User talk:Ermeyers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Eric R. Meyers (talk)
Eric's Wikipedia User page Eric's Wikipedia User subpage
——————————————— MY TALK PAGE —————————————



Hello, welcome to my talk page. You are welcome to post any comments below. Please be polite and follow Wikipedia guidelines.
Click here to leave me a comment, a criticism or a question. Remember to sign your posts with ~~~~.

i usually respond to queries on the talk page of the questioner — if you want me to answer somewhere else, please state your preferred location in your post.



Archives
1

Contents

Welcome!

Hello, Ermeyers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Ancheta Wis 10:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikia links on Perl

Redacted 'spam' warning template Imroy 22:23, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in.
Please base you complaints and actions and the standards for encyclopedic articles. Please understand the neither involvement in a page, nor a page being commercial(which this page is not, the ads provide only free hosting) disqualifies it from the external links area. If you believe the page is not relevant or not encyclopedic, make a complaint based on that. HighInBC 15:01, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Since this person made a sincere attempt to discuss the page, and the page in his opinion was relevent, you can remove this warning from his talk page? In the spirit of Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers, perhaps? HighInBC 15:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
Alright, I'm sorry. It's just easier to use a template than to type out a proper response. It wasn't spam, but it was still an inappropriate link. I've responded more on the Perl talk page. --Imroy 21:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't be discouraged

I know alot of people here are quick to jump all over anybody who adds relevant information if they themselves are attached to it. I think your perl wiki is very relevant to the article. However since it is so contentious I think that two things need to be done to make it accepted by the community:

  1. More content is needed, and the landing page needs to delve directly into subject of perl as opposed to talk about the wiki itself.
  2. Somebody else should add the link. While there is no rule against adding a relevant link to a site you run, as you have probably seen people immediately yell spam and advertising. Even an honest attempt to discuss it on the discussion page meets accusations of advertising. I personally run a wiki for the development of independent films and I was accused of advertising when I added it to the Independent film article.

This is not right, but it is so. Once your wiki has more content, and has a front page that dives directly into the subject matter(list of articles/subject/categories on main page, featured article ect... Discussion about the wiki itself can be relegated to project and discussion pages, with links from the main page) I will gladly add the link and my rational personally as I believe once these criteria are met it will be both encyclopedic and relevant to the perl article.

One more thing, people often see google ads and think commercial site. No need to bring up old arguments, but if someone accuses you of running a commercial site and benefiting from mention on WP, explain that the ads give you free hosting only and you do not directly benefit from it.

perl is a surprisingly contentious subject here, and your mention of being an advocate may have tainted peoples judgement of you. For such a technical subject people are very passionate about it. I know this may sound like alot of hassle, so decide for yourself if it is worth it. No part of this message is meant as criticism, more and explanation of why people have reacted so harshly with you. HighInBC 14:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiversity

Hi Eric, great to see such enthusiasm for Wikiversity! I'm not sure if you've found the relevant links yet, but the current proposal is at m:Wikiversity/Modified project proposal - all sub-pages of that are linked from a navigational template at the top, including the m:Wikiversity subcommittee and the (basic) mock up of the front page. Hopefully, the work of the Wikiversity subcommittee (or "activation committee" as some people have called it) should be now finished - I am currently trying to get Wikiversity set up through the necessary channels, (ie the board via the m:Special projects committee). However, comments are always welcome, and thanks for yours on the proposal's talk page.

I'm sorry if the proposal isn't so clear to you - discussions from 2005 (and before) are around of course, and are ongoing, but I hope that people can see the current proposal for what it is (and what's written there). I also don't know exactly what you mean by: "It's time for me to begin shaming them a little bit, for you, me and everyone else in the world" - who is "them"? I've been one of those involved for almost a year in etting Wikiversity going - presumably this involves me? :-)

To me it's a real shame that everything took so long to move Wikiversity into its proper namespace, and please don't take what I said personal by an means, because I just got to know you guys. I said "a little bit," so I hope that I didn't hurt anyones feelings. This thing needs to be done-done. Here's my very simple Wikiversity perspective: Get it started. Get it out there. Get the "learning for the sake of learning" happening. Figure out the other stuff later. Find what works. The End. --Ermeyers 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm also slightly at a loss to comment on your involvement with Perl and what you would like to do with in the future. Without going through all the links (though i will now go to some), do you envisage adding a patch (or something similar) to the Wikiversity codebase? What would this do, exactly? As far as Wikiversity is concerned for now, there is no software necessary to get a content repository going - and we'll just have to see how the community aspect of it develops. However, I'm always open to (clear, non-technical) ideas about how it could develop, so please keep me posted. And, of course, if you envisage using the content from wikiversity in your other wikis etc, it can be used, as normal, under the GFDL.

Using Wikimedia project content to its fullest, that's exactly what I'm doing in Wikia:Perl.

Hope this helps somewhat - and hope we can count on your expertise and involvement. Thanks. Cormaggio @ 11:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely in this with you.:) --Ermeyers 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: I re-read your comment, and realised you probably aren't suggesting a software addition to wikiversity, but rather a space for Perl-afficionados to commune and work. I think, for simple communing of interest, your Wikia would be the best place, but if you wanted to put a focus on learning about Perl, then Wikiversity could offer that space. (And then further content could be developed on Wikibooks and Wikipedia, as you said.) Is that fair? Does that address your query? Cormaggio @ 12:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Yes. Please see Wikia:Perl#Education. --Ermeyers 16:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Ok, cool - thanks for your support. There are a few reasons why Wikiversity has taken so long, but I agree that it has been frustrating and that it is a shame, and I fear we have lost some enthusiastic contributors along the way. I didn't take any offence to your comment - i didn't mean my reply like this - it's just that I do have criticisms of the process by which Wikiversity has been planned, with myself very much included in that criticism. I was interested in your views, if you had any (still am). And by the way, I've added your user page to my watchlist so I'll see your replies here (and any Wikiversity-related page on Meta) - no need to email :-). Cheers! Cormaggio @ 17:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worthwhile project

I think a worthwhile activity for you, eric that can "get you into the swing of things" around here is to help me edit This Synopsis article at Wikipedia about this First Monday (journal) article. I've already "seeded" it with an acceptable style for such an article. You will become a "human parcer" but it'll be a fairly easy task and help you find your way around. Just a suggestion. CQ 22:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I find this — Wikipedia:Citing sources to be very helpful. By the way, I have an idea for refactoring the main page at perl.wikia.com but we'll discuss it there. CQ 01:38, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like a great suggestion. Thank you very much for guiding me. I really need your Wiki expertise, and I need spend some time developing my own Wikipedia encyclopedic skills, and even some academic skills, as you obviously know. My personal understanding of the "human parsing" that you mentioned is for me to personally consume the externally referenced original source information for myself, to avoid WP:NOR deletions (also academic plagarism), and then spit out some new "helpful" WP:NPOV "honey" in Wikipedia object codes and citing sources, like a good Wikipedia worker "honey bee" should do to provide a "helpful" unbiased explanation of the new topic of "interest" in that article. Correct, or close? --Ermeyers 08:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
That is exacly correct. Stay close • CQ 16:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, Ermeyers. It looks like you are "learning the ropes", thank The Lord. Wikipedia is, by all definitions, a virtual learning community of practice. It is a culture of discipline based in the formation of personal ties that bind, which, as a Christian, I'm confident you understand. When you join yourself to a community, you commit to its praxis and pragma, and are bound to its premises, as a matter only of personal choice. What you do with it, is a function of your own personal motivations. • CQ 16:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect use of Prod

You seem to be using cut-and-paste rather than Page Move. This loses the edit histories which are needed for GFDL. Please stop, and use the correct mechanism. Noisy | Talk 13:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Please stop - all this can be done much more easily! Noisy | Talk 13:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Each article has a 'Move this page' button, which transfers the text to the new article and automatically leaves the redirect in place, pointing to the new version. All the edit history is preserved as part of the move. Hope that helps. Noisy | Talk 13:53, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I will revert as needed. I stopped, and I'm trying to respond to my mistake. -Ermeyers 13:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm currently waiting to talk with you here, and I'm checking your talk page to see if you respond to my question there. --Ermeyers 14:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you point to where the moves you are doing were discussed, please? It seems a reasonable thing to do to create sub-pages, with an index at the top level into the subjects. You can carry on moving the other subsidiary pages using 'Move this page', but you will have to get the first couple that were created using cut-and-paste speedied (using {{db|reason}}) before you can do the correct moves for the first three pages. Noisy | Talk 14:24, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Do you want me to do the first ones as examples? Noisy | Talk 14:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I see that you are fairly new. Do you understand about the GNU Free Documentation License, and how the wiki software preserves the attributions for each edit that is made? When you make an edit on Wikipedia, you are licensing your text under the GFDL, but you retain the right to be identified with that edit, and that identification is preserved in the page history. The 'Page history' link allows you to see each individual edit that was made, and who made it. If you cut and paste an article to a new location, this edit history is lost, which goes against the GFDL. The 'Move this page' link preserves the history. Noisy | Talk 14:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I lost a talk message to you here, so I have to make up for some lost ground. I want to learn how to fix this. I am new, and I'm trying to learn and understand everything. I basically knew about the edit history being kept, not how it applied to the GFDL, and I didn't know about how the move worked to automatically create the redirect and transfer all of the history over, so I simply did what I thought was correct linkage manually. I know somewhat better now that I'm learning from my mistakes pointed out to me. I originally went to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest from Wikimedia:Meta:Wikipedia. I talked at Wikipedia_talk:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest A-B at the bottom. The top Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest originally redirected over to Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest A-B as the top level, and I changed them around to demonstrate the subpaging change. The place seemed dead, so I simply tried to do the right thing. --Ermeyers 15:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I've moved Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest K-L for you. Note that the edit history shows that the move was done. The old history is preserved. Using 'Move this page' will also move the associated talk page: it's that clever! The original page is now a redirect. The newly created page now shows that a lot of pages point to it via the redirect page, which you can see from 'What links here'.
I'll now put a speedy notice on the A-B page you created, to clear the way for a 'Move this page'. Noisy | Talk 15:22, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, all of this is absolutely extremely clever, beyond what we might have imagined. I'm concerned that something needs to be fixed in what I did to the Wikipedia_talk:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest A-B page, which probably needs a revert. How do you revert? So once it's speedied, you can move over it? --Ermeyers 15:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I forgot the talk page. To revert, call up the history page of the talk page. Then select 'last' against your latest edit, to see the difference between the pages. Now hit 'edit' by your previous revision. Now fill in the edit summary with something like 'rv preparation for page move'. 'Show preview' will allow you to check that it is displaying as you want. 'Save page', to get back to the original version.
The next thing you need to do is to create a template that will allow people to navigate between the pages. Something like:
{| align=center class="toccolours" style="margin: 1em 2em 1em 2em;" 
! align=center style="background:#ccccff;" | <big>[[Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest]]</big>
|-
| align=left style="font-size: 80%; border-bottom: solid 1px #ccccff;" | [[Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by fields of interest/A-B|A-B]], etc
|-
|}
Call it something like Template:Navigate list of interests. Noisy | Talk 15:59, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok! I'll let you know, if I find any other problems. I'm sure that you'll be watching. Thanks for your help, and for not biting my head off. --Ermeyers 16:04, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
WP:DBTN enjoins me not to! (Sadly, I'm a bit jaded now, and sometimes do jump in feet first.) I'll warn you that you do need a pretty thick skin around here.
Reacting to one of your earlier comments - about a page not being very active - you'll find that there are a lot of those, so you have to be patient about getting a reaction. Don't just assume that if you don't get a response in the first day or two, then you have carte blanche. Also, the list of interests page is something that people tend to visit on first arrival, and then it drops off their horizon, and they stop watching the page. I don't know if you noticed, but the 'problem' you were responding to was noted over a year ago!
I'll probably only be editing at weekend over the next month, but drop me a message if you have any questions. I'm not an admin, so I can't do any mopping up. Noisy | Talk 17:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility Barnstar

Civility award
Civility award

I know the issue is not quite resolved yet but, for encouragement, I commend you both for your civility in solving this problem. Very cool in my book! • CQ • WP:CBTF • 17:26, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Christian Cross Asterism (astronomy)

This article was a piece of original research and not suitable for Wikipedia. It might be more suited to a personal website or a blog. (aeropagitica) 10:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Original research should not include the use of commonly available tools such as computer programs, where one only needs to enter the appropriate data provided as input to receive other expected data as output. No original research is involved, because someone else has already done the research in order to provide the simple functional computing tool. --Eric R. Meyers (Ermeyers) (talk) 04:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

And, just like my opening a particular page in a book, I did not personally create this output; instead I simply selected the correct (date, time and location) page, and captured the output to a file, and reported on it, following the WP:5P to the best of my abilities. --Eric R. Meyers (Ermeyers) (talk) 05:07, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

You had a thought regarding an astrological conjunction, of which there are many thousands, performed research upon that conjunction and published your findings. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Please read WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles to see how a Wikipedia article is constructed. Statements such as "Original research should not include the use of commonly available tools such as computer programs..." do not reference policy and instead state a personal point of view. You may want this to be the case but it is otherwise. Original research, published without references and sources - not the application that you used to create the research in the first place - is not allowed on Wikipedia. Your article is better-suited to a personal website or a blog as it is a product of your own thoughts, the significance of which has not been established through such research methods as a literature review, hence the lack of sources cited. Regards, (aeropagitica) 08:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, no problem. I've brought this topic up in the talk page for NOR, because I still believe that I'm correct. --Eric R. Meyers (Ermeyers) (talk) 14:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

The Talk page of WP:NOR is for discussing the NOR policy and relevant issues, not disputes over deleted pages. The proper place to discuss deleted pages is Wikipedia:deletion review. Please remove the information that you have placed on the WP:NOR page and instead formulate a business case for the restoration of your article at Wikipedia:deletion review, following the layout of other discussions rather than a cut-and-paste of correspondence. (aeropagitica) 15:17, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
This topic was not spitefully brought up at WT:NOR regarding this one particular case, and like I said in good faith toward you, no problem and no dispute with your use of the current NOR policy. I simply want to discuss changing the NOR policy regarding the very relevant issue of using commonly available computing resources as valid referential sources. You aren't wrong, and I personally don't think that I'm wrong. Take care. --Eric R. Meyers (Ermeyers) (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cat tag

For one reason the userpage ermeyers/meta peace shows up listed on category:ottoman empire.. If you have added the cat tag by mistake, take it out so that people don't confuse you with an obscure ottoman sultan!! Baristarim 03:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] image of ORA's camel

I think your use of the camel image in a userbox on your page is a violation of the free-use concept. I'm not one of those image policing nazis, but i think that is the case. cheers. ... aa:talk 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] perl wikia

I just read your comments on the talk page there. I think Wikibooks might be a better place. They certainly need the content you're offering, and there are fewer guidelines there. Why don't you have a look around there? ... aa:talk 16:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../e/r/m/User_talk%7EErmeyers_7b0e.html"