User talk:Perspectoff - Revision history

Perspectoff at 19:12, 4 February 2010

2010-02-04T19:12:03Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:12, 4 February 2010
Line 15:		Line 15:

	Talk talk...		Talk talk...
	it's only talk		it's only talk.

	Debates, Discussions, (these are words with a D this time), Dialogue, Dualogue, Diatribe, Dissension, Declamation, Double talk... double talk!		Debates, Discussions, (these are words with a D this time), Dialogue, Dualogue, Diatribe, Dissension, Declamation, Double talk... double talk!

	Talk talk... it's all talk.		Talk talk... it's all talk.

	Too much talk, Small talk, Talk that trash.		Too much talk, Small talk, Talk that trash.

	Expressions, Editorials, Explanations, Exclamations, Encapsulations...		Expressions, Editorials, Explanations, Exclamations, Encapsulations...
	it's all talk.		it's all talk.

	Elephant talk... Elephant talk... Elephant talk!		Elephant talk... Elephant talk... Elephant talk!

	(King Crimson lyrics, by Adrian Belew)		(King Crimson lyrics, by Adrian Belew)

Perspectoff at 19:11, 4 February 2010

2010-02-04T19:11:18Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:11, 4 February 2010
Line 10:		Line 10:
	Back talk!		Back talk!

	~~Talk talk talk... It's only talk.~~
	Comments, Cliches, Commentary, Controversy, Chatter, Chit-chat... chit-chat... chit-chat, Conversation, Contradiction, Criticism...		Comments, Cliches, Commentary, Controversy, Chatter, Chit-chat... chit-chat... chit-chat, Conversation, Contradiction, Criticism...
	It's only talk.		it's only talk.
	Cheap talk!		Cheap talk!

	Talk talk...		Talk talk...
	It's only talk		it's only talk
	Debates		Debates, Discussions, (these are words with a D this time), Dialogue, Dualogue, Diatribe, Dissension, Declamation, Double talk... double talk!
	Discussions
	~~These~~ are words with a D this time
	Dialogue
	Dualogue
	Diatribe

	~~Dissention~~		Talk talk... it's all talk.
	~~Declamation~~		Too much talk, Small talk, Talk that trash.
	~~Double~~ talk
	~~Double~~ talk

	~~Talk~~		Expressions, Editorials, Explanations, Exclamations, Encapsulations...
	~~Talk~~		it's all talk.
	~~It's all talk~~		Elephant talk... Elephant talk... Elephant talk!
	~~Too much talk~~
	~~Small talk~~		(King Crimson lyrics, by Adrian Belew)
	~~Talk that trash~~
	Expressions
	Editorials
	~~Expugnations~~
	Exclamations
	~~Enfadulations~~
	It's all talk
	Elephant talk
	Elephant talk
	Elephant talk

Perspectoff at 19:06, 4 February 2010

2010-02-04T19:06:04Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:06, 4 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Talk... It's only talk.		Talk... it's only talk.

	Arguments, Agreements, Advice, Answers, Articulate announcements...		Arguments, Agreements, Advice, Answers, Articulate announcements...
	It's only talk.		it's only talk.

			Talk... it's only talk.

	~~Talk... It's only talk.~~
	Babble, Burble, Banter, Bicker... bicker... bicker, Brouhaha, Balderdash, Ballyhoo...		Babble, Burble, Banter, Bicker... bicker... bicker, Brouhaha, Balderdash, Ballyhoo...
	It's only talk.		it's only talk.
	Back talk!		Back talk!

Perspectoff at 19:05, 4 February 2010

2010-02-04T19:05:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:05, 4 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Talk... It's only talk.		Talk... It's only talk.

	Arguments, Agreements, Advice, Answers, Articulate announcements...		Arguments, Agreements, Advice, Answers, Articulate announcements...
	It's only talk.		It's only talk.

Perspectoff at 19:05, 4 February 2010

2010-02-04T19:05:07Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:05, 4 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Talk... It's only talk.		Talk... It's only talk.

	Arguments, Agreements, Advice, Answers, Articulate announcements...		Arguments, Agreements, Advice, Answers, Articulate announcements...

	It's only talk.		It's only talk.

Perspectoff at 19:04, 4 February 2010

2010-02-04T19:04:29Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 19:04, 4 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	Talk... It's only talk.		Talk... It's only talk.

	Arguments, Agreements, Advice, Answers, Articulate announcements...		Arguments, Agreements, Advice, Answers, Articulate announcements...

	It's only talk.		It's only talk.

	Talk... It's only talk		Talk... It's only talk.
	Babble, Burble, Banter, Bicker... bicker... bicker, Brouhaha, Balderdash, Ballyhoo...		Babble, Burble, Banter, Bicker... bicker... bicker, Brouhaha, Balderdash, Ballyhoo...
	It's only talk.		It's only talk.

Perspectoff at 19:04, 4 February 2010

2010-02-04T19:04:04Z

← Older revision	Revision as of 19:04, 4 February 2010
Line 1:	Line 1:
		Talk... It's only talk.
		Arguments, Agreements, Advice, Answers, Articulate announcements...
		It's only talk.

		Talk... It's only talk
		Babble, Burble, Banter, Bicker... bicker... bicker, Brouhaha, Balderdash, Ballyhoo...
		It's only talk.
		Back talk!

		Talk talk talk... It's only talk.
		Comments, Cliches, Commentary, Controversy, Chatter, Chit-chat... chit-chat... chit-chat, Conversation, Contradiction, Criticism...
		It's only talk.
		Cheap talk!

		Talk talk...
		It's only talk
		Debates
		Discussions
		These are words with a D this time
		Dialogue
		Dualogue
		Diatribe

		Dissention
		Declamation
		Double talk
		Double talk

		Talk
		Talk
		It's all talk
		Too much talk
		Small talk
		Talk that trash
		Expressions
		Editorials
		Expugnations
		Exclamations
		Enfadulations
		It's all talk
		Elephant talk
		Elephant talk
		Elephant talk

Perspectoff at 20:34, 2 February 2010

2010-02-02T20:34:30Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:34, 2 February 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	~~Hello, Perspectoff,~~

	~~What a delight to hear from you. I've been laboring over this wiki for many months, and you are the first reader to offer me response or help. It is deeply appreciated. Thanks.~~

	~~I like the additions you've made; they do clean up the place.~~

	~~Please tell me more about who you are. Have I met you? You seem knowledgeable and experienced with VistA.~~

	~~Hi, Dr. Watson.~~

	~~I have been reading Vistapedia and see that you have made a lot of contributions there.~~

	~~I run several large wikis and have been a contributor to Wikipedia for many years.~~

	~~May I make some suggestions about editing a wiki:~~

	* Don't add your signature within the wiki for every contribution you make. It is considered egotistical and adds nothing to the info. That's what the Talk pages are for.
	~~Yes but it got you to comment!~~

	* Be concise. The tendency for many wiki contributors is to write entries exactly as they speak, in a folksy conversational tone. That is ok for private blogs, but not for wikis where readers need to sort through a morass of information quickly.

	* Don't leave blank links or create blank pages with the intent of having other users filling them in. If you don't have information to add, don't create the page or link. A sea of red (i.e. empty pages/links) makes for a very poor wiki.
	~~Agreed. This has been my biggest dilemma.~~
	* Be responsible for your content. Don't expect other users to correct your mistakes. If they do, great. But don't start a page and expect others to figure out how to get out of the mess you've gotten into. That's what sandboxes (test pages) are for.
	~~Contributors over the years have used the wiki as a personal sandbox, but this is very disappointing to the reader. As the informal editor, what can I do to correct the mess?~~
	* Always use in-line links. Never spell out links. It makes the page cluttered.
	~~What is an in-line vs spelled-out link?~~

	* Be sure grammar and spelling is accurate. Don't use run-on sentences, incomplete phrases, or "texting" abbreviations. The audience will vary between newcomers and experts, and abbreviations are often idiosyncratic. Storage space in a wiki is cheap -- spell out your words.
	~~Agreed. I have a sensitive eye for misspellings, and find them intolerable.~~

	* Don't use "I" or "you," especially "you should." It is pedantic and preachy and is a sin that exists uniquely in American speech patterns. Be cognizant that your method works for you and is primarily a suggestion; someone else may have found a better method. Conversely, don't be self-deprecating ("this works for me"). Just put down the advice without qualifiers and let other contributors edit it as necessary. Wikis are not like the US Congress (where posturing trumps results and very little of substance gets done).
	~~Agreed, and guilty.~~

	* Don't use trite phrases ("an overview of complexities and 'gotchas'") or odd analogies ("However, in true military fashion, you will be dealing with "live ammunition", and you can blow your legs off in an instant"). That is fine for discussions over beer but has no place in a professional document.
	~~I thought it a great analogy.~~

	This advice is given to all new Wikipedia contributors and was given to me (in many tones) when I began to contribute there. VistA (WorldVistA and OpenVistA) are booming, right now, but documentation for them (including Vistapedia) is haphazard at best.
	~~I'm hoping to see that change.~~

	~~Vistapedia can serve an important function for a somewhat desperate clientele, but only if it is well-written. I look forward to seeing your continued contributions there. Cheers.~~

	~~Thanks again for your editing. You have spent a great deal of time, I see. Again, I like your style. Are you British, by any chance?~~

Ssw0213 at 06:05, 2 February 2010

2010-02-02T06:05:33Z

New page

Hello, Perspectoff,

What a delight to hear from you. I've been laboring over this wiki for many months, and you are the first reader to offer me response or help. It is deeply appreciated. Thanks.

I like the additions you've made; they do clean up the place.

Please tell me more about who you are. Have I met you? You seem knowledgeable and experienced with VistA.

Hi, Dr. Watson.

I have been reading Vistapedia and see that you have made a lot of contributions there.

I run several large wikis and have been a contributor to Wikipedia for many years.

May I make some suggestions about editing a wiki:

* Don't add your signature within the wiki for every contribution you make. It is considered egotistical and adds nothing to the info. That's what the Talk pages are for.
Yes but it got you to comment!

* Be concise. The tendency for many wiki contributors is to write entries exactly as they speak, in a folksy conversational tone. That is ok for private blogs, but not for wikis where readers need to sort through a morass of information quickly.

* Don't leave blank links or create blank pages with the intent of having other users filling them in. If you don't have information to add, don't create the page or link. A sea of red (i.e. empty pages/links) makes for a very poor wiki.
Agreed. This has been my biggest dilemma.
* Be responsible for your content. Don't expect other users to correct your mistakes. If they do, great. But don't start a page and expect others to figure out how to get out of the mess you've gotten into. That's what sandboxes (test pages) are for.
Contributors over the years have used the wiki as a personal sandbox, but this is very disappointing to the reader. As the informal editor, what can I do to correct the mess?
* Always use in-line links. Never spell out links. It makes the page cluttered.
What is an in-line vs spelled-out link?

* Be sure grammar and spelling is accurate. Don't use run-on sentences, incomplete phrases, or "texting" abbreviations. The audience will vary between newcomers and experts, and abbreviations are often idiosyncratic. Storage space in a wiki is cheap -- spell out your words.
Agreed. I have a sensitive eye for misspellings, and find them intolerable.

* Don't use "I" or "you," especially "you should." It is pedantic and preachy and is a sin that exists uniquely in American speech patterns. Be cognizant that your method works for you and is primarily a suggestion; someone else may have found a better method. Conversely, don't be self-deprecating ("this works for me"). Just put down the advice without qualifiers and let other contributors edit it as necessary. Wikis are not like the US Congress (where posturing trumps results and very little of substance gets done).
Agreed, and guilty.

* Don't use trite phrases ("an overview of complexities and 'gotchas'") or odd analogies ("However, in true military fashion, you will be dealing with "live ammunition", and you can blow your legs off in an instant"). That is fine for discussions over beer but has no place in a professional document.
I thought it a great analogy.

This advice is given to all new Wikipedia contributors and was given to me (in many tones) when I began to contribute there. VistA (WorldVistA and OpenVistA) are booming, right now, but documentation for them (including Vistapedia) is haphazard at best.
I'm hoping to see that change.

Vistapedia can serve an important function for a somewhat desperate clientele, but only if it is well-written. I look forward to seeing your continued contributions there. Cheers.

Thanks again for your editing. You have spent a great deal of time, I see. Again, I like your style. Are you British, by any chance?