Please contact me concerning anything to do with outlines or the Outline of knowledge WikiProject. Questions, problems, conflicts, AfD's, etc. etc. Thank you.
CatScan — powerful search using categories, included templates, etc.
Rants:
The emptiness of the term "unencyclopedic"
"Unencyclopedic" is meaningless in an argument, really. Basically it means "anything not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: "Delete, because I want it deleted". This is just repeating yourself. What we want to know are your reasons why you think something shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Simply answer the question, What's wrong with it?
Latest comment: 14 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I'm glad to see you're back. I was planning to post here in the next few days. Hope you had a good wikibreak (relaxing, aren't they!) :)
Regarding the rfc, I'm having a very slow/steady conversation with Karanacs at User talk:Karanacs#Outline bump. I'm hoping she'll reply to my last lengthy post there soon. I'd really like to disentangle the 2 issues (outlines, navigational pages) before we progress any further with actually drafting the rfc(s). I suggest/counsel patience with that part. (She's busy with arbcom cases currently).
Have a good 'un. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
Wikibreak? What the hell is that? I'm busier than ever! I've switched over to designing software features to support outlines, most of the communications for which is handled via email. It would be nice if outline articles were still here when the program development is completed.
I estimate that the software will increase outline editing productivity by a factor of 5. That is, one editor should be able to easily produce 5 times as much outline output than he or she could do previously in the same amount of time without the software solutions.
I'm not sure if I'll even work on outlines again until the software features are ready to apply upon them. We're looking at 9 months, maybe more (I'm learning programming from scratch), before we have something rudimentary to apply, while a full-blown implementation of the design concept will take years.
I would suggest that you need to include a specific date or diff (probably not both), for GFDL satisfaction. More replies at my talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Verbal is not an admin. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia talk:Outlines#Fixing accreditation has an up-to-date list and some workflow advice. It took me 90 minutes to fix A-C the other day. We'd really appreciate it if you could assist with this. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi. Whilst you're updating country outlines, perhaps you could also help out with fixing their accreditations? List (C-Z still to go) and instructions at Wikipedia talk:Outlines#Fixing accreditation. Thanks! -- Quiddity (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Not sure what to do with User:SMcCandlish/Coaching now that I'm actually in a position to do admin duties regularly and thus interested in doing an RfA. My coaching page has you mentioning assignments at a backlink, but not link seems to be there, and all the coaching related stuff seems to be different these days, so I'm not entire sure what the next step is. :-) I have 4+ years under my belt as an editor across all the namespaces, but I figure anyone can still learn from another's tips and tricks. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 10:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I thought you'd be interested since it revives
this discussion we had in July at Wikipedia Talk:Content forking. (I don't suggest you spend too much time re-reading the old thread, since I've clarified and re-stated the issues in the meantime.)
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi
Long time no talk ! Anyway I have just been looking at the Cyprus outline and see there are lots of red links and missing bits - without getting too far into debate at this point I wondered if any plans were in your head for going over the article or if I am free to go ahead and edit it - I will of course ref the guidelines etc and would be grateful if there was anything i should know about the article before I go ahead.
Chaosdruid (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
What's going on? The list was kept at the AfD above, but you seem to be recreating/duplicating it at Outline of geography. (?!!) 8) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
Nope. It's an outline, not a "basic list". The new article matches the structure used in Outline of cell biology and Outline of Buddhism, and is being designed for the Outline of Knowledge. Better to make a new article than try to convert the list to an OOK outline. The Transhumanist 22:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
A few of them are misnamed due the disagreement and pagemovewar, but they're still part of the set of "outlines". Please, please, elucidate/explain what in the heck you're trying to achieve by forking the LOBT/OOK for geography. Is this meant to be another navigational structure, somewhere in between an LOBT/OOK and a glossary? What is wrong with adding these annotations to List of basic geography topics? -- Quiddity (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's a distinct article, which differs greatly in scope from the page you mentioned. The List of basic geography topics is limited in scope as its title indicates, and it's current title/scope is being defended by a certain editor, and attacked by another editor on the grounds that the topic isn't notable/verifiable. The outline I'm working on has a much greater scope than "basic", shall go into far more detail, and seeks to be much more comprehensive. It is being designed as an "Outline of" article specifically for the Outline of Knowledge, and contains hierarchical tree structure outline content in Wikipedia annotation style, matching the format used in Outline of cell biology and Outline of Buddhism, as opposed to being a crappy montage of footer templates and tables, which is what the "List of basic geography topics is". Also, "basic topics" is a very problematic inclusion criteria and may have notability requirements as a subject, while the only inclusion criteria of the outline I'm constructing is that a topic fall under the subject of geography, which is the focus of the article - it's not about outlines, but is an outline of the subject's content. The outline is under construction, so please reserve judgment for a week or so, to see how it turns out. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ok. I think I understand. Am happy to watch/wait patiently. :)
I'm not in agreement with your commentary on the "crappy montage of footer templates" though. They help maintain a consistent set of links across multiple articles, as at Outline of the United States and Outline of history and Outline of Asia. Though I recognize that this is debatable. (Also, the in-article templates should probably all be forced to "state=uncollapsed" so that their contents are instantly visible/useful.) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
A better way to describe the footer templates is "sloppy" or "a poor fit", as they tend to be redundant or overlap the outline's tree content, and the templates don't always fit the context of the sections they are placed in. But more importantly, footer templates of prose article links don't fit the context of outlines as well as outline links do! That's because, in outlines, links to the branches in the subject's topic tree are more appropriate, that is, links to outlines of the subtopics. And in most cases, it doesn't make sense to include a prose article link when an outline link exists for the same subtopic, because subtopic outlines include a link to their corresponding prose article right at the top in the opening sentence of the outline's lead section. By linking outlines together, you improve the browsing experience by extending the tree the user is climbing, thereby extending his or her reach. The Transhumanist 20:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Outline of geography. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Verbalchat 08:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
No, I'm constructing a new page, with a construction tag you keep ignoring. You are not practicing good wikiquette. The new page is intended to have a much wider scope and much greater level of detail than the introductory-level page you keep comparing it to, yet you keep ignoring that fact. Your reversion of the page back to a redirect is the same thing as deleting the page I've created. That's not acceptable. You are basically telling me I can't create the page without your approval. But that's not how Wikipedia operates. There is no requirement for seeking approval for a new page, and the page I'm building is not subject to speedy deletion either. Your reversions go against the spirit of Wikipedia's development philosophy. If you don't like the page, take it to AfD, which is the proper venue for discussing the existence of a page.
To develop the page further, I've moved it to project space as a draft. The Transhumanist 22:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have nominated Outline of life extension, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of life extension. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Verbalchat 20:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Please cease referring to good faith edits as vandalism. Any good faith edit with the intent of improving the encyclopedia is not vandalism - even if that edit is horribly, terribly damaging. It is very, very rare that contributiors with more than a few weeks of experience at Wikipedia is comitting vandalism. Please review WP:NOTVAND. Hipocrite (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
If you look over Verbal's edits of outlines, you'll see that they are carefully calculated. He's been assaulting outlines in every way he can think of. The Transhumanist 20:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Because he thinks that will improve the encyclopedia. That he may or may not be wrong does not make it vandalism. Stop calling it that. Did you inform him about your AN (now ANI) thread? Hipocrite (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Not yet. I initially posted the message on his talk page, but he deleted it. I'll post a link for him now. Thanks for the heads up. The Transhumanist 21:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
I completely agree with Hipocrite that using the word "vandalism" for these issues is using fighting words, and will not result in positive outcomes. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi.
You say here that you're looking for a graphic designer. I'm not totally familiar with what you're looking for but am well qualified technically and looking to learn as much as a can about wikipedia (as a budding transhumanist). My capabilities and portfolio can be found here at the bottom of the section.
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Our current logo.
Hello, The Transhumanist! Just reminding you that you are listed as a member of the Random Picture of the Day! It would be great if you could add a picture or too! Put the template on your user page with {{User:Presidentman/potd/template}}, and encourage other users to add pictures. You can also put our userbox on your userpage using: {{User:Presidentman/Ubx/RPOTD}}. Hopefully you'll help out! Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC) - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, I saw your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject Demographics and thought you may be able to help. I've been taking a class on sociology latley, and that sparked my interest in exploring the demographics of the United States Marine Corps. However, I'm not really sure where to go as a starting point... as in, what is demographically relevant? Gender, race/ethnicity, rank, occupational specialty? What should I avoid? What would be redundant to Demographics of the United States? My main reference will be the Marine Corps Almanac (the final chaper in all but the oldest three volumes)... I don't merely want to parrot statistics, but have to walk a fine line against OR and synth. Any insight you might have would be suprememly helpful. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ah, very much so. I will have to much more research on the topic, it seems. The distinction is something I'm happy to learn now, as I will be taking a statistics class next semester, so you hit two birds with one stone there! With much appreciation, I will get back with you when I have more to work with. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello,
Who is the best person to talk to regarding "Lists" and the differences compared to "Disambiguation" pages? I am trying to understand what is going on at: List of Carpenter named articles. For example: Why is duplication prohibited or frowned on here? Why are partial listings or linking to "Carpenter" in an article is bad for a "List of" page is bad? Any help is appreciated. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 14 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello The Transhumanist, AGK has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
It's been a while since I've spoken to you. Hope you're doing well, TT! Regards, AGK 21:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, people elsewhere have been complaining about it, so you're not alone. It's what firefox uses, but nobody except interface designers would notice that...! -- Quiddity (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
(talk page stalker) You have to press the magnifying glass without putting anything into the box. Bloody stupid system if you ask me but there you have it --Jubilee♫clipman 04:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi there, I noticed you've done some work on building this area Here, I'm trying to build my user page and programming is not one of my strong points. My question is, if I were to use for example this navplate Here, how do I assign the links to the appropriate icon. Do I need to build my own plate ? How is this done ? Thanx for your time and hoping for some help Mlpearcpull my chainTrib's 17:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
No programming is necessary. Just some cutting/pasting and some search/replacing. I've done the preliminaries for you to help you get started. Now you can fine tune it. Have fun. The Transhumanist 23:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thank you, what a wonderful surprise. It's like xmas ! Again thank you very much. And of course if I can ever do anything you have my number Mlpearcpull my chainTrib's 23:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thank you for the note on my talkpage. I will look into Verbal's conduct. Given my warning to you, which you reproduced on my talkpage, I can hardly avoid taking action in response to your page moves, which were an escalation of the dispute when you could have chosen to object those moves and seek to have them reverted, rather than do so yourself. I do not think that a blanket reversal of Verbal's moves shows that you "wish the move war to end" - quite the contrary. Accordingly, I have blocked you from editing Wikipedia for 48 hours. Once that block has expired, I encourage you to participate in discussion relating to the "Outlines of.." issue, but strongly suggest that you avoid future page moves (however provoked you may feel). WJBscribe(talk) 22:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
When you first reverted my redirect of Outline of rights to Rights, I posted a question for you on the talk page there. You never responded, but someone else undid your reversion soon after so I didn't much care; but if you insist on pressing this point I'd appreciate it if you would at least reply on the talk page there. As it stands, that article is little more than a duplicate of an old version of Rights, so if they are both to coexist, we need to determine what the difference between them is so they can each be tailored appropriately and not just have one be a shoddy copy of the other. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'll be working on it. The main differentiation between a hierarchical outline and a prose article is the format. Topic outlines don't have a lot of text between links as prose articles do, and provide a bird's eye view of the subject. They are much easier to read for those who prefer hierarchical outlines. The Transhumanist 23:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion
Please revert your addition (again!) of "of chocolate" and "Chocolate" all over the article. It is redundant and looks silly. It also goes against the community approved Manual of Style. Please undo, as it takes time to manually go through and fix all of those. Please don't point me to any OOK text you've written, as they don't supersede our MOS. It's hard to assume good faith when you keep doing this, but I shall and that is why I'm asking for you to undo. If you want to rearrange sections could you please discuss that on the talk page too. The page, and outlines, are not any one persons.Verbalchat 19:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
We've been over this many times. It's that way in over 500 outlines. The set of outlines is well established. You can't systematically remove the formatting distinct to outlines as you have been doing without getting consensus first. Please stop trying to convert outlines to generic list formatting. The Transhumanist 19:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Er, no sorry. You've stated that many times but the consensus is what's in WP:MOS. Also, the level of subsubsubheaders is a bit silly now. Please undo and take it to talk where we can hopefully resolve that problem (to show good faith?) Verbalchat 19:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
What's with the "Er"? Why are you acting 12 years old? The Transhumanist 19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
When someone is trying to discuss something with you in good faith, it's not a good idea to resort to insults. Please don't do it again. Verbalchat 19:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
To directly address a your numbers, 500 articles is a tiny percentage of the articles in wikipedia, and the vast majority (well over 500 by orders of magnitude) follow the WP:MOS, and for good reason. Verbalchat 19:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm referring to mass edits, including systematic conversion of articles to one's POV in the face of opposition by other editors, which is what you have been doing. MOS provides an exception clause for cases such as outlines, and that exception has been applied to the entire set of "Outline of" articles for the past few years. You can't unilaterally come by years later and sweepingly change them all without getting the approval of the community. The Transhumanist 19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
It provides no exception for outlines. The MOS has primacy. See Wikipedia:MOS#General_principles for several reasons why your small group of articles shouldn't be excepted. Verbalchat 19:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I didn't say that. There is a general exception, and it concerns headings. WP:Headings states: "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." It is the "clearer" exception that has been applied to outlines. In outlines, which can be rather hard on the eyes, using the subject in headings make the lists easier to browse through the listings. Also, because outlines are part of an overall outline, it is easy to get lost when browsing that structure, especially when comparing branches of that structure in multiple windows. The clearer headings help the reader know where he or she is in the overall structure. And you don't have the authority to unilaterally disallow an exception that has been applied to a set of pages. You need to get community consensus for that. The Transhumanist 19:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
It is only clearer on the "Substances found in", which should be reworded anyway. The rest should be reverted following the standard MOS guides, unless you have a good reason? Verbalchat 19:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I gave good reasons above. The heading convention used in outlines has been applied by many editors over a period of years. You do not have the authority to change any standard that has been adopted for a special purpose, such as outlines, without getting community consensus first. When doing so, you are in violation of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. The Transhumanist 19:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Please please please get community consensus for your outlines and for your exemption, but until then normal rules apply and you cannot force your will on the community - or your walled garden of articles. You need to follow proper process and the rules that all other editors have to follow. I'm sorry, but you are not a special case. Verbalchat 19:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
The outlines have matching custom formatting. You can't mass-change them without getting community consensus. Systematically changing pages in the face of opposition is a no-no. But you already know this. Please reread Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Thank you. The Transhumanist 19:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
The "outlines" (or lists) are not exempt from the MOS, and they are a very small number of articles with a very small number of supporters. Please bring your rules into line with those of wikipedia, and please stop your special pleading. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but the MOS has primacy and outlines are not exempt. Even common sense suggests that the "Of Chocolate" everywhere is very poor style. You know how to fix this, go do it. Verbalchat 20:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, if I'm butting in, but I watch this page, so I can't help but follow the discussion. Plus, I've made a few edits to the page recently. While I support outlines (clearly unlike Verbal), I'm surprised by how reasonable he has been (more than I remember or expected). But on the MOS Headings, I agree with Verbal. - Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Verbal and Highfields. Repeating "[Foo] of chocolate" or "[Foo] of Finland" (for example) in almost every heading, is directly counter to the intent of the MoS (WP:Headings) and the discussions about it. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I see you've been at this again at Outline of Ascension Island. Please desist or you may be topic banned from outline articles. Verbalchat 16:42, 3 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk 19:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
He's been told several times to do a proper RfC on it (at ANI and by Admins, etc), but he tried to get that deleted. Verbalchat 18:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Why don't you drop your stupid campaign instead, Verbal?Greg Bard 19:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Those three supports at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 28#Major rename proposal of certain "lists" to "outlines" really do show consensus... for not going ahead with The Transhumanist's renames. If the community supports the outline project at the proposed RfC then I will work with the project to improve outlines, but I present I see outlines as a problem (not a big one, at only 500 misnamed/duplicate lists, but a problem) that go against our MOS, common sense, and cause duplication of effort. Note that TT is banned from doing any more renames aas he proposed in that section. They are a detriment to furthering the project - as is this argument. Hence I'll stop. Save it for the RfC. Verbalchat 20:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
There are 37 supporters of the outline project, and then there is you and a few others causing us problems. Seriously, what is your problem? You don't like outlines? Don't read them.Greg Bard 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
That's an increadibly misleading oversimplification. I support outlines, and I'm one of the 37. But I definatly disagree with your statement Gregbard. Verbal has raised good points, to no productive response. That this RfC is DEFINATLY necessary. TT can't act like this. - Highfields (talk, contribs) 15:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Dear OE,
Verbal is trying to flip the article develop process around, to require consensus for creating new pages on Wikipedia. But approval (consensus) is not required to create pages on Wikipedia - never has been. That would be setting a very harmful precedent. Consensus is required to move or delete pages. That's why we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and discussion forums (like the Village Pump). With respect to outlines, Verbal avoids AfD like the plague because he knows the community will not delete them - almost every time an outline has been nominated for deletion, the decision was (usually overwhelmingly) to keep the outline.
Wikipedia is designed to grow. Having an approval process for new pages would be an unnecessary and damaging bottleneck that would really slow things down. It was tried with portals, and that approval department was eliminated by the community.
Generally, if editors want a page or set of pages deleted or moved, the burden is upon them to propose that to the community. So far, Verbal has not done that. Instead, he demands that we achieve consensus for their existence, but Wikipedia isn't designed that way.
It is somewhat counterintuitive, and in violation of WP:POINT that editors who do not want pages moved or deleted be the ones to propose that such be done. That is the course of action that Verbal has been pressuring outline supporters into - to write an RfC proposing that outlines be moved.
But an RfC is a bloody waste of time if you ask me, since consensus is unlikely to be achieved to move them to another namespace - that would have almost the same effect as deleting them, and the community doesn't want them deleted. We've seen their responses enough times at AfD to know this.
I think you're exaggerating with the first two paragraphs. As for the third, I think what Verbal is saying (in part at least) is that you need to make such proposals and find consensus before executing mass moves, as you have done in the past. If a page begins as a list, you need consensus to move it to an outline. You found none (or rather, didn't bother looking for any). The RfC should hopefully ascertain whether there is really consensus. If you're so sure it'll swing in your favour, then what is your problem with it? And yes, the (now removed) reference was potentially offensive and definitely inappropriate - Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Outlines are not articles, hence you need to get approval. If you (TT) insist they are articles then they are poor duplicates of the main article. I agree with HF, and thank him for his patience. Verbalchat 21:30, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Dear TT:
Uhm okay, so.. what about that link I mentioned?
Not sure why you addressed that big long paragraph to me.. maybe you misinterpreted my intention, I was actually trying to help you.. everyone is asking for you to show consensus right? well there's a link from a community-wide forum, the Village Pump no less, which shows you officially requesting permission for the mass moves, and receiving little to no opposition from the community. Since silence implies consent, it would appear you DID actually have consensus to do the moves. So I'm not sure why you're not using that link to your advantage here. -- Ϫ 23:48, 18 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Silence only implies consent if there has been sufficient exposure to the community. One ignored post at the VP, on outline talk pages, and on his own project isn't sufficient exposure to create a whole new class of wikipedia pages, that ignore community accepted rules. When TT started his campaign he met opposition much greater than 3 people, and has been told, on ANI, to form an RfC to validate his activities. The reason TT is trying to avoid the RfC is because he believes he knows the outcome, as he rather inelegantly put it on this page diff.Verbalchat 07:52, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
"... sufficient exposure to the community" And does the Village pump not meet that criteria? If it was ignored then that does imply consent. But you can't possibly know many people read it and chose to ignore it. How can you know for sure that it was not read by many many people? You can't. I think most people don't really care either way about these outlines, because despite their inelegance ultimately they do no harm, and people do use them. And if it came down to an RfC I think the majority of users would be apathetic. But why force the issue? Is your main gripe with the outlines themselves or with Transhumanist and him supposedly not following consensus? -- Ϫ 10:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
I can't, and neither can you. That's why it isn't sufficient. What we have here and at the OOK pages and on ANI etc is not "silence". The VP does not meet that criteria, especially from the breadth of opposition shown since. This is all pointless, as the RfC has been mandated by the community. There are two problems, outlines at present are a poor fudge that could easily be achieved by improvements to the category system or some style of "what links here/relate pages" button. The second is TTs behaviour, which has improved. Verbalchat 14:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Changing the categories system is not an easy thing, as it takes programming. Getting program features added to Wikipedia is an extremely slow and tedious process. The structure of category pages is static - you can't edit the categories directly, nor add comments to listings, etc. List articles on the other hand are completely customizable, and can be tailored to fit almost any situation. The Transhumanist 19:41, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Glaciers of Saint Helena. Since you had some involvement with the Glaciers of Saint Helena redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bridgeplayer (talk) 20:10, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'd advise you not to post that message again, and to discuss how you want the wording changed cordially. Thanks, Verbalchat 18:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
I'm glad you've started editing some other articles. It might be good if you focussed some attention on fixing the huge identified problems with existing outlines, and also some attention away from lists/navigation pages entirely. If the outlines are in a better state when it comes to the RfC, it will be easier for you to argue that they should be kept. Thanks, Verbalchat 18:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I don't need to argue that they should be kept, until an WP:AfD is formed, which is unlikely.
By the way, you're misinterpretting WP:SPA. It applies to editors limited to a single article or narrow topic. The Transhumanist 18:57, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
The topic is "outlines" or "navigational pages". You fit it perfectly. Do you no longer support the RfC process?Verbalchat 19:01, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Those aren't topics any more than "prose articles" is. Which makes me no different than editors who edit only prose articles. The type of articles an editor works on is irrelevant to SPA. Like I said, you are misinterpretting SPA. The Transhumanist 19:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm afraid that wont wash with the community, arbcom, or any uninvolved admin, but feel free to push that angle if you like. It's against the spirit and letter of SPA. I've made my point and will leave it here for now. Verbalchat 19:12, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm not the one pushing an angle. I'm just being myself, specializing in an area that interests me. That isn't against the spirit of SPA anymore than someone specializing in prose articles, or a meta-editor, etc. Wikipedia supports a wide diversity of specialists.
Actually, one last thing - it would be great if you could answer the question I asked about the RfC. Your comment about AfD doesn't follow. Verbalchat 19:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
What question? I didn't notice a question mark on your comment. By the way, AfD's are relevant if deletion is an issue. "Articles for deletion" is the only place where it is decided by the community whether or not an article or articles are to be deleted or kept. The Transhumanist 19:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
Ok, as you misunderstood I'll rephrase: Will you be participating in the development and publishing of the RfC on Outlines, within a reasonable timeframe (ie soon)? You've had a year already. Verbalchat 19:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
As time and priorities permit, but in protest and under duress. I'm a volunteer, with limited time. Are you saying that I'm required to perform as you dictate in order to continue volunteering at Wikipedia? That's certainly not what I signed up for. Or are you saying that I can't volunteer to participate as I wish - that I must work on certain pages that I'd rather not volunteer my time to? That seems to go against the spirit of Wikipedia. As far as I am aware, there is no requirement to create specific pages, just as there is no requirement for getting approval for a page to be created. You seem to be pushing both of those approaches. That's very unWikipedia-like of you.
My feeling is that the burden of making move proposals is upon those who wish the pages to be moved. If someone who didn't support a particular move made the move proposal, that would violate WP:POINT.
There is no rule that I have to make a proposal to ruin something I've been working on. That's like forcing a guy to shoot himself. It doesn't seem appropriate on a volunteer endeavor like Wikipedia.
I humbly request that you stop pressuring or coercing me into editing specific pages. Please leave me alone.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Under the edit window, in the edittools box, the first item in an ndash, the second item is an mdash. (m being twice the width of n :) -- Quiddity (talk) 02:29, 18 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
{{unblock-auto|1=206.188.50.1|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Analgape". The reason given for Analgape's block is: "obscene username".|3=Soap|4=2043350}}
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
I apologize for the distress. This could have been prevented if I had disabled "autoblock" when I made the block; however, my understanding is that users who are vandalizing are usually best blocked with autoblock turned on. —Soap— 23:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
No worries. And thank you for popping by to say hi. The Transhumanist 23:37, 22 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
If you want the IP address deleted you can remove it from the page and ask an admin to revDelete the diffs that contain it. —Soap— 00:45, 23 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hey! I seem to remember you being something of a template wizard? Disregard if not. Otherwise, I was hoping you could help us out at the Signpost Newsroom. We've got a big table set up to coordinate all the stories due for the next issue, with space for a colour-coded status and notes. However, the way it's set up - which is admittedly likely outdated and inappropriate now - doesn't allow us to have [edit] links for each story's section. Do you have any suggestions on how I could restructure the templates to allow for that? If the table is empty for the start of this week's publication cycle, here's a nice full one as an example. Best, — PretzelsHii! 21:46, 31 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Wow, thanks for thorough advice! Unfortunately, that was the wrong page - I was asking about this table (not the actual stories linked from there); it's a list of all our stories with their current status, and some notes. We were hoping to find a way to include an [edit] link on each box there, and I wondered if you knew how to achieve that? So, for each coloured box, an edit link - not to edit the article page, but to edit the contents of that box. Apologies if I was unclear, and thanks for your time. — PretzelsHii! 23:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
If you take a list of terms related to a field, and dump it onto a Wikipedia page, and Wikilink each term so that the ones that are articles/redirects turn blue and the ones that aren't turn red, that doesn't make it an index of articles related to that field.
When you look at a book's index, it lists the subjects that are actually covered in that book. It doesn't just list a bunch of subjects that could be in the book, and then tell you, for half of them, that the book doesn't actually have any information about that.
I retitled the ones with tons of redlinks. I left the ones where at least the redlinks were only minimal, suggesting that perhaps some attention had been given to whether or not Wikipedia actually had articles on the listed subjects, although I'd bet a lot of money that none of them even comes close to listing all the articles that Wikipedia has on those subjects (and I have no idea why anyone thinks a list of terms is of more use than just a category). Propaniac (talk) 14:26, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
After leaving the above message here, I went ahead and raised basically the same issues at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Index#Why?, so if you have any response for me it would probably be better placed there than here. Propaniac (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I suggest changing it back to List of topics characterized as pseudoscience or renaming it Glossary of topics characterized as pseudoscience. QuackGuru (talk) 17:11, 22 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:52, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
This was the second time that you have tried to rename the same contentious article. As you should have known after your first attempt (after which you did not join the ensuing discussion) and could have imagined even before it, the current title is the result of a huge discussion among a very large number of editors. As you should really know by now, the principle of bold editing has special limits both for the case of page moves and for the case of contentious articles. HansAdler 09:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've done tens of thousands of edits, and sometimes I don't remember pages that I have changed. I didn't remember the previous rename. This one seemed like a no-brainer, since the title did not match the description in the lead section. The page includes items that are not the names of pseudoscientific fields, but which are terms within pseudoscientific areas. And on retrospect, I misnamed it, it's a structured list, which is an outline - glossaries are typically alphabetical indexes of terms with definitions. I'll put a note at the top of my talk page, which will remind me in the future of this page. Thank you for the heads up. The Transhumanist 18:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Outline of basketball. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Basketball. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Basketball - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. D•g Talk to me/What I've done 02:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Deutschgirl's talk page. Message added 02:58, 6 October 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply
The article sure makes it look evil. In the end, evolution (technological revolution?) will win out. The Transhumanist 02:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi I've made a start on Outline of motorcycling today but although I am 'autoconfirmed' I can't see how it's supposed to be hooked up to the template so please will you sort that? Also, what are your thoughts on a link at the bottom of pages featured on the Outline that direct readers back to it? Thanks Thruxton (talk) 08:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I've been putting a link under See also and adding the following to the Talk page - do you know how to make it in to a banner for the top of the talk page? Sometimes it gets a bit lost in all the discussions, so I've tried to make it stand out:
Outlines aren't "hooked up" to templates, as far as I know. Template:BLT is designed to autogenerate an outline with the subject name inserted in all the right places. It's use is moot here, since the motorcycle outline has already been created using alternative means. No worries.
A link in the see also section is fine.
I've posted on your talk page a banner template based on your notice box above.
If you have any more questions or need further assistance with this or other outlines, please do not hesitate to ask. I'll help to the best of my ability and availability.
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Thanks for the update on outlines. I have been meaning to create outlines for each branch of philosophy for some time, (one of many things I have been meaning to get to). I certainly appreciate and support your efforts, especially in the face of a hostile political environment to them. My only criticisms are A) I think there is no need to tag the talk page, as I think it may be perceived as unnecessary and obnoxious, and B) perhaps it is only necessary to have outlines for academic areas, and not every little thing. I have no intention to take any efforts to do anything about these criticisms, however I offer them as advisory. Be well, Greg Bard (talk) 23:00, 30 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Hi and thanks too, from me. Two outline related points:
Ixnay on the animated banner ad. 1) They're not meant to be used in articletalkspace, 2) they're not widely used in userspace or projectspace, because many people really dislike the idea of animated banners, on a fundamental level. Not a good idea. Let the people who like it, use it on their userpage. I strongly object to it appearing anywhere else.
In happier news, I've completed the 1st stage of the wikiproject overhaul. I simplified it, as I said I would in the last message that you recently archived, hence I assume you will be expecting something like this. I incorporated the changes that you've made over the last few hours. I have other suggestions for pages that need to be merged, but I didn't want to overwhelm. See you at the talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
OK, ixnay anime. On the rest, hooray! The Transhumanist 02:16, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion
Please stop adding outlines to see also sections of random articles. Unless there is an exceptional reason for including it, in which case you should explain in the edit summary at very least, they do not belong there. Thanks. wjematherbigissue 18:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
They aren't random, the link is to the parent topic. Thanks for the edit summary tip. I'll definitely specify. Cheers. The Transhumanist 03:25, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but an outline is never the parent topic, ever. And there does not appear to be any logic behind the (seemingly random) selection of articles you are choosing to add the link to. The only article that I can see could warrant the addition of a link to the outline is the true parent article. wjematherbigissue 18:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
An outline on the parent topic is every bit as top-level or root as the corresponding prose article. Plus, an outline is usually more comprehensive than the prose article on the same subject. If you want to find out more about the particular field a topic belongs to, such as cricket, then the relevant outline is probably the best place to go, making it an appropriate link for see also browsing. So, a link to Outline of cricket is very relevant to a topic about an aspect of cricket, such as Laws of cricket, etc., because the outline allows you to browse the entire subject, and browsing is what the see also section is for. Though the outline on cricket is new, and is still under construction, it will be comprehensive relatively soon. The Transhumanist 18:56, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Frankly. Nonsense. Outlines are not comprehensive in any way and are not designed to be being merely lists of articles, and they absolutely are not the best place to go to find out more about a subject – that would be the primary subject article (e.g. cricket). Try and inflate the importance of your pet project all you like, outlines are contents pages nothing more, and outline of cricket is a very poor one at that. Given WP:CRIC doesn't seem to have embraced the concept, I wouldn't expect it to develop into something useful any time soon.
Should the outlines ever develop into a proper fully functioning set of contents pages, I would expect the community to embrace them (which they have not done so far) and see a link to one or more outlines on most pages, but they would not be in the see also section. wjematherbigissue 19:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
You are mistaken. Outlines are more comprehensive since they contain more relevant links than the corresponding prose article, showing more of Wikipedia's coverage of the subject than the prose article does, and therefore a great place to go to find out more about a subject – the primary purpose of an outline.
If links to outlines are not in the see also section, where would they be?
By the way, as mentioned above, Outline of cricket is new (that is, in the process of being constructed), and will be fairly well developed pretty soon. ;)
Again, nonsense. A list of article titles is not a comprehensive overview of any subject. Also, your outlines are not true outlines – as I said, they are really contents pages.
There are several options (sidebar, header, footer, etc.) but that could only happen if they were a comprehensive set of outlines, which let's be honest, is never going to happen.
In any case, scattering links to a bare shell all over article space does not improve the encyclopaedia, and it looks to me like you are just trying to advertise your project, as you keep doing all over the project space. wjematherbigissue 19:22, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Your condescending tone is not becoming of you. I have not disrespected your reasons with adjectival insults, and I have answered your arguments point for point in a cordial fashion.
A list of article titles, especially one with annotative descriptions, is a comprehensive overview of a subject if the list is comprehensive. Besides, a table of contents is a topical overview of a book, it is specifically where you go to find out what the book (it's coverage) is about. In other words, it's a browsing tool, and what better place to put it than the browsing section of an article (the see also section)?
Also, the comprehensiveness of the entire set of outlines has no bearing on the relevance of a particular outline to its subject. When browsing cricket, the reader isn't interested at that moment in robotics or any of the myriad of subjects in the overall collection of outlines. The outline of cricket however is relevant.
There are more than one type of outline, and most of the outlines on Wikipedia are topic outlines (as opposed to sentence outlines) – hierarchical lists of topics – and therefore qualify as "true outlines".
And the Outline of cricket is not a bare shell. It has the basics included already, and is being further filled on an ongoing basis.
But I have no problem waiting until this outline has become refined and comprehensive. Thank you for your feedback, and the corrections you made to the outline. Cheers. The Transhumanist 19:43, 2 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Long time no see. Hope all is well. I've been away from Wikipedia for quite a while now. In case you don't have it on your watchlist, I left a note at the bottom of WT:FOOTY.
Keep on truckin'! Bobo. 00:25, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Your recent edits seem very similar to canvassing. What is the reason behind them? pablo 20:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
They explain themselves. Did you read them? They are on topic for each of the WikiProject talk pages they are posted on. This isn't canvassing, and is a common practice that is allowed under Wikipedia policy. Canvassing means soliciting people to a discussion (like AfD) to make it go your way, and is a totally different thing than participating on many talk pages. The Transhumanist 21:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
(edit conflict) Hence the use of the word 'similar'. No, I am not available to do mass-postings of these messages; It seems to be your pet project, and I neither understand nor share your enthusiasm for "Outlines". pablo 21:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC) reply was to this versionpablo 21:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
By the way, what's your favorite subject? The Transhumanist 21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I do not have a 'favourite subject'. pablo 21:33, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
OK, what subjects are you currently interested in? The Transhumanist 21:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I am interested in many, many things. Please don't leave me messages to say you have left a reply, I will be watching your page for the time being. pablo 21:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I really appreciated the reminder on Wikiproject Motorcycling that we didn't have an outline, as we've been working hard to improve articles that probably would not have got attention otherwise. Outlines can really add value by organising otherwise random articles, so please keep up the good work Thruxton (talk) 13:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi I have started the Outline of kayaking and canoeing please will you check it over and link it up to the outlines when you have a moment? (I've cross referenced it from the Outline of sports but not sure how to hook it in to the main outline menu) Thanks Thruxton (talk) 13:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your help with this Outline it is looking good now - and is a great way of re-energising the Wikiproject as people are starting to get interested again. What is your view about the need to put in line citations against each of the sentences? (I've been adding a few as I go along but it is very time consuming) Cheers :) Thruxton (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! How do I create an alphabetical indexes for my page? (User:Wikkitywack - My burgeoning pages/templates lists are getting out of control!) Ideally, I would like the sections to be organized like Category pages I think... Thanks, Wikkitywack (talk) 03:02, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
For templates, the most useful method I know of is this:
Sort them alphabetically: copy and paste them into a spreadsheet (like Excel), sort, and then copy and paste them back.
Columnize and format them like this:
{{col-begin}}
{{col-3}}
* <nowiki>{{template name and syntax goes here, curly brackets}}</nowiki>
* <nowiki>{{template name and syntax goes here, curly brackets}}</nowiki>
* <nowiki>{{template name and syntax goes here, curly brackets}}</nowiki>
{{col-3}}
* <nowiki>{{template name and syntax goes here, curly brackets}}</nowiki>
* <nowiki>{{template name and syntax goes here, curly brackets}}</nowiki>
* <nowiki>{{template name and syntax goes here, curly brackets}}</nowiki>
{{col-3}}
* <nowiki>{{template name and syntax goes here, curly brackets}}</nowiki>
* <nowiki>{{template name and syntax goes here, curly brackets}}</nowiki>
* <nowiki>{{template name and syntax goes here, curly brackets}}</nowiki>
{{col-end}}
</nowiki>
This will produce a list of wikicode ready for you to copy and paste to wherever you need it.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I managed to get Outline of canoeing and kayaking on the front page with DYK today - wonder if that's a first for an Outline? It will be interesting to see how many hits we get. Thank you for your help improving it Thruxton (talk) 18:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Just checked - it got 797 views in the short time it was on DYK Thruxton (talk)
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Basketball for a Signpost article to be published in late December. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Also, if you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:55, 29 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Special Barnstar
This award is in appreciation of the excellent work you have done supporting the development of Outlines on Wikipedia Thruxton (talk) 18:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Contents/Outlinesedit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have added a few links to one section. I'll be working on that and similar articles in the near future. Outlines have the potential to expand exponentially. ~AH1(TCU) 03:10, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
deletion of navigational aids vs. deletion of pagesedit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You asked me "if a navigation aid like a list is deleted, could it's discussion then be cited as the community's rejection of the pages it listed, and posed as the justification for their deletion?"
Lists are articles, and are deleted at AfD. If it is decided that a group of articles on a subject should be deleted, is usual to delete the articles first, and then the related templates and categories. Often articles are merged into a list, and then of course the list is not deleted, but the categories often are. It does happen, that articles are deleted without covering the matter at all anywhere., even in a list. Sometimes the articles and the list are proposed for AfD together, but I think it's clearer to make two related AfD nominations. As a general rule, an attempt to delete articles at the XfD processes except AfD is considered inappropriate, though it has been tried. One of the key objections to trying to do this is there is much greater attention to AfD than to MfD or other related processes. Another, is that it is fairly rare that all the articles on a subject are of the same degree of unimportance. But it's hard to talk abstractly--just which articles and lists are in question is the problem? DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 16 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks, Trans. I'll take a look. The outlines have been a great project, being able to impart a lot of information at a glance, and the project has stayed true to its mission as it's evolved. Mandsford 13:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You once said in a AFD: "If you are building a robot, you can start with just the left pinky." I love that. Happy New Year! Jerrydelusional ¤ kangaroo 20:34, 31 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Good to hear from you, Transhumanist; hope your holidays were enjoyable.
First of all, no, I do not know Java, though I wish I did. Category:User java lists users who have declared proficiency in Java; perhaps you can find someone there?
As far as newlines go, the ^ character is used to denote the start of a line, while the $ character denotes the end of a line. But for this to work, you MUST turn on the "MultiLine" functionality in the Find and Replace box. The functionality is denoted at this page; you can also find a more general description of these characters at this page, which is from a Regex help website. Hoping I helped, Robert Skyhawk(TCB) 18:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Article alerts service is back up and running, thanks to a new bot. I was thinking that the OOK project would benefit from this, seeing as Outlines are routinely subject to random PRODs and AfDs. Rather than relying on Watchlists, this service would allow us to quickly see articles that are nominated for deletion, among other things.
Along that line of thought, what is the best way to get a list of all Outlines? Would it be better to use transclusions of {{WikiProject Outline of knowledge}}, or a certain category? Robert Skyhawk(TCB) 18:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:Wikiportal/box-header-square. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:Wikiportal/box-header-square redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Mhiji 13:05, 4 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Wikipedia:Icons, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Icons and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:Icons during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Gnevin (talk) 18:25, 12 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
File:Wikipedia one word logo.png listed for deletionedit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Progress on the help redesign fellowship continues apace. In-person usability testing is due to start next week, watch this space for results!
A large survey about help pages was conducted. Responses are still coming in, but preliminary results are available.
A new gadget has been proposed to make it easier for new- and non-editors to leave feedback about help pages. Please test it and leave your thoughts.
In somewhat-related-project-news: the Teahouse has wrapped up its pilot phase with an extensive report. Planning and discussion is underway for phase 2.
Hello from the Help Project, and welcome to the second issue of our newsletter!
The biggest project I've been working on this month has been a large survey of users to find out what they think of our current help pages. Preliminary results from this are now available, although there are more responses trickling in from the lower edit count groups since a batch of email invitations were recently sent out. Finalised results and further analysis should be posted next week.
Any comments or suggestions for future issues are welcome at Wikipedia:Help Project/Newsletter. If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name.
Template:Section edit request has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 03:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
