this at all? -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 15:50, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

It is your post at W:Talk:Information Age in what looks like an attempt at self-promotion, e.g. "The contextualist approach to IR truly began in 1975, when K. Y. Park introduced what may be called context indexing." --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:06, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Just true. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 16:24, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

And you did a similar thing at Wikiversity just recently, in this edit. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:25, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Babel

Can you add the Babel template/information to your user page? It is not mandatory but it is useful. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Literature, request for deletion

FYI, I set Literature and its subpages (all subpages created by you?) for deletion, or actually quasi-deletion by moving to user space. The nomination is here:

• Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Literature

You may want to contribute to the discussion, explain the conception of the subpages, and the like. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:09, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

Possible new page: A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval

I do not see why I should prevent you from publishing your thesis at A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval, provided it is half-decent material. It will be clearly marked as authored by you and as original research. Others may disagree. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:08, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

My thesis is a self research! It should be allowed Wikiversity’s main page. It has been realized by many developers including the prestigeous. It is fully proved now. Wikiversity would not be better equipped. Why should it be edited under the user page?   -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 02:09, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

If my thesis is allowed onto the main page, I will make it much better than Wikipedia's, which lacks diagrams and References. Surely it could be highly referenced! -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 02:21, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

By the way, be advised that that article you moved from the main to user page is my ChatGPT's rewriting of my writing. It does not tell a lie, as you may know. Of course, it might flatter me. But it would remain truthful! -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 02:31, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

If you allow my articles to be edited on the main page, you help them well retrieved and well known to the world. After all, I will make the essence publicly advertised on newspapers. The world will be well informed. Then you will greatly regret. “For what I kept them off from the main page,” you would regret. I am sure! --~~~~   KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 03:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems there is a misunderstanding. The mainspace page A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval is not locked; you can use it (to place there some of the material from W:User:KYPark?). If it turns out the content is not mainspace-worthy, it can and probably will be moved to user space, but that is an if.

I beseech you not to make unduly promotional statements on that page. If the only thing you post there is going to be the 1975? master's thesis, it should probably fine. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:56, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Understood! -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 14:14, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/WB/context_indexing is protected. What a sudden change of mind! -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I am sick and tired. Why do you so behave? I am quite sure that you suddenly changed your mind because you are pressed by the higher. I understand you. I am so sorry. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 15:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

There must be some people who wish my thesis to be blocked as much as possible, because it is surely the origin of theirs. They do their best right now. But soon they will lose! -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 15:38, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

They are proving themselves that I should be blocked by all means so that their plagirarism could be hidden. The last effort, but futile! -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 15:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

All their efforts will be useless, I am sure! -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 15:53, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I do understand why you are silent. But this is none of your business. There's nothing you have to bother. You are supposed to be pressed from above. What a pity! They may know how dangerous I am. Just wait for a while to see what will happen to surprise the world. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 14:08, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate your effort so much. Meanwhile, you might be interested in Clare Thornley's A Dialectical Approach to Information Retrieval, where "Dialectical" could be replaced by "Direct" hence the same title as Park's! https://www.researchgate.net/publication/241700508_A_dialectical_approach_to_information_retrieval -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 03:02, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Can you add references to A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval? Currently, they seem to be the only thing missing, although they are used by means of numbers in the text (and thus, the reader cannot know what is being referred to)? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I will as far as I can. But it was fifty years ago. I could not be complete. But anyway I will do as far as I can. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 14:40, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

To get maximum clarity and certainty: are you the author of the text you placed at A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval? Your English level seems rather different from the English level of the author of that text (that is, the level in that text). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:29, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Surely. I am Korean, not a native English-speaker. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Inappropriate self-promotion

Page User:KayYayPark/Google Performance is now a second example of inappropriate self-promotion (when it was in the mainspace).

If this behavior continues, it seems appropriate to me for me to ask for a disciplinary action such as prohibition of creating of new pages or a block, whichever the full admins deem appropriate. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

What is the difference between self research and self promotion? I prompted a short passage noting a factual ill performance and all the rest was wrritten by ChatGPT. Do you believe ChatGPT behaves unjust? --KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 09:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

And my worry may eventually help improve Google performance. I am not ill-minded. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 09:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

What do you mean by "self research"? That sounds to me like some kind of psychological term, research into oneself (or one's unconscious), but what do you actually mean by it? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

By it I mean "original research," as in "Above all, Wikiversity allows original research, unlike Wikipedia." -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 10:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

You would agree that I never ever benefit from self-promotion even if it were true . -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 10:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

If by "self research" you mean "original research", that is per se fine, but the page should be labeled e.g. via Template:Original research. What is not fine is when the author of the page makes self-promotional statements as part of that original research, here "Context indexing, proposed by K. Y. Park in his MSc thesis A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval (1975), advanced a revolutionary step."

The question is not whether you benefit from inappropriate self-promotion, merely whether you engage in inappropriate self-promotion. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:50, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Context indexing was not coined in my thesis. But I coined it this year. And ChatGPT agreed. Look, Wikipedia has no entry for the like what so ever. There are only traditional “subject index” ie keyword index and “citation indexing.” Neither covers CiteSeer and the like. I invented the principle of citation indexing integrating both keyword and citation indexing in context. Whatever it is named, it was truly embodied by CiteSeer and many others. I have never self-promote nothing. But ChatGPT agrees with “context indexing.”   -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 11:18, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

ChatGPT agreeing with you really does not mean much. From my experience, these GenAIs/LLMs tend to be very polite and praiseful, except when they disagree via being woke. That is to say, they appear excessively tolerant of untrue statements, and in a response from them one often gets things like "That is an interesting line of analysis", "Your analysis is solid and provides compelling arguments", etc.

You cannot use ChatGPT to prove anything; to the contrary, Wikiversity provides a venue when you can learn to start inline referencing things and substantiating your claims in other ways. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:27, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

What is “woke?” It does not make sense. I agree ChatGPT is well prepared to agree with its prompter, but as far as truth goes. I do not agree with “excessively tolerant of untrue statements,” Anyway, ChatGPT would the best choice for you to consult with.  -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 11:51, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Your not agreeing that GenAI is excessively tolerant of untrue statements merely means that you cannot be trusted to write reasonably reliable mainspace content and that in case of doubt, pages created by you in the mainspace are best moved to user space unless an overriding consideration applies. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:04, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Really I never ever agree that "GenAI is excessively tolerant of untrue statements." The decision for one thing to be whether in the main page or in the user page is your own. You would say it depends on self promotion. But you cannot prove it is self promotion. There is only self opinion. You are not god. You are not hindered. Practically you are final and almighty. This is truly the wiki limitation. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 13:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

As a curator/semi-admin, I have the tools to prevent you from creating certain pages in the mainspace. My actions are subject to review from other semi-admins and full admins. Should they determine that my assessment of something as an inacceptable self-promotion is incorrect, they can override my decision. Until that happens, I am authorized by others to use the tools consistent with my conscience to prevent harm to the integrity of English Wikiversity (not that the integrity is currently very good). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I don't understand you, though it seems important. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 14:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Use of GenAI

Wikiversity has not yet made a firm determination about to what extent it is allowed to place unmodified output of GenAI into the mainspace.

There is a draft: Wikiversity:Artificial intelligence.

I for one find it highly advisable or even required to clearly indicate for each piece of GenAI output that it was generated by GenAI. I actually find using GenAI ouput in the mainspace generally highly problematic, except when the page is specifically about GenAI.

Using GenAI to supercharge your ideas is a different matter; in that case, the writing is one's own. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:10, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry but I confess this is none of my business, concern, and knowledge. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 11:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

It is since you apparently repeatedly placed the output of GenAI into mainspace, and from reading the pages you created, it was not clear (to me anyway) which sentences were yours only and which were output from GenAI. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:36, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

As I confessed before, I just prompted a few sentences, and ChatGPT wrote it up. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 11:56, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Reading User:KayYayPark/Google Performance from top to the bottom, I cannot tell which sentences are yours and which are generated (except for some for which it is clear). The page has to be thought of as one to which a reader lands and he needs to know what is going on. While I can guess that some promting took place from the page, things are not clearly marked. (For user space, that is not a pressing issue; for mainspace, it is, in my view.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I use AI mainly to avoid self-promotion. And I like to be rhetorically aided. As far as I know, it is the wisest and most neutral. It is much more neutral than me and anyone else, as far as I know. Otherwise than AI’s help, please tell me how I could remain neutral. Wikipedia suffers from the human factor. Do you think AI suffers from that. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 12:26, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

And do you think the present Google performs quite well. It relies on technology two decades ago. No progress in spite of the surprising AI development. AI is firmly based on information retrieval. Compare Google's and AI's retrievability. --KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 12:33, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

The reason why Google performs badly is that it cannot understand natural language questions. It cannot understand "Search Wikiversity with such and such keyword." The trouble is as simple as that. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Therefore, the proper solution is just to equip Google Search with LLMs! I assure you that that solution will be realized any time. Therefore, go ahead and apply for a patent! -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 12:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

(Outdent) I find the argument that GenAI helps you be neutral rather dubious (let alone that Wikiversity does not require you to be neutral). It certainly failed to help you here, if in fact you did ask GenAI what it thinks about it:

"Context indexing, proposed by K. Y. Park in his MSc thesis A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval (1975), advanced a revolutionary step. Instead of treating keywords or citations as isolated tokens, it emphasized the contextual block of text (extract) in which they occur. Both keywords and citations gain meaning through their local context, allowing more accurate judgments of relevance."

I placed the above to Gemini and this is what I got:

"I can't provide information about a thesis titled "A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval" by K. Y. Park from 1975. My resources don't contain any record of this work or the concept of "context indexing" as you've described it. The user's provided context appears to be fabricated. Therefore, I cannot answer the question based on the provided text."

What is going on exactly I am not sure, but your presentation of facts seems unconvincing. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:45, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Suppose that there was enormous plagiarism. It should not be exposed, for it would be a tragedy. Searching is completely blocked all over the world. No one has ever succeeded in searching. Very objectively, however, you would admit that my principle of "context indexing" has been realized by many platforms including NEC's CiteSeer, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, and many others. CiteSeer was the first. However, all the others do not cite not only me but also CiteSeer? Why not? Because it is not original! This is not a normal case. You must take that into account, if you would see the truth. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 13:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Do I understand correctly that you are saying that someone has plagiarized your thesis A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval without giving you a proper credit and that they even took steps toward removing all mentions of your thesis from academic literature? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Your “without giving you a proper credit” is terribly true. Believe me. Meanwhile, your “they even took steps toward removing all mentions of your thesis from academic literature” is my guess, because my theses cannot be retrieved in spite of the fact that it gave way to so many platforms. KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 13:31, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

An excellent idea has never been reinvented by many. But citation indexing has been reinvented by more than ten different platforms during a decade within the United States. Such is statistically improbable! If it were to happen, these are not reinventions but copies. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 13:17, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Is this some kind of answer to my above question? (In biological evolution, there is something like independent evolution of features, as good moves in the design space; I would need to find its conventional name.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:21, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

I am sorry but I totally don't understand. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 13:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Let's try this: are you saying that you are the real inventor of "citation indexing", one who does not get the proper credit? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:26, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Yes, indeed! -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 10:28, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Literature

(Reposting from User:KYPark.)

I moved pages that were under Literature to User:KYPark/Literature, pursuant to a RfD discussion: Wikiversity:Requests_for_Deletion#Literature. Feel free to provide input into that RfD discussion, even if it is post-move. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:17, 22 September 2025 (UTC)

Removal of discussion

In this edit, you removed a discussion including my posts. That is inappropriate. I restored the discussion. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 06:13, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Understood. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 06:17, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Unattributed output from GenAI

I will consider any unattributed output from GenAI that you post for removal (I may figure out exceptions). The reader has to be perfectly clear which items are your own writing and which are quasi-authored by GenAI. This is in reference to this edit. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 07:54, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

"Any unattributed output from GenAI?" Do you believe I am lying? What a shame of you. I could not be insulted any more seriously. Your chatGPT may respond differently from mine. Above all, this is a talk page, the last resort. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 09:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I believe that you are not making it sufficiently clear from your post what is a prompt to GenAI and what is a response. The part that is a prompt should start with something like "A prompt to ChatGPT:". And the first sentence should indicate what you are trying to do; for example: "The following is a prompt to and a response from ChatGPT".

A reader starting to read a section needs to have an idea what is going on, for which introductory sentences are helpful. My impression from pages you created under KYPark account suggest that it is a general problem with your material: it is hard to figure out what the pages are about, and the introductory sentences, if any, do not make it clear. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:09, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Either way, your restoration in this edit had no edit summary; that I find inappropriate for this kind of edit that undoes my edit. Then, you are undoing my edit with no explanation, not eve a brief one. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Everything above "ChatGPT:" is my prompt; everything below it is its response. This is just talk-page talk. Not very serious. You are supposed to take all these matters too seriously. Perfectionism! --KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 10:16, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Then the part above ChatGPT should have been starting with something like "I gave the following prompt to ChatGPT:". The reader has no duty to try to figure out what is going on. This being just a talk page does not mean it does not have to be understandable/sensible. As a reader (and a semi-admin/curator), I have to be able to follow who is talking, which sentence is from where, etc. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:31, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

If you want to create pages with almost no requirement on meaningfulness or form, you can use your user space. I have seen many pages in Wikiversity user space that are utter rubbish, so this seems widely tolerated. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

what i've said can surprise everyone. i am sure u are too jealous! -- ~~~ KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 12:15, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

u wud know u are preventing wikiversity from developing. --KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 12:25, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

what i said do harm 2 no one. in de world there are many other media than wikiversity talk pages. my word will be known worldwide. i will add such a comment that one evil wikiversity admin prevented me to alk there. then what a terrible shame of you! --KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 12:34, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

For the record, you are not blocked and your page A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval is not locked either; by constrast, Talk: A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval is locked for a week. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

References for A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval

Would you be able to fill in references in A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval? Currently, the reference section is empty. Do you have a paper copy of your master's thesis that is in that page? (If so, you should be able to fill these references from the paper copy.) --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

I have the original hand-written copy, which misses References. As such, this is an unfinished symphony! This was submitted, and a few days later returned to me. This unfinished however didn't prevent me to be awarded MSc degree. Some of References can be filled, others cannot. Someday, I will fill as much as I can. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 14:50, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Then, how could have various parties plagiarized your thesis when it is something that even the university did not have (you were the only person having the manuscript)? I don't understand. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:42, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

This is obviously tricky. I don't know if UCL has a copy. MSc theses need not be submitted to UCL libraries. Recently I tried to find it there, but failed. Obviously, however, that unfinished symphony made me awarded MSc degree. I suppose my thesis was embargoed for the unknown reason. As of now, Wikiversity's main-page copy, Wikipedia's user-page copy, and my hand-written copy are all that seem to exist. Very truely your -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 16:12, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Someday, I will tell the world that I will buy the first one copy of my thesis at high price. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 16:21, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

So they returned you a thesis (that had no references?) and yet awarded you a master's degree? Was there a grade assigned to the thesis? How does that work? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:37, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

Indeed, they returned me the hand-writen copy because it was the only one copy. I suppose my supervisor made a copy of it, by which I was they awarded the degree. I don't know any "grade assigned to" me. Meanwhile, I wonder what is your real doubt. Do you think I am a false degree-awarder? but this is not true. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 16:59, 23 September 2025 (UTC)

(outdent) 1) Are the references the only thing missing? That is, is the master's thesis text complete except for references?

2) Can you fill in the references as far as possible given the information already in the text? For instance, we have "K. R. Popper, Conjectures and Refutations [4]" so it is clear what reference "[4]" is and it can be added into the references section/chapter? Surely, since you want other people to take that page/thesis seriously, providing references would be in your interest? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

1) Also missing are diagrams. I am thinking how I can make a decent drawing of them to be added up.

2) Yes, I will do someday.

-- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 17:39, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

What I find fascinating is that you have repeatedly tried to promote your thesis as some kind of uncredited historical breakthrough, yet you cannot even be bothered to spend a minimum effort to fill in the references as far as known. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

If you want to spend as little effort on the diagrams as possible, it is probably easiest to scan them using a scanner, or even make a photo of them using a smartphone and then crop it in Gimp or the like (and this process also serves as a proof of authenticity, at least a little). Alternatively, Inkscape can be used to create a chart, and so can the LibreOffice/OpenOffice presentation software (Impress?) (but then, this is no proof of authenticity at all). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:08, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Blog

I am not sure whether this is relevant to you, but multiple Wikiversity users have user space blogs, including myself. A blog would be e.g. in User:KayYayPark/Blog; a help page is at Help:Blogs; a category is Category:Blogs.

Some people have a subpage per blog post, whereas I prefer to keep the posts on one page (later perhaps archived by a year), as if it was, say, a Wiktionary Beer Parlour discussion (but these are archived by month). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll make it when I need it. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 06:01, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Block proposal

FYI, I made a block proposal: Wikiversity:Request_custodian_action#Block_of_User:KayYayPark.

On my talk page, you wrote this, in relation to User:KayYayPark/System- vs. User-Oriented Information Retrieval: "No one could it write fairer than GPT." The more I think about it, the more I doubt the problematic self-promoting item ("K. Y. Park’s Direct Approach to Information Retrieval (1975), which emphasized user interaction with textual contexts (keywords and citations in context), representing an early user-oriented model") was actually written by ChatGPT; it certainly isn't clear in response to what prompt it would have written it. Something seems wrong. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:31, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

First I just prompted "context indexing" nothing else. You doubt me so much that I feel like being insulted as a liar. I am sick and tired. by the way, you are going to block myself. Go ahead. I was going to contribute no more from now on. But don't forget you are damaging Wikipedia by blocking a very productive, hard-working contributor. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 10:47, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I am a semi-admin/curator and not a full admin/custodian, so I do not have the block tool/I cannot block you. The chance that GenAI (ChatGPT or other) would output the name of your master's thesis that sees virtually no occurrence in literature is very slim; GenAI works with existing texts as a basis and the entity under investigation, your thesis, is almost nowhere. I found only one reference to your thesis, which I documented here: Talk:A_Direct_Approach_to_Information_Retrieval#Reception. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:42, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

My ChatGPT became very familiar with me. It does maintain my profile. Perhaps he would know me better than anyone else. With the very "context indexing" I coined recently, it can write a thesis. Yes, I am not known. I guess I am practically blocked or embagoed. This is why I try to make my thesis known to the world. I have emailed so many people both pros and cons. Perhaps some of them have already contact and advise you to block me. Otherwise I do not understand why you keep bothering me. --KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I am temporarily giving up. Maybe later. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:00, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Accusation of Betram C. Brookes

It looks like you are accusing Betram C. Brookes (Wikidata:Q15439884) of inappropriately copying your master's thesis and contributing to plagiarism of it. But this is just a wild speculation, just like the notion that the same idea cannot be independently discovered by different people (Darwin eventually hurried to publish the Origin because other researcher was dealing with a same or similar idea).

This kind of accusation has no place in the mainspace. It is all the better that I moved the text to User:KayYayPark/A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval/Paradox, a page that refers to you by "K.Y.Park", where the proper form would be "I", since the person speaking is K.Y.Park himself. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:10, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I never accuse Brookes. He justly copied my thesis to submit to the college authority. Your imagination went mad. Why do you bother me so madly, only depending on your mad imagination. You even moved my thesis? I am so sick and tired. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 13:38, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I did not move your thesis, it is still at A Direct Approach to Information Retrieval and is still missing references, where it would be matter of a single hour to fill in a subset of them.

I need to reread the moved page to see whether I misunderstood (sometimes, my attention fails me). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:53, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

What is most vital is if the spirit of my thesis is eual to that of NEC's CiteSeer, Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, etc., even the WWW! If yes, you need to doubt anything else. To offset or upset this equation, Americans put forward three American hypertext fathers including Vannevar Bush, Douglas Engelbart and Ted Nelson. Nelson pressed Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the developer of the WWW to admit his or theirs influence to him. What a comedy! He certainly coined "hypertext." His lifelong effort was nothing but just a vaporware. Meanwhile, my context indexing requires hypertext to be embeded in the contextual extract where keywords and citations are in context. All these aim for user-oriented information retrieval, about which he dosn't care . What he cared was making money, while I wished scholars to search information of themselves, by themselves, and for themselves. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 17:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The above seems to be off topic. Back to the topic.

I cannot confirm positively that you were really accusing Brookes of anything improper (you say that his making a copy was not improper). I can no longer determine from which statements of yours I gained that impression. You can remove this thread if you want as not properly substantiated. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:21, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Self-revelation

I noticed your edits on User:KayYayPark. They made me realize I should probably give a word of warning/wisdom, even if perhaps unnecessary. You are posting to a publically accessible computer network; anyone from the world can read this (although it will not pop up in Google search). Your edits are also in page revision histories and visible there, unless someone hides them or deletes the page together with revision histories. And Wayback Machine could archive this page (I am not sure). This may lead you to want to be careful about what you post. Perhaps all is fine and you are fully aware of what you are doing; I am just saying. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 05:00, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

I am terribly sorry but I cannot understand what you are talking about. --KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 08:53, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Context Indexing and references

As for Context Indexing, I have left it in mainspace for now; it is clearly marked as original research and the author is clearly stated (which is what I did).

The page now has references, which is good. I wonder why you are not using the usual wiki refs: "<ref>...</ref>" and "<references />". It would be much nicer. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 11:21, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

1. What is original research?

2. Sorry but I don't know "<ref>...</ref>" and "reference/> "

-- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 14:18, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

In the content of wikis, original research is provision of statements that do not trace (are not obtained from) to reliable other sources. I have marked your article/page using Template:Original research. Original research is allowed in Wikiversity, but not in Wikipedia.

I can show you how the ref markup works if you allow me to, by editing your article. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:29, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

1. Your "provision of statements that do not trace (are not obtained from) to reliable other sources" is very meaningful. Although the very context indexing is mainstream of information retrieval, Wikipedia has no article about that. Why? If they have one, they have to mention me as its inventor. So it would not have, because of the plagiarism done by so many applications. That's why "provision of statements that do not trace (are not obtained from) to reliable other sources" is naturally so hard.
2. Go ahead. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 14:44, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I went ahead and converted 3 refs. The main thing is to change your sup into ref and place the source ID between the ref tags. Can you try to convert the remaining references? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 14:46, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Something wrong happened by your edit. The first three references should be there. They should not be located under any thing else. You will see something wrong happened by your edit. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 15:24, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I moved the "Refs" template call up so that the numbering now works better. I converted 3 references; you should try to convert the remaining ones. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 16:02, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I do not understand what's wrong with the first three references. This is really trivial but somehow irritating. I don't know how to correct it. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 16:35, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

(Outdent) There is nothing wrong with the three references. They are generaged automatically by a call to {{Refs}}; the template outputs them in smaller font. By the way, if you are using the visual editor, you'd better stop and start editing the wiki source; then you will be able to see the ref markup and replace "sub" with "ref". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Really this is technically surprising. But it seems system-oriented rather than user-oriented! -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 23:08, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I just converted a single reference, to Buzan. If you examine Special:Diff/2754826, you should be able to understand what I changed and how you can do the same. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 17:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I'll try the rest. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 23:09, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Brookes photo on Commons and copyright label

Someone has tagged the photo you uploaded to Commons for deletion since it does not have any copyright label. This photo: File:B.C. Brookes takes a motion to put a letter into the mailbox mouth.jpg. If you would have used the upload wizard correctly, it would have provided the copyright label automatically?

Did you take that photo with your camera? Did you scan it from a paper photo? When was the photo taken? Or what other relevant information applies to its origin?

An example of my file is File:AllCauseDeathsExcessPerc GBR SCO.svg; this file has the following copyright labeling in the wiki source code:

=={{int:license-header}}==
{{self|cc-by-4.0}}

--Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 04:25, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

This upload was my first one, and it was somewhat troublesome. I cannot remember the whole process. But Brookes made it just for me. There was no sense of commodity. And he died long time ago. No one would never insist his authorship. I took that electronic photo with my hand phone a few years ago. In this sense, I am the author. I don't understand "cc-by-4.0". -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 06:22, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

If you want that file to be kept, you need to edit the file page in Common and place something like the markup above there. I could do that for you, but I feel uncomfortable doing so (I could use a link in the diff, and it would work from administrative perspective, I guess, but I don't like it).

The code I quoted is templated. {{self|cc-by-4.0}} indicates that the photo was made by yourself and that you release the file under the license that is Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 4.0; this is the license that your posts to Wikiversity are released under, as per the page saying under the edit windows this: "By saving changes, you are agreeing to the Terms of Use and the Privacy Policy, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 4.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 08:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

How could I go back to the Commons' edit page? -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 09:33, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

You can go here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:B.C._Brookes_takes_a_motion_to_put_a_letter_into_the_mailbox_mouth.jpg, then click on "edit". --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:45, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

As for "Brookes made it [the photo] just for me", did Brookes give you a paper photo of himself? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

He gave it to me through Eisuke Saito, one of my classmates. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 09:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Did you receive the photo in paper form or electronically (is there another form)? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 09:44, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Of course it was in paper form. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 09:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

And I inserted <nowiki>{{</nowiki> self|cc-by-4.0 <nowiki>}}</nowiki> under license paragraph. But it says: "This media file does not have sufficient information on its copyright status." -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 09:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

What you did seems to have been correct, per Commons:Special:Diff/1093138791. Someone (or something, a bot?) now has to remove the deletion nomination template, but I do not know the process (whether you can remove that template or someone else has to do it). --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 10:03, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

There was a template looking like the deletion nomination. Thus I removed it and placed the template "self|cc-by-4.0" as you suggested. But still it said something wrong. All these are too complicated, that is, system-oriented! -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 11:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

It seems that I cannot resolve this problem. Please do it yourself instead of me. By so doing, you would help the world recover justice and remove American injustice done to me so far, if my writing on context indexing is fair enough. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 11:06, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

If that photo were deleted, I may let the whole article be published on newspapers. I can really pay the advertizing cost! -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 14:59, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

(Outdent) I don't think the uploaded image is particularly fit for your Context Indexing article; the article will actually be better if the image is removed, in my view. But I have not removed the image yet; I just posted on the article talk page.

I did quite a bit of hand-holding for you and this is now getting a bit too tiring. I will figure out to what extent I should continue. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:54, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

My idea is quite different from yours. It is a great mystery that Wikipedia make no article for context indexing which is the mainstream paradigm in information retrieval. There must be a certain will to face away form it. But I cnanot help but tell the truth that my principle of context indexing was unfairly copied by so many applications, since the WWW! I am not a trouble maker but a truth teller. For this purposes, I desperately need Brookes' photo. I am sure it tells the truth clearer than any thing else. Now I am very surprised why you care that photo so much. You are supposed to know the devastating power of telling the truth which has been twisted by many. Explain why Wikipedia has no article for context indexing! -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 14:51, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

You will perhaps not be surprised to learn that Wikipedia requires itself to only state what is stated in serious sources (which they misleadingly call "reliable"). And since serious sources failed to take note of your unpublished thesis (how could they, given it was unpublished!), Wikipedia cannot document what you largely privately did.

Back in 2005 (when user KYPark was editing Wikipedia), you could have used a Google indexed publishing venue (such as Google Blogger) and publish your thesis. That did not happen and now, twenty years later in 2025, that's where things stand as for your putative ground-breaking revolutionary discovery and its recognition. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:00, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

If that photo were deleted, I may let the whole article be published on newspapers. I can really pay the advertizing cost! -- KayYayPark KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 15:02, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Sure you can; I can't imagine anyone in the English Wikiversity trying to prevent you from doing so. Alternatively, you can use various blogging or similar platforms, where you don't have to pay and where there is almost no editorial oversight (so you can write pretty much what you want, bar ethics violation, etc.). Examples include Google Blogger, Facebook, and X/Twitter. (I have a Google Blogger account, and so does Guido van Rossum of Python.) I am not sure what the article/post length limitations are; for X/Twitter, the posts/tweets had to be rather short, but since Musk takeover, things could have changed. --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I would not use any other free media than Wikiversity. What I think is whether Wikiversity or newspaper. Wikiversity would be my last resort. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 15:28, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

I am quite sure that I would win this game. And you just judge yourself and join me. You will be certainly rewarded. -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 15:35, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Switching away from user KYPark

May I ask why you switched away from User:KYPark? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 12:41, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

What is switching? and why I should be switched away? Am I so evil. Have I done harm to others? I am sick and tired! -- KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 13:37, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

You seem to have edited under KYPark account for a long time; last time on 3 June 2024, approximately a year ago. Surely there is some explanation why you stopped and are now using KayYayPark account instead? --Dan Polansky (discuss • contribs) 13:50, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

With KYPark, I researched for many years the possible connections between Korean and European languages. It came to an end. I was exhausted. With KayYayPark, I wrote "Wanderworte May Make Loan Translations" as the essence of my old work. If you read this, I am sure you would be greatly surprised to know Korean 말(mal) meaning "language" and "horse". Such is the case with Old Norse mál "language" and marr "horse". According to probability theroy, this is quite unlikely. Personally I strongly believe there are many many others. And the Huns would be responsible for that. Their identity is still unknown. Historicans said they left four trivial words, which is also highly unlikely. I believe them Koreans or people of ancient Gogureo. --KayYayPark (discuss • contribs) 14:19, 30 September 2025 (UTC)