User talk:Design methods

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.

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

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:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

]

Design methods

I read your comment on the deletion page for

'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)[reply]

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))[reply]

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

. 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:

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

]

• 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))[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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))[reply]

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))[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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))[reply]

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)[reply]

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))[reply]

As others said before me, please use an

]

• 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))[reply]

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,

]

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.

]

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 {{

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 "

]

• 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))[reply]

• • Then please re-upload the image with the proper permission license given by the copyright holder.
    T/C) 17:59, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]