User talk:Paulkaefer

From sasCommunity
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to sasCommunity.org. Thank you for your gardening over the last few days! --Art Carpenter (talk) 23:54, 8 May 2016 (CDT)

ArtCarpenter: Thanks for the message. I'm happy to contribute! - paulkaefer (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2016 (CDT)

Welcome aboard

Hi Paul,

Welcome aboard! It looks like you are enjoying contributing to the sasCommunity by doing some gardening.

I noticed you created the PROC Step category. I have categorised it under Procedures and rewritten your note. Please mercilessly edit the page if you disagree with what I have written and think what you first wrote was better. - Cameron (talk) 02:23, 10 May 2016 (CDT)

Thanks for the message, Cameron. It's great to hear from you, given how much you've contributed here. I like what you did; the {{putincategory}} template is nice. I look forward to contributing more and learning from your experience! - paulkaefer (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2016 (CDT)

Categories

Hi Paul, I notice you categorised the article Few observations and recommendations to pass SAS certification. I wonder if that is an appropriate thing to do. My question about this article remains unanswered - is it spam?

Before categorising every uncategorised article, please consider if it is appropriate to categorise it and if the categories you are choosing are appropriate. Some pages are not categorised so that people can find them and contemplate what category they should fit into.

Sometimes we do not have a category created, other times we might not have enough content to create a category for only a few articles. I see little point in creating a category for just one or two articles, especially when the proposed category is a subset of a larger category.

I know there has not been a lot of discussion about Organizing Articles but perhaps it is time for the community to consider this topic some more. - Cameron (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2016 (CDT)

Can you expand on how you said, "Some pages are not categorised so that people can find them and contemplate what category they should fit into"? Does that mean they should stay uncategorized? I feel like I came around and contemplated categories...
Going along with what I mentioned on your comments on moving a page, I did this backed by my experience editing Wikipedia and "being bold". I'm new to sasCommunity.org, and thought I could really help with some organization/gardening. I didn't see the Organizing Articles talk, but I do see you wrote "be bold, plunge forward, and contribute" and "One problem with organising a wiki is trying to be too rigid too soon. Something is always going to come along to break such a framework. It is better to be flexible and adapt as you go, taking clues from the existing articles."
For reference, it looks like there's more discussion at Talk:FAQ Wiki Feature.
Anyway, I thought I made reasonable categories, and I did consider if they were appropriate. I'm happy to discuss more, but I think it would make sense to discuss specific categories. Which category or categories that I created do you have a problem with? - paulkaefer (talk) 08:30, 28 May 2016 (CDT)
I think many of the categories that you have assigned articles to are entirely appropriate. However, I would point out that the sasCommunity is not Wikipedia. The categories in the sasCommunity have developed in a different way and the processes for creating and assigning articles to categories are less mature. In the case of the article I highlighted I had attempted to start a discussion on the talk page about the worthyness of the article, before categorising it. My questions haven't been responded to, so I had no idea about how the rest of the community felt about this article. I agree that I wrote "be bold, plunge forward, and contribute" and also commented on the need for flexibility. So far no one else has challenged my opinion but I am unsure if that lack of response amounts to acquiescence or is simply disinterest. Without some understanding of what others think it becomes difficult to achieve consensus. I have not problem with an article being categorised where there is an existing category and the article clearly fits in the category. However, some articles don't fit into an existing category and I am often not certain whether creating a category is worthwile or not. In such cases I would rather the article remain uncategorised but have some discussion about the value of the article and what would be a good category to use. Others might an alternative view to me and I would like to understand those views before I take a bold plunge and discover I misjudged the depth of the pool. Please think of my challenge to you as a testing of the depth of the water. In this area I don't really know how far the sasCommunity is prepared to go and think we need to document how to categorise pages in more detail before we decide to categorise every page. - Cameron (talk) 18:21, 4 June 2016 (CDT)
Paul and Cameron - It is highly likely that the two of you, along with Don Henderson, are the most sophisticated Wiki-users on the site. My guess is that most of the users are SAS folks that have learned enough about the Wiki to post a bit. I think that Cameron is right that we are mostly making this up as we go along, and your insights and suggestions will continue to be invaluable. --Art Carpenter (talk) 01:06, 1 August 2016 (CDT)
Thanks, Art! It's great to be contributing to the community. I'm happy to contribute my experience/suggestions. I want to do what I can to help this fantastic wiki. - paulkaefer (talk) 09:07, 1 August 2016 (CDT)

Relating to the original discussion, I just created Category:Teradata. Several papers and articles were already marked with this category; I just created the category to give a little information & so the category links aren't red. - paulkaefer (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2016 (CDT)

Before you move a page...consider discussing the move

Hi Paul,

Before you move a page please consider discussing the move on the talk page. I noticed you moved the article Publications and its talk page without discussing your reasons for making the move with the authors, first. While I accept your move of the article was appropriate, moving the talk page was not, as it discussed the appropriateness of the author using the title concerned. Because the author had not responded and the article was (only) linked from the author's user page, I had not moved the article to an alternative title. Additionally, the target title is normally created by the author through a wiki process. If you move a page to the Publication: namespace then the author is unable to follow the process that sets the page up. Subsequent edits to the redirected pages also mean that your edits cannot be undone. Additionally you made an undiscussed edited a user page; user pages should only be edited by users themselves. Were this a different wiki, some editors would perceive this sort of editing activity as a sign of vandalism or trolling. - Cameron (talk) 20:14, 27 May 2016 (CDT)

This was really not intended as vandalism... I see someone undid the edit to the user page.
I see I made an incorrect assumption from the start. I have quite a bit of experience editing Wikipedia, and I [thought I] saw how I could apply that here. I'd like my edits to be considered as in "good faith" (Wikipedia policy)... basically I did this all out of what I thought was right. In regards to moving the page, Wikipedia has a policy called "be bold"... basically, if you see something should be done, do it. Since the discussion on the very page in question hadn't had any response in almost a year, I went with it.
I feel like it's not my place to undo the revisions, but to leave it up to discussion, as you suggest. Is that reasonable? - paulkaefer (talk) 08:21, 28 May 2016 (CDT)

Copyright for File:DASUG header.gif

Hi Paul,

Did you have permission of the copyright holder to upload the file DASUG header.gif? This file includes an image that is licenced by SAS Institute under particular terms that I am not certain includes adding to third partiy websites. Please follow the sasCommunity Terms of Use when you upload files and ensure that you hold the copyright. - Cameron (talk) 20:25, 27 May 2016 (CDT)

No, I don't have permission... I apologize for adding it; I didn't think the "red link" at the top of the page looked good, and it seemed an easy fix. I don't have the ability to delete it, though. - paulkaefer (talk) 08:08, 28 May 2016 (CDT)

SAS and Open Source Software

Hi Paul, I have seen and read your comments on my talk page and on the SAS and Open Source Software page.

When I wrote the article, way back in '08, the integration of Open Source Software and SAS was somewhat low. At least to my opinion at that time. Looking at it now I think it has greatly improved and will improve even more with the coming of SAS Viya.

However, if you feel like editing or removing the page. Feel free. Kind regards Resa (talk) 03:45, 28 September 2016 (CDT)