User talk:Design methods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Comments

We would welcome any and all comments about the Design Methods page. Please leave your comments, suggestions and a way to get in contact with your for any clarifications. Scroll down to the bottom of the page, press "edit" on the last posting and insert at the top ==(subject)==, which will create a new section. If you want to comment to an existing comment, go to that section, press "edit", scroll down and hit return. Add a * (shift+8) and type your comment. Thanks.

[edit] Welcome!

Hi there! I see you don't have any welcoming links for new Wikipedians, so please check out these links at your convenience. If you have any questions, feel free to leave them on my talk page - I would be more than happy to address them!

Welcome!

Hello Design methods, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  --HappyCamper 14:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Design methods

I read your comment on the deletion page for Design methods here. Let me start off by saying that as collaborative editors, we do not try to write articles towards a particular contributor's point of view - on Wikipedia, we use something called neutral point of view. This essentially means that you are free to write anything you wish - with the condition that is written in a neutral fashion. So, for the article Design methods which you have spent a reasonable amount of time working on, the idea is not to bring it in line with either my view, or OwenX's view, but rather, the more valued neutral point of view. There is definitely a lot of work to be done regarding that article, and what I would not want to see is the article surviving the deletion process, only to be forgotten months down the road. You may encourage other editors to help with the article by adding notification tags to the top of the article. You can use {{npov}} or {{cleanup}} for example, to draw attention to it.

It is my opinion that the article will likely be kept on the basis that there is no consensus to delete. Article content is typically deleted only if there is a "reasonable" majority to delete - this is determined at the discretion of each administrator who closes the Articles for Deletion debate.

My comment regarding the "misleadingness" of the article is largely due to the subtle association which is made in the article itself - the first half reads as an encyclopedic article, which covers the history of design methodologies and thoughts in the Western world. This is wonerful material. The latter half introduces a group founded in 1962 - and this particular section should really be in a different article. Although the group is founded on what it considers to be principles of design methods, it warrants an article on its own, as opposed to its direct association with Design methods. As I have not heard of the group before, I will leave it up to you to decide which is best for the article. Although the group's name is "Design methods", you might want to move this to "Design methods (group)" or some other appropriate labelling. The references section also contain a biased set of literature, and often when this is the case, it suggests that the article itself is either presenting a particular point of view, or a more specific subject - in your case, it seems that it is talking specifically about a particular group - and if I am correct, a group that you are very familiar with?

Also, there is one other difficulty with the current state of the article. It really needs to provide a definition and context on which the term is used. "Design" and "method" put together are somewhat ambiguous, and can be written to be applicable in almost any context. It is important that the article is updated so that it is clear what the focus is.

I hope this helps, and if you have any more questions, please feel free to leave them on my talk page. Before I leave, I have one other question for you - is User:Design Methods Advocate an account created by you? I am making an assumption that it is, due to the context in which it appeared. There is nothing wrong with creating multiple accounts on Wikipedia - these are called sockpuppets. However, on things which deal more with the administrative side, using them is generally frowned upon, and this usually a source of contention. Usage of these accounts is often a sign of poor etiquette on AFD. Let me tell you that you do not need to feel you need to "sell" the article and justify its existence on Wikipedia - the article should speak for itself, and if it does not, simply improve the article. I can see from your edit history that you have a reasonable understanding of how the Wiki syntax works on Wikipedia - if further edits are made to the AfD page, simply address them as they come up. I do agree with OwenX though regarding John Christopher Jones - what might be the best alternative may be to split the article and write one specifically about JCJ. See you around, --HappyCamper 14:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

Thank you very much for the constructive criticism about design methods. This is the first write up by another Wikipedian that is clear, concise and discusses how things could be improved. I am still getting my sea legs in terms of formatting, but thanks for the compliment. I am continually improving design methods. From Owenx comments, I have refined the introductory definition to be clearer. I will use the acronyms that you suggested ({{npov}} or {{cleanup}}) for areas that may not sound objective. The 1962 conference was a critical catalyst for the formulation of design methods, bringing a diverse group of people together to hash things out (which they did not do as successfully in hindsight as I would have liked). As the article grows, you may be right that it should be split into different articles. I would not want that to happen right now as it is way too new and it needs to "ferement" to figure things out. As for the resources, I will be expanding it, and the individuals cited are not just "op-ed" fluff, but original work. Design as a discipline is trying to create a more scholarly language, so have patience. As for the user name "design methods", I chose it intuitively, and once I learn more about coding and mechanics may change the user name to my name. Please keep the comments coming as they help. (Design Methods 17:29, 20 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] More responses

Hi again. Since we have rather long responses, I've introduced some intermediate sections on your talk page. Note how there are three equal signs, as opposed to the typical two equal signs. If you want to experiment with editing, try the sandbox. I'll try responding with a variety of syntax, so you can figure out intuitively the different sorts of formatting that are available.

  1. To change your username, please take a look at Wikipedia:Changing username
  2. To use the {{npov}} or {{cleanup}}, just add exactly what you see on the screen to the article.
    There is also a {{sectNPOV}} which you can use. It looks like this:
Stop! The neutrality of this section is disputed. Please view the article's talk page.


You wrote above that "...the individuals cited are not just "op-ed" fluff, but original work..." -- Please be sure that what you have written is not original research. Of course, this does not mean that you can't go to the library and do research on a particular topic - what you write here simply should not be introducing new ideas, or a reinterpretation of existing knowledge. What we are after is verifyable information - and ideally, the sources should come from a variety of sources and authors. Granted, it may take some time for an article to evolve to this state, so for now, do what you think is best, and what you enjoy. I'll keep this page on my watchlist so I will know when you reply. Hope this helps! --HappyCamper 21:47, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you again for your additional comments and suggstions. I will change my username and where appropriate will add npov or cleanup. I am not adding "original work", but the information cited was legitimate work (to address Owenx concerns). I appreciate your continued constructive help! (Design Methods 01:03, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

User Design Methods Advocate is not a clone of User Design Methods. I corrected this by placing info on my Contributor Info page. Sorry for the temporary anonymity. I'm quickly learning the Wiki editing ropes and enjoying it. (Design Methods Advocate 15:40, 21 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Editing articles

Hi there! I've relegated your comments to the talk page - this is usually where article content is discussed. So, you and "Design Methods Advocate" are completely unrelated? Thanks for the clarification. It is quite confusing for administrators, as superficially, it would appear as if they are sockpuppets of each other. Anyway, I will continue to keep an eye on your edits, so in case you need anything, please feel free to come by my talk page. --HappyCamper 03:09, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thanks for helping via navigating our efforts in making Design methods the best it can be! (Design Methods Advocate 03:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

As Bold move, I relocated your comments regarding Expansion of Design Groups to talk page of Design methods. (Design Methods Advocate 17:51, 22 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] How deletion works

Generally speaking, the deletion debate is open for 1 week. After one week, an administrator closes the deletion debate. This person determines "consensus to delete" by counting the number of keep or delete votes, and taking into account the comments made by each user. If there is "consensus to delete", the article is deleted. Otherwise, it is kept. There is a subjective element to deletion - but it is one that the community generally trusts.

From my experience, the deletion debate as it stands is in a state of "no consensus" and chances are will not be deleted. It may change before the week ends - but I think this would be unlikely. In the unfortunate event that it is deleted, I will reinstate the article for you, so not to worry - currently, I am fairly confident that you are here to do good work, and there is no reason to hold you back from doing so. I hope this helps! --HappyCamper 00:51, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Thank you very much for your comments. We are here to do good work and at times felt we were on a rapid river without a paddle :-) We hope you will continue to comment on our efforts (Design Methods 13:31, 23 December 2005 (UTC))
Indeed. I have been keeing a close eye on your edits and it looks like you are learning the ropes just fine. If you have not done this already, you might consider adding articles to your watchlist. Articles on Wikipedia have a little tab labled "watch" at the top - when you click on it, it adds it to your watchlist. When you click on "watchlist" you will see the most recent edits made to that article. In this way, you can keep track of the changes that have been made. Also, check the "history" tab, and notice how you can compare different versions of the article in time. This is especially handy when you have multiple editors working together. --HappyCamper 04:46, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. I am definitely starting to use the watch and history tabs. I also keep backups of every session's content, code and links (just in case). As we gain more contributors, the challenge will be to establish some basic values as well as determining when certain areas of design methods should be migrated to existing or new topical areas. (Design Methods 14:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Request for edit summary

As others said before me, please use an edit summary. The final design is not all that matters, documenting the process is just as important. :) (well, that's a silly analogy :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Thanks Oleg for the suggestion. I am big into process, and am still learning. I did look at the edit summaries, but the guidelines for edit summaries is "avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. Doing this will actually exacerbate the situation, because it naturally encourages the other party to respond in the same manner - in other words, by making an edit and using the edit summary - and what might have been productive dialogue instead becomes an edit war." We appreciate people's help, but the discussion page should be used for suggestions. (Design Methods 23:26, 7 January 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Wikipedia Project

Hi, my name is Federico (alias Pain) and I am creating a section for nominating th best user page, I was wondering if you were interested in joining the project.

The project has just started, and we need help to spread the word and ameliorate it.

Wikipedia:Votes_for_best_User_page

Best regards, Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 14:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Best User Page Project

Let us try an experiment. Until further notice, the voting system will be open, using the method described in the Guidelines. This will make us understand how reliable the current system is and whether the project has a real possibility to expand into hundrends of users or not.

All users are encounaged to display the {{BestUserPage}} banner on their User Page.

All members all encouraged to display the {{BUP}} banner in their User Page, and also notify that the project has started.

We will refer to the votes for this first session as "March 2006" in the archive.

Federico Pistono ✆ ✍ 19:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:John c jones.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:John c jones.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Image legality questions page. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 16:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Dear Shyam - came across your tagging of John Chris' image. He has given permission to use it, so I would like to post it back again (Design Methods 01:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC))
    • Then please re-upload the image with the proper permission license given by the copyright holder. Shyam (T/C) 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible deletion of Design methods

While I'd like to salvage the article, if the original editors are unable to provide references sufficient for other editors to verify that it is not original research, I'm going to try splitting up the article into pieces and request deletion for all pieces that I cannot verify on my own. I'm happy to explain this at great length if you like, or you might want to get a third party to help, since you might not trust my perspective. No offense, but I think these issues are stated clearly in WP:V:

1. Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.

2. Editors adding new material should cite a reliable source, or it may be challenged or removed by any editor.

3. The obligation to provide a reliable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not with those seeking to remove it.

I've come to this decision after investigating the claims that I removed references. From my interpretations of the wikipedia guidelines and policies are concerned, I removed mostly inappropriate external links that weren't being used as references, or aren't appropriate as references. I'll continue looking more carefully, and probably write it up. Again, I'm happy to explain this in great depth. I'm not sure if everyone involved here is even familiar with the relevant policies and guidelines, such as original research, verifiability, notability, reliable sources, external links. --Ronz 01:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Ronz. We are not sure why you are so determined to delete design methods. If you took time to review the extensive comments about this article, you would appreciate the time and effort that has gone into this article. We strongly disagree that since you don't understand it, it should be broken up and deleted. This would be unfortunate and work against the very reason Wikipedia exists. We have asked you to be specific as to what needs verification or clarification, and you have not provided any examples leaving us to "guess" at what you want. We have therefore come to the conclusion that whatever we do will not suffice. We ask that a third party be brought aboard to help (maybe some of the original reviewers which can be found in the archived discussions). We are trying to be reasonable, and ask you to do the same. (Design Methods 02:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC))
You might want to read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles before saying more. I don't want to delete it, I want to salvage what is not original research from it into article(s) that other editors can contribute to. Since you appear to be unfamiliar with wikipedia policy and guidelines, I'll try to explain more in the discussion page, and point out possible ways of getting third parties involved (something I've already done, if you haven't read the comments recently). --Ronz 16:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for finding Shell Kinney to act as a mediator! --Ronz 18:39, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
We have reviewed Wikipedia's article on article ownership. We have been very open to all comments, but also believe Wiki's guideline of "When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her." This is part of the civility movement within WIki and I am a part of it. In order to make changes, it is important to be specific what content does not make sense, or what needs verification. For example, a british engineer had radically edited the article based on his perception. Part of it was style, part of it was his feeling that the article needed to be reordered. At first there was shock, but we waited a few days and carefully went through each comment and overall, he did a good job and we changed certain things back to the original due to his lack of understanding. This is what has been missing in our interactions. Shell has been a first class guide to Wiki and was involved with the first flurry of challenges. I look forward to a productive three way collaboration on this article. (Design Methods 21:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC))
Your recent contribution on the discussion page should help tremendously. No offense, but I'm going to point to you to WP:V again - please look at the quote above, especially points #2 and #3. For an example of an article that I think is pretty well referenced (one I consider to be a real trial-by-fire into Wikipedia for me), see Bosnian pyramids. --Ronz 21:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I did go to the Bosnian Pyramids comments page and am aware of the topic and the controversy that it has generated. What is interesting about the comments is that they fall into two categories ; 1) the intention of the author of the article, and 2) Specific minutiae about specific "facts" or "points". I have been accused by the first storm over Design Methods of being part of an occult or trying to make John Chris Jones into a demigod. While I would like to fancy me part of an international conspiracy to make Design Methods a world wide phenomenon, in reality our goals are very humble. The latter is what I need in order to improve the article. I will go back to WP:V again and look forward to more conversations. (Design Methods 05:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)).

[edit] "We"

Could you stop referring to yourself in first person plural? If you're collaborating with other editors, they should speak for themselves. I feel it defeats the collaborate nature of wikipedia for you to speak for more than just yourself. --Ronz 20:46, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

No. When I use the term we, I am referring to a small group that is working on this topic and is helping with both Wiki and another project. I do not feel that using the term we defeats anything if it is in this context. (Design Methods 19:59, 8 February 2007 (UTC))
I do not understand the reaction to "We" being problematic. In this case, it simply means a collective effort which article Design Methods is, as stated in its Discussion's Mediation Response. "We" also means shared alignment and affection for subject matter of Design Methods. This spells collaboration to me. It's usage is harmless. --Design Methods Advocate 03:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)