User talk:Nick Stavros

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Welcome!

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. The following links will help you begin editing on Wikipedia:

Please bear these points in mind while editing Wikipedia

The Wikipedia tutorial is a good place to start learning about Wikipedia. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and discussion pages using four tildes, like this: ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). Again, welcome!

Enterprise Ontology[edit]

This is an automated message from MadmanBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Enterprise Ontology, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/enterprise/enterprise/ontology.html.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) MadmanBot (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Renaming of the series of IDEF articles[edit]

Hi Nick, I don't agree with your renaming the series of IDEF articles, as a commented here. I would like you to comment on my proposal to move those articles back to their original title. -- Mdd (talk) 13:40, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi Nick, thanks for your response here: [1], [2], [3]. Next time please don't use heading (see here) in your comment, because they are only used here on talk pages if you want to start a new discussion. Not to highlight aspects of your comment. -- Mdd (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi Nick, please don't put your own user page in the main Wikipedia category tree, like you did here. You could add your user page in any subcategory of Category:Wikipedians. -- Mdd (talk) 00:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Not sure I understand. I noticed that the links to my name were red, so I followed the link and added content. Is this just associated my page with one of the categories, or do I need to delete it and re-add it somewhere else?
We are talking about two different kinds of pages here:
  1. Wikipedia articles about persons, which are categorized in the normal categories, and
  2. User page about persons, who contribute to Wikipedia, which are not categorized in the regular Wikipedia categories. They can be list in any subcategory of Category:Wikipedians.
It was in fact the link to your user name, which was red. You followed the link and ended up on your user page. -- Mdd (talk) 01:42, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I added my self to several categories.
That is correct. Please try to sign your comment with 4 tildes ~~~~ (the software will replace them with your signature and the date). -- Mdd (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Data distribution service[edit]

Hi Nick. It seems we have similar background and interests on Wikipedia, and I am trying to assist you on getting started on Wikipedia (although it might not look that way). Unfortunately you seem to run into several difficulties already, which made me watch you recent edits some more. I noticed in the Data distribution service article you added a big section (see here), which contained various text blocks copy-pasted from one or more external sources. Even if you add the source, this is not allowed here. For now I have removed the whole section. If you want to add it back, please leave the copy-pasted text out, or rewrite it in your own words. -- Mdd (talk) 02:10, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nick Stavros (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC) First, thanks for the help, its harder now than it used to be.
Nick Stavros (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I am trying to provide a short, succinct, accurate list the DDS standards that are available from OMG and to provide some description about what these standards are. Unfornutately, when you deleted the t"copied descriptive teext, you also deleted all the titles and the references. Long ago in a mediawiki I used, there was something called a longquote which allows blocks of text to be copied like the descriptions of the standards as long as they are properly attributed. Longquotes are generally indented an italics with the reference immediately after them. should I be using the quotation macro described in Block quotation ? It seems like a waste to have to take the text and "re-write" in my own words when these are the words from the authors to describe their work. As one of the authors of many of these standards, it gets tricky to "reword" them. I have spent hours in meetings discussing a comma. The original (c) on the documents allows for re-use. IEEE is a different matter. That's why I no longer participate in IEEE, their copyrights are outrageous, even back to the original authors. We all know that wikipedia is not an authoritative source, but we all know its one of the first places we turn to for information and to start a research quest. How do we at OMG work with Wikipedia on that? I also work with OpenGroup and OASIS who have very similar views on content that OMG does. If you write a standard and people can't find out about it, why bother. We have companies that have spent millions helping us get the standards out the door. They would like to have a page in wikipedia that 1) describes what the standard is about 2) educates people in how to use the standards 3) allows semantic interconnections between topics that only wikipedia can provide.
Nick Stavros (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC) The other stuff that you removed, I only added bolding to, this was there before. From a readability point of view, it helped the authors see the element names. Again, most of this is out of the OMG Specs. Can I get some sort of waiver form that allows the OMG to approve the re-use of the text? After all, people look for things in wikipedia, if its small amount of text and properly attributed it still drives people back to the original source. There is not enough here to do anything with other than to start a research quest.
Nick Stavros (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Here is another issue that I see might be causing some problems. Does the plagiarism checker look at the dates? This can become a chicken and an egg situation. You can't put something into wikipedia if it has no references, but you can't re-use information you created somewhere else. If I first put it into wikipedia and then re-use it in something else, does the original stuff in wikipedia get flagged?

Hi Nick, you indeed have a lot of (new) questions but I already answered the most important here: If you want to add it back, please leave the copy-pasted text out, or rewrite it in your own words. Please read Wikipedia:Copy-paste. Now I am aware that I also removed parts, which were not copyrighted. Normally in a matter like this we have to report on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, and they will take it from there. Now I took a shortcut, removing the whole section (which is actually not ok because formally the history of the article should be adapted as well). Next time I will file a report and you can get a FORMAL WARNING that if you add text that is a copyright violation your account will be blocked. Trust me, you don't want to go that way.

Now you are considering different ways around this, and there are restricted options. But the easiest solution here is to write as much as possible in your own words. Especially in a listing (of the "Family of Specifications") we normal don't use quoted text, and I think you should try to avoid it as well. I might get back on some other things you mentioned, but for now please keep this in mind. -- Mdd (talk) 16:18, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Categorization[edit]

I also trimmed (see here) the listing of categories you added (see here). We don't add as much categories to an article as possible. And especially not the more general categories like Category:Standards. Now I could be wrong about some of them. But I just noticed you also started a new Category:Open Community Source, which is also not how it should be done -- Mdd (talk) 02:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nick Stavros (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Any guidelines for selecting categories. I have noticed some paged with lots of categories ... notice IBM ... its a big company so you would expect lots of categories. DDS is a standard and when I looked at the other items under standards such as ARINC, EnergyML, etc, it seems to make sense to me. Semantically, when someone goes to the page they should see a list of all the pages that have been semantically tagged as standards.
But I just noticed you also started a new Category:Open Community Source, which is also not how it should be done -- Mdd
Nick Stavros (talk) 06:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC) What are the requirements for adding a new category? Open Community Source is a new concept and a company called RTI is one of the first to start using it. It is different from Open Source. In the US Navy, we are very interested in this and would like to know if other things can be classified in a similar way. I could write up some original text describing it and even provide some references for it and place it at the beginning of the page.
Nick Stavros (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Perhaps we should think about creating a standards template.
Nick Stavros (talk) 17:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Thanks for working with me on this. I still think the quotation template should get around these problems. I rewrote the descriptive text for each standard and re-added the family of specs. I think should now pass the cut and paste problem. Perhaps a template that requires two things, the quoted text and a ref attribution. The quotation template could also limit the number of characters in the quotation. If I write one of these in my own mediawiki, how do I share it back to the community for adoption.
72.197.239.41 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2013 (UTC)I must of missed something. Is there a Talk page that I missed an entry for?

Nick, you thank me for working with you on this. But are you also prepared to work with me? If so I want you to reconsider your vote here. There is a list of things I will alter in your contributions, and I can do it with or without you. I will explain every step I make, and you will learn how it's done one way or an other. Next I find it very interesting that you started a draft on Enterprise ontology including the work of Jan Dietz, with whom I have been in close contact (for my PhD research). So there are tons of things we can do here together, but there must be a basic kind of trust. I want you to trust me that I think it is for the best to change those articles back to there previous state, and take it from there. I like to get things clear here, and I would like to know where you stand? -- Mdd (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Nick Stavros (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC) I'm definitely not trying to fight you on this, just trying to get the quality of the information in wikipedia better. There are a lot of things that I would like to add from the OMG,it looks like I will be mad one of the Ontology co-chairs at OMG. However, I work on many of the OMG specs (all those listed under DDS, as well as systems assurance and business modeling. So, yes please, help guide me through this so that I can become a better contributor. You noticed that I did go back and rewrite each of the descriptions for each of the standards. One of my frustrations is that there is information in wikipedia that is incorrect or outdated. I go to meetings and people recite back to me information that the "know" ... which is incorrect. They won't publicly say the got the information from wikipedia, but ... so, please make the changes, and then we can have discussions if I have questions
Nick Stavros (talk) 19:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)Oncategories, I was trying to learn by example ... that might not be such a good example since there are some sites that are "bad examples" and some that are "good examples". Looks like I picked a "bad example" (AMQP to emulate.
Nick, I don´t ask you to change your vote, but I do ask you to keep participating in the discussion. -- Mdd (talk) 22:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Nick Stavros (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC) I'm sorry, did I miss an entry on a talk page? I have been so busy with other things, that is entirely possible. I did as you suggested and rewrote the "copied text" on the Data Distribution Service. I think that I made the changes just at the time you were making the suggestion, so I thought you had seen it. I have some poor sentences and I plan on fixing them soon. The DDS community is reviewing the changes I made and I asked them to make comments on the talk pages, but I haven't seen any posting yet. Main thing they would like is to separate the standards in the family of standards into "Approved" and "Emerging" all those that have "beta" in the links are "Emerging".
Nick Stavros (talk) 01:33, 31 January 2013 (UTC) What do you think of having a "Standards" temple"? We could have an "Infobox" that has things like Standards body, latest version, date, number and summary text. The Template could actually added the standard to a template of our choice as well as to the standards body category. That way, when you would go to a standards body category, you could see all the wikipedia entries for the standard body and see all the standards. If you think it is worth while, I could build it on my own mediawiki first and then share it.

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

AFC-Logo Decline.svg
Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.

File:Notional OMG DDS Interoperability.jpg missing description details[edit]

Dear uploader: The media file you uploaded as:

is missing a description and/or other details on its image description page. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the image, and it will be more informative to readers.

If the information is not provided, the image may eventually be proposed for deletion, a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Theo's Little Bot (error?) 10:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Enterprise Ontology concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Enterprise Ontology, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 180 days. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 18:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Your draft article, Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Enterprise Ontology[edit]

Hello Nick Stavros. It has been over six months since you last edited your WP:AFC draft article submission, entitled "Enterprise Ontology".

The page will shortly be deleted. If you plan on editing the page to address the issues raised when it was declined and resubmit it, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code. Please note that Articles for Creation is not for indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you want to retrieve it, copy this code: {{subst:Refund/G13|Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Enterprise Ontology}}, paste it in the edit box at this link, click "Save", and an administrator will in most cases undelete the submission.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 22:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Category:Standards