User talk:DavidMCEddy

From Wikiversity
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome!

Hello DavidMCEddy, and welcome to Wikiversity! If you need help, feel free to visit my talk page, or contact us and ask questions. After you leave a comment on a talk page, remember to sign and date; it helps everyone follow the threads of the discussion. The signature icon Button sig.png in the edit window makes it simple. All users are expected to abide by our Privacy policy, Civility policy, and the Terms of Use while at Wikiversity.

To get started, you may



You don't need to be an educator to edit. You only need to be bold to contribute and to experiment with the sandbox or your userpage. See you around Wikiversity! --Draubb (talk) 4:32pm EDT, 22 May 2013 (EDT)
Crystal Clear app gnome.png
Smiley.jpg

Hi DavidMCEddy, I am Draubb. Nice to meet you. I love the beach. And I love to play cricket and soccer. I am currently creating historical and learning pages! Love to see you around Wikiversity. I am also learning to play piano. I know how to play Ode to Joy! What do you like? Can I be your happy mascot?

Need help?[edit]

Hello DavidMCEddy, If you need any help - just go to my my discussion page! Thank you. --Draubb (discusscontribs) 00:19, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Effective defense and ISIL[edit]

I just stumbled across this page and was quite impressed. Great work! I've added it to Category:Featured resources. (The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mu301 (talkcontribs) 3 January 2016)

Naming Conventions[edit]

In a recent edit you mentioned Wikimedia naming conventions. Note that each project has its own naming conventions. At Wikiversity, either Sentence case or Title Case may be used. In my experience, academics seem to prefer Title Case. See Wikiversity:Naming conventions#Casing for more information. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 20:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm in the process of creating 11 stubs to be completed hopefully in part by others under a soon-to-be created "Category:People's agenda". I'm already roughly a third through this process, and I think I'll continue with "Sentence case", since you say that's still permissible on Wikiversity. I expect I'll be introducing more people to Wikimedia editing, and they'll need to use Sentence case if they do anything with Wikipedia. (And thanks for the "quality resource" recommendation of my earlier piece.) DavidMCEddy (discusscontribs)
Thanks again for the suggestion. I updated the titles for other reasons and converted them all the Title Case, as you suggested. The "Move" facility made it easier than I anticipated, because it automatically created the needed redirect. DavidMCEddy (discusscontribs) 12:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Effective defense[edit]

Hi DavidMCEddy!

The resource Effective defense appears to be well developed and ready for learners! Would you like to have it announced in our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 01:00, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Would I like to have it announced on the Wikiversity Main Page? Yes, but I think it should be better connected than it is right now.
What have you seen that encouraged you to suggest this?
I ask, because I'd first like to hear from you what you've seen. Then I'd like to invite your comments on other things I've done that may have escaped your notice. Then I'd like to make sure everything is linked from a common category, so the announcement could refer to that.
In particular, have you seen my latest "Winning the War on Terror"?
That just went live yesterday, and I'm still polishing it.
Thanks very much for your interest. DavidMCEddy (discusscontribs) 02:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I've read Effective defense! It is effective when initially read; hence, my request! Good authors always want to make their works better! Ultimately, it's your call. You will likely continue to make it better independent of its being announced! Everyone announced so far has seen further improvement and the bump up in readership helps! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I've read Winning the War on Terror! Good so far! It's on my list to watch. When you appear to have reached an effective plateau, I'll ask the same of it. --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I've also read many of your earlier resources, but did not ask about them. Perhaps when you return to them, I'll ask then. The announcements usually are for resources, not categories. Sometimes portals are included. Cheers! --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 02:57, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I very much appreciate the recommendation. Have you also seen Effective defense and ISIL? Someone gave me a star, "Quality resource: this resource is a featured learning resource," for that one. It received 115 views in the past 90 days vs. 61 for "Effective defense." "Winning the War on Terror" has already received 138 pageviews in the first 2 days! But I'm still polishing it. It should be ready in a week at the most, I think. DavidMCEddy (discusscontribs) 23:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

People's Agenda[edit]

Hello. I'm awfully sorry, I should have left redirects for them but I was too focussed on linking the various pages together. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 07:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

@Green Giant: Thank you for your work. What are the benefits of the changes you made? Those changes look like they were made to conform to a standard, but I'm not familiar with that standard. How can I find documentation on that standard? DavidMCEddy (discusscontribs) 11:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I moved the central page from a category to a resource page. The individual pages were renamed to become subpages of the central page. This enables them to be linked back to People's Agenda automatically. This creates a hierarchy and makes it a little easier to navigate and find topics (in addition to having a category). The benefits of this are described at WV:Subpages and mw:Help:Subpages Then I've added {{CourseCat}} to each subpage, which automatically categorises them in the category that matches the main page (the bit before the slash in the page name). Then I've reformatted your main page to include both a search box (specifically for these subpages) and a dynamic page list at the lower half of the page - it lists all the pages in the related category without having to manually list them. One of the settings in that list is "offset=1" which stops it listing the main page (a circular situation). If I've missed anything please ask. Also if you want ping someone, you can do so by typing the following literally: {{ping|Green Giant}} but obviously changing the name to the relevant user. Green Giant (discusscontribs) 14:26, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. DavidMCEddy (discusscontribs) 14:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Winning the War on Terror: Essay or research?[edit]

I just noticed the discussion at User talk:Ijon. Ijon is active on other projects, but hasn't been active here. From my perspective, the move was inappropriate. I've moved the content back to Winning the War on Terror and relabeled it as an essay rather than research. Perhaps that will help others accept it as is. It's good work. Please continue your efforts. Let me know if you have any questions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 13:40, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks.
Where should I look to understand the categorization system and what ljon was trying to do with that move?
I put it in with other things.
Someone else moved a collection of essays I started on into a subdirectory called "People's Agenda". How can I understand the rules you are trying to create and enforce with this kind of effort?
What's the difference between an "essay" and "research"?
Wikiversity exists to support research. It's not just a free blog site, right? I think my "essays" or "research" are appropriate for Wikiversity, because they are intended to be research, inviting others to collaborate as they see fit. So far, that hasn't happened, but that doesn't mean it won't.
DavidMCEddy (discusscontribs) 14:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
Wikiversity is the only Wikimedia project that allows original research / essays. When users from Wikipedia see original research, their immediate reaction is that it doesn't belong in main space, and they want to move it to user space instead. Whether or not we do that here depends on the quality of the article. Sometimes we move it, sometimes we make it a subpage of an introductory article, sometimes it stands alone. If anyone else objects, we could create a Terrorism or other introductory learning project to add this under. Category didn't make any difference in this case. It was the the content, not the labeling.
People's Agenda appears to have been an appropriate move. The easiest way to recognize this one is your own description of "collection of essays". As a collection of essays, they belong together rather than as separate pages. Wikipedia is 5 million individual articles, without duplication. Wikiversity is a collection of learning projects with subpages for each, allowing different courses and authors to present their own perspectives. Many users may want to create content about LGBT rights. Having these essays in a People's Agenda learning project allows you to present your ideas without disruption from or disruption to others. The other approach would be to create a learning project on LGBT rights, but then the essay would be one of a number of subpages of different essays on the subject.
Research should ultimately be supported by peer review. Essays provide a personal perspective. Whether either label or both is more appropriate depends on who's complaining about the content. In this case, ljon complained about it being an essay, so I thought labeling it as an essay rather than as research might help future readers. It also states in the introduction that it is an essay, so it is probably better labeled as an essay rather than as research, but both tags could be applied if you prefer.
Wikiversity exists to support free learning materials and activities. That includes research. What you have created is appropriate for Wikiversity, but it isn't currently designed for collaboration. Winning the War on Terror is informative, but does not appear to be participatory in nature. It's a wall of text too long to provide an easy entry point for engagement. When you are ready for others to participate, you might consider breaking it down into subpages and providing ways for others to engage. For example, Terrorism is minuscule as a cause of death could be a subpage with background information and then instructions on how users might do their own research into this subject to extend the discussion. But that would be a different approach than the content you have. You would need to decide whether your goal is to inform or to provide an environment where others learn with you.
Dave Braunschweig (discusscontribs) 16:08, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Winning the War on Terror: Announce on main page news?[edit]

Hi DavidMCEddy!

Your essay Winning the War on Terror appears well-developed and ready for learners! Would you like to have it announced on our Main Page News? --Marshallsumter (discusscontribs) 18:31, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, I'd love to have the additional exposure.
I have one question in that regard: In the immediately preceding section, "Winning the War on Terror: Essay or research?", user:Dave Braunschweig suggests ways this could be reorganized to make it more inviting for others to contribute.
What might be appropriate to do in that regard? In the announcement invite others to review it from that perspective? Or just note that it's available and leave it at that?
Unfortunately, I have very little time to even think about that until after wm2017:Wikimania2017, August 9-13. I've proposed a "Birds of a feather" session for that conference on ""Building Wikinews into the premier news site worldwide".
In that regard, I've been developing a proposal for "Everyone's Favorite News Site" under n:Wikinews:Water cooler/policy. Do you think it might make sense to move (or copy) that discussion into Wikiversity, where the ideas could be developed more in the format of a proposal with notes at the end? The software settings under n:Wikinews:Water cooler/policy make it seem difficult or inappropriate to include references in a sensible way: It's more like a "user talk" page, where notes appear at the end, separated from the text to which they belong, possibly by completely unrelated material.
I'm also considering a similar use of Wikiversity to develop a proposal for something completely different: The recent useR!2017 conference in Brussels included a session soliciting input on how to make the R (programming language) easier to use.
What do you think about posting an article to Wikiversity that would, if we do it right, would evolve into a proposal for work in that area that might be funded by some granting agency like the R Foundation? DavidMCEddy (discusscontribs) 21:52, 9 July 2017 (UTC)






Sure. That would be great