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)

Answering questions from users seeking help in article talk pages

I noticed you have recently answered some questions from users seeking help that were asked in article talk pages, such as Talk:Main Page. First, I think it is a really positive contribution to the wiki that these questions be answered. However, answering these questions in-situ on talk pages is probably not the best solution to providing an answer. These questions and answers as this clutters up the talk page concerned and makes it difficult to find and follow discussions about the article. We don't really have any policy or guidelines around how to respond to questions like these where users are seeking help, rather than questioning the article. But I think both you and Art have the essentials of a policy or guideline in your responses. Please contribute your thoughts to helping other users. Cameron (talk) 21:24, 28 April 2017 (CDT)

We really don't have anything formal now, but i think that the helping other users is a good approach. let's see if we can make it work by starting with the talk portion of the main page.--Art Carpenter (talk) 02:40, 29 April 2017 (CDT)
I have just about finished moving pretty much everything off Talk:Main Page that did not involve a discussion about the content of the Main Page and I am left with one topic I am struggling to find a home for because we don't really have a formal process for proposing user project proposals. If I archive the closed discussions to a separate page then this talk page is empty, apart from a set of links that point to all the other pages where the content has moved to. - Cameron (talk) 05:44, 30 April 2017 (CDT)
Nice work, Cameron. I would suggest putting the "If you are seeking help..." bullet higher on the list. It seems some people think they can just post here, and may not read all the bullets before doing so. Just a thought.
I do appreciate your moving discussions to talk pages, rather than simply deleting them (at some point, we could probably make Talk:Main Page/archive or the likes, too). I already found a discussion to jump in that I didn't realize was on the main page discussion. = paulkaefer (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2017 (CDT)
I think the reason we had people asking questions on the Talk:Main Page was because we were already answering them there and leaving the answers where others could see them. If we do get new questions we should immediately move the question to a user talk page, then answer it. Such questions are of use to the individual user, rather than the whole community, so a page connected to the user's name is the best place to provide an answer. I would wait and see if we get more questions on Talk:Main Page before changing the bullet points.
I too had thought a separate /Archive sub-page was needed but after moving all the off-topic conversations away, I realised there was very little left and felt a sub-page was not justified at the moment. We need some visible examples of the sorts of conversation we tolerate, to stimulate the right sort of discussion on the Main Page. Also we don't have any archives of the Main Page to go with a talk page archive. - Cameron (talk) 17:28, 1 May 2017 (CDT)

2017 Green Thumb Award Winner

2017 Green Thumb Award
Congratulations!!!


Thank you, ArtCarpenter, and whoever else may have played a role in selecting me. What an unexpected honor! It's been a great experience and fun contributing to the community over the past few months. I've learned a lot, and look forward to contributing more! = paulkaefer (talk) 15:45, 2 May 2017 (CDT)
Paul you are very welcome. You were nominated and selected by the Community Advisory Board. This is a well deserved award. --Art Carpenter (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2017 (CDT)

Congratulations, from one Green Thumb winner to another! Extremely well deserved award. - Cameron (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2017 (CDT)
Thanks, Cameron! = paulkaefer (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2017 (CDT)

Congratulations on your Advanced certification! --Art Carpenter (talk) 11:59, 11 May 2017 (CDT)

Thanks, Art!! = paulkaefer (talk) 13:32, 11 May 2017 (CDT)

Bad titles

Hi Paul,

I notice you recently blanked the article Inprogress then proposed it for removal. There is no need to do that, since the author changed their mind and instead wrote the article Document and Enhance Your SAS® Code, Data Sets, and Catalogs with SAS Functions, Macros, and SAS Metadata. In my view, simply redirecting the article is sufficient as it preserves the history of the page. A redirect is the best that can be done short of moving the page, which cannot be done now because the target title is already occupied. I am also thinking that this suggestion be added to the titles guidelines. - Cameron (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2017 (CDT)

Yes, I considered redirecting it, but figured it was a meaningless redirect, and the article page was created only a few minutes later, with pretty much the same content. Whatever works. = paulkaefer (talk) 23:17, 23 May 2017 (CDT)
I accept that redirecting a rather meaningless title seems rather pointless. However, the advantage of a redirect is that it immediately removes the article title from both orphaned and dead-end pages lists, which doesn't happen if you propose a page for removal. You could still add a category to remove the redirect page but that will still take some time to happen. I think keeping the redirect page is preferable because it is also more transparent process, in my opinion. - Cameron (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2017 (CDT)

User Group Participation

Paul, I see that you will be at MWSUG 2017. Let's make sure that we meet up so that we can talk in person. --Art Carpenter (talk) 11:54, 28 July 2017 (CDT)

That sounds great! Looking forward to it. = paulkaefer (talk) 14:32, 28 July 2017 (CDT)