Please contact me concerning anything to do with outlines or the Outline of knowledge WikiProject. Questions, problems, conflicts, AfD's, etc. etc. Thank you.
"Unencyclopedic" is an empty argument. It means "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 it should be deleted". This is just repeating yourself. What we want to know are your reasons why the article shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Simply answer the question, What guidelines does it violate, and how?
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
Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "Yinzland". The reason given for Yinzland's block is: "Extending block per discussion on ANI; final warning".
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, I know it has been Quite a while since we last spoke on the proposal for OOK. I was wondering if you were still interested in drafting a proposal, as the link for the main page is still up in my subpages. I would be glad to begin to draft a proposal or offer any other assistance I can. Please continue to keep me in the loop with this project. Thanks, Tarheel95 (talk) 15:38, 5 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Tarheel95's talk page. Message added 22:35, 5 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This looks easy enough, the only problem I'm having is with the category. The toolserver does not recognize "Outline." Any suggestions as to what I can use? Tarheel95 (talk) 16:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Tarheel95's talk page. Message added 22:46, 6 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Getting the bot to make us a page seems fairly straightforward--a form is filled out on Toolserver and the list is created/updated monthly. The form on TS asks for a "Link to discussion on project talk page discussing/announcing this request." Perhaps a simple note on the project talk would suffice? Also, I noticed that you also asked Tarheel95 to engineer such a page. It's my opinion that one of us should be working on this, or that we should be coordinating, rather than duplicating each other's efforts. In short, I think we should perhaps move the discussion regarding the "Popular pages" page to the Outlines project talk page, to facilitate coordination, despite the fact that your talk page has become somewhat of an unofficial Outlines project page. I'm just a sucker for centralized discussion. :P Robert Skyhawk(TCB) 23:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I'm trying to mark a region between two parallels. I've looked at location-map-line, but it allows only one latitude. Do you know any template which would produce two straight lines over the earth map?93.232.79.187 (talk) 16:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
What area are you trying to mark? Does it have a name? The Transhumanist 23:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
I would like to mark the area between the 37N and 37S parallel. It would show the area where sun light is enough for vitamin D during the winter months, as opposed to the inversed selection. [9]93.232.71.9 (talk) 14:31, 3 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Invitation to join the Wikipedia Ambassador Programedit
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I would like to invite you to consider joining the Wikipedia Ambassador Program, which is looking for experienced Wikipedians to be Online Ambassadors. The role of Online Ambassadors is to be mentors for students who are editing Wikipedia as part of class assignments. Please look at the Online Ambassador guidelines. I have seen how hard you've worked making the Outlines a success and the contributions you have made, so I know that you would be a great mentor and Ambassador. You can find instructions for applying at WP:ONLINE. The main things we're looking for in Online Ambassadors are the right attitude, regular activity and the ability to give practical feedback on articles. Thanks Thruxton (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
to you too. Sorry for the late reply. I only pop in sporadically these days. Thanks for your message. Glad to see you are still around. :) Tiamuttalk 19:21, 15 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, this is just to let you know that I have granted you the "autopatrolled" permission. This won't affect your editing, it just automatically marks any page you create as patrolled, benefiting new page patrollers. Please remember:
This permission does not give you any special status or authority
Submission of inappropriate material may lead to its removal
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask. Otherwise, happy editing! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Tarheel95's talk page. Message added 01:39, 20 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
My feeling on this is that you would put the link at the top of the page about the subject that's being outlined. For instance, on the article Portugal, you'd throw in a sentence at the top of the article, or underneath the picture of Portugal, with a note that said "For an overview of topics, see Outline of Portugal". I'd start with the articles about nations first, since those are less likely to have some control freak rebelling at the slightest addition. The important think is not to link an incomplete outline in this manner. That's about as much of a suggestion that I have. Thanks for asking my input. Mandsford 13:52, 20 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Stefan's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm not sure what kind of progress Tarheel has made, but so far I've put a note on Mr.Z-man's talk page asking whether there is a way to bypass the "B-Class Assessment Category" requirement. No reply so far. If there's no way to do this, my advice would be to try creating a sort of "null" category, perhaps called "B-Class Outlines", without any articles in it. It's not clear to me what that would do to any potential list that the software makes, but it might be worth a shot. Robert Skyhawk(TC) 20:04, 23 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
You once made a rewrite of the article country subdivision. Maybe you can have a look at it now, I tried to expand it. There seems to be no exact source or definition. To me it looks as if it is just a "subdivision of a country", or a country's sub-territory, sub-region, what ever. Redirecting to administrative division seems odd, since that article does only cover states, provinces, etc. but not other forms of abstract land division. Country subdivision (talk) 01:06, 30 January 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi, I see you changed that capitalization of this. That's fine, but you need to be careful not to do mass substitutions, as some of the instances of "Ancient" that you changed to "ancient" were starts of sentences and titles of references. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Was planning to go back for a read through (after some sleep), but you beat me to it. Thank you for the heads up. The Transhumanist 16:12, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sleep? You want to be a Wikipedian and still get some sleep?! Cheers, -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:19, 19 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Per wp:CANVASSING, this is a neutrally worded notice being sent, without any type of "selection" bias, to everyone that edited fairly recently the MOS page about how to term the Latter Day Saints denominations on Wikipedia in the belief that your various and collective expertise or expertises, if that's a plural, can help us improve its wording, if possible. a bit. The most pertinent section is here. And the issue is to what degree the terms "Mormon church" and "LDS church" relate to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, in specific, and to what kind of sourcing should be used to document this. Thanks, if you find time and the interest to look into the matter and offer your opinion or commentary.--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 17:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have nominated the redirect List of geniuses for deletion. Since you had some involvement with the list of geniuses redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Bwrs (talk) 03:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Would you mind if I worked on the Outline for Machines? Please see the article and discussion for Machines to get a feel whether or not you want me involved. Best regards, Prof McCarthy (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at [[User talk:Prof McCarthy (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)|User talk:Prof McCarthy (talk) 05:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)]].Reply You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I appreciate you pointing me in the direction of a formatted signature. For some reason I couldn't find any reference to how it is done in the years I have been here. Cheers. ◦◦derekbd◦◦my talk◦◦ 12:16, 4 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago9 comments2 people in discussion
Hi
Can you explain exactly what you are doing with the robotics articles please. You have really disturbed several of our most important pages.
In particular the Index of Robotics was fine as it was here, nicely sectioned, and now is a messy jumble of topics listed alphabetically. It really was fine as it was here [10].
You have removed the List of robots to the Outline of robotics and then redirected the talk page from Outline of robotics to Index of Robotics.
Please explain what you are trying to achieve, what further steps you intend to take, and which pages you have messed about with besides the ones I have found so far.
I lost signal in the midst of the work, and haven't had time to log on since. I should be able to get on at least a little each day for the foreseeable future to continue the clean up.
I've been organizing and consolidating Wikipedia's contents system's coverage of major subjects.
I missed the Talk:Outline of robotics page. It was set up that way by somebody else. Thank you for pointing that out to me. It's fixed now.
Some people find the alphabetical listings useful. As mentioned previously, many major subjects have an outline and an index. The Transhumanist 23:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
And where have our robotics project banners gone??? Chaosdruid (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Only got rid of them from the talk pages of articles that were merged/redirected. Added them to the talk pages of the outline and index. The Transhumanist 23:21, 16 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
What criteria were used to compile the index? Who compiled it? Who is expected to maintain it?
I am a little annoyed that these steps were done without any notification/consultation with the Robotics project, or it seems any of its members, and has left us with some of our most important articles changed beyond recognition without any discussion. Chaosdruid (talk) 00:23, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
There had not been significant discussion on the robotics project's talk page since March - it appeared that there were no active participants. I checked the talk pages and histories of the lists I merged, and they appeared to be abandoned. I felt that posting messages there would have been fruitless. Meanwhile, the subject's coverage in Wikipedia's contents system was lacking, so I went about improving it by developing an an index for Portal:Contents/Indexes and an outline for Portal:Contents/Outlines.
Let me correct myself, the robotics banner was on the outline talk page, and now it's on the index talk page too. Sorry 'bout the index talk page oversight.
Concerning the index, my guess is that the non-robotics topics came from the robot-related lists from which the index was initially created. I guess you could trace the non-robotics-links back to where they came from via the "What links here" list, and check for robotics "List of" links. Then the non-robotics links could be removed from those lists as well.
Who would maintain and develop the index? The same people who maintain and develop the rest of Wikipedia: the human race. The histories of other indexes indicate that sometimes they get adopted, but most are maintained by bots, the occasional casual passer-by, and binge editors who do a lot of work and then disappear.
The robotics subject is very recognizable, while being better organized and easier to navigate. Both the outline and index articles use the familiar formats standard for all outlines and indexes. They are the 2 most comprehensive pages about robotics on Wikipedia, making them excellent starting points for an overview of the subject. The Transhumanist 07:46, 17 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the replies so far and restoring the banners. I am not sure that you understand the whole implications of what I am saying.
This Index of Robotics [11] has less than two hundred links.
You added the links, yet you say "my guess is that the non-robotics topics came from the..."? You must surely know where you got the links from and what qualified them for you to include them on the page?
As you added the incorrect material I expect you to be able to explain why and attempt some sort of remedy yourself? Chaosdruid (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Some irrelevant or distantly related links were mixed in with the sets of links gathered into the index. It shouldn't take too long to weed them out. And since I compiled the index with the intent to use it as a study aid (and as a development tool to assist in topic browsing for building the outline), I'll of course pull non-robotics topics from the list as I come across them. Cheers. The Transhumanist 23:56, 18 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I realise that you may think your hard work is not appreciated, it is. The Robotics project is small in nymber and we do not often, though I would prefer it if we did, meet or cross paths excpet for smaller discussions. We have a good cross-over of work ethics and generally get on with our own things with some collusions on major topics and undertakings, one reason why you might have thought we were not around :¬)
I admired the way you handled the "Outlines of..." project you have worked so hard on, as well as your tenacity in the face of all the flak that came your way ;¬) so do not think that I am upset with you, rather that I need you to understand that having two of our most important articles changed so radically has not been without problems.
I would appreciate you weeding out, I have already alerted some of the other people in the project and we will probably start looking at it next weekend. Chaosdruid (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
As a member of WikiProject Countries, I'm seeking your opinion on a possible issue identified at List of sovereign states. If you have some spare moments, please contribute a comment at the Discussion of criteria. Best regards, Nightw 07:04, 20 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I just wanted to tell you (probably not the 1st ^^ ) that your are an incredible wikipedia member, your userpage is simply amazing and your contribution is...gigantic? huge? Incredible? not for the number edits (still high) but rather over the appropriateness of the things that you have created, especially the outline project. I wont give you another award, you already have billions, but simply a modest "Bravo!". -- Offiikart (Talk) 05:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hello, The Transhumanist. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Offiikart's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
Considering your request about the Outline of Quebec and that help you requested : yes, I am willing to do it (all) and even to create the articles currently missing in the encyclopedia. BUT, I'll do it as soon as I'm done with BF2142 vehicles section and my translation of Quebec french article. Im quite busy in real life so it'll probably take a week before I start on with this project.
We keep in touch, ^^
-- Offiikart (Talk) 22:51, 21 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
That's great! I look forward to seeing your creativity upon the page. Yes, please, definitely keep in touch. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 04:56, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Your message to the other participants is great! Thanks for giving me a copy ^^. And btw, are you from Quebec? because you seem pretty concerned by the articles on this topic -- OffiikartTalk 17:12, 24 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Danger's talk page. Message added 10:13, 28 June 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi, thanks a lot for the barnstar, you are truly a user with whom it is pleasant to interact. I greatly appreciate your help, your tips and you recognition on the work done, even if only very minimal compared to the work you have done.
I think you, more than everyone else, deserve a special recognition. Here is the first Barnstar I ever awarded :
The WikiProject Barnstar
To The Transhumanist who created the outline project and tirelessly continues to improve it. A special thanks for your help and your recognition. OffiikartTalk 13:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Thanks for checking up on me ;) I am still lurking around, but not doing any major editing these days. Somehow I lost my appetite in this project. I am sure one day it will return. I saw you working on the outlines.... for like ever now! How do you manage to stay focused and motivated? Renata (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Transhumanist, I've gotten to the state outlines for GFDL attribution repair and I'm having trouble figuring out where the lead paragraphs were copied from, or if they were copied at all. For example, Outline of Arizona: You added a lead paragraph in this edit, but that doesn't match up with the text of Arizona at that time [13]. Do you remember if you wrote the lead sections yourself or where you copied them from? (Some were clearly copied, but I'd like to be armed with knowledge about the rest before I go through the list.) --Danger (talk) 22:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
That's a big chore. I've seen you pop up from time to time in my watchlist. Good work. In answer to your question...
It looks like the first sentence was derived from the infobox, the second sentence came from the lead, and the 2nd paragraph came from the history section. The accreditation can say "GFDL accreditation: copied or derived from Arizona as of [date]" (of course, fill in the date). As far as I can remember, most of them were straight copies of the leads, some were pared down (reduced/tightented/trimmed), and a few were written from scratch to include the basic stereotype the state is known for. The idea was to include just enough information that the reader would recognize the state they were looking for. But the easiest thing to do was just start from material Wikipedia already had, and then edit it down. Unfortunately, editing is very time consuming, so we never got around to reducing very many of the leads. The Transhumanist 00:25, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Okay. That makes sense. Should have caught it myself. --Danger (talk) 00:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I'm of two minds about this, but would Outline of space exploration not be better implemented as an expanded See also in the main article? Much of the content provided is already in that one - although much better presented (especially the country table). I get what your going for though, so as I say I'm not entirely convinced. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:03, 12 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Create a gap in the outline system to build a See also section? (They aren't mutually exclusive). The goal of that network of outlines is to become a comprehensive navigation system covering the whole of human knowledge. It wouldn't be complete without space exploration. Please let the outline of space exploration grow into a mature outline (it's just a sapling knowledge tree at the moment).
WP:CLN sets forth guidelines on redundancy between navigation systems, such as categories, lists, and navigation boxes - redundancy is beneficial. The various navigation systems leapfrog each other and this is synergistically good. Though the size of their components vary, the category system, nav box system, and outline system all strive to be comprehensive.
"See also" sections on the other hand are not intended for primary navigation. They are supplemental, intended to cover what isn't already covered in the articles they are attached to, or their navigation footer boxes.
The scope of See also sections is very limited. According to WP:SEEALSO, "Links already integrated into the body of the text are generally not repeated in a See also section." This limits the use of See also sections as subject summaries, as you can't summarize what's covered in the article (the subject itself). They're a place to cover stuff briefly that you haven't gotten around to writing in the article yet.
Their scope is further limited, as WP:SEEALSO defers to navigation footer boxes, discouraging repetition in See also sections of links included in a footer box. So, as nav boxes grow, the See also section shrinks. But nav boxes, due to their intricate formatting are a real pain in the ass to develop and maintain. Per WP:CLN they are not intended as a substitution for outlines.
The above 2 issues cripple the use of See also sections for cohesive subject summarization.
In addition to these limitations, the WP:SEEALSO guideline imposes an implicit limit on the overall size of the collection of links presented. Editors following that guideline will naturally desire to keep such sections tight. Large See also sections are considered "bloated" or "link farms" and are likely to be reduced by editors familiar with the See also guideline. It's better to include links to the corresponding outline, index, and glossary, if those exist.
Outlines on the other hand, are intended to be comprehensive. A well-developed outline is generally more extensive than the corresponding article on the same subject, as outlines attempt to summarize (map out) the entire subject (and its coverage throughout Wikipedia), while each article on a major subject is just an introduction to its subject. Compare Buddhism and Outline of Buddhism.
Tacking a completed outline onto the end of an article will usually make the article too large, which will naturally invoke WP:SPLIT. The natural place to split-off and send a structured topic list to is... an outline page.
Long lists are discouraged in prose articles in WP:LIST. Prose articles serve one purpose, lists serve another. That's why we have the WP:STAND guideline. A large percentage of lists were split off from prose articles.
Outlines are a primary navigation system analogous to a table of contents. Together, outlines make up one of the main subsystems of Wikipedia's content navigation system, which is linked to from the main menu displayed on every page of Wikipedia. Outlines are an integrated browsing system.
The set of outlines covers the same material as the article namespace, but in a different format, and in different proportions. The format of outlines is hierarchical, based on the relationships between the topics listed, which allows for faster navigation through the subject. It's also a tighter format than the descriptive format used in articles, which allows wider range of topics to be covered on each page. The format is conducive to scrolling and scanning, which makes long outlines very useful for overviewing and browsing. Compare interpersonal relationship and Outline of relationships.
The Outline of space exploration is little more than a stub. It will likely grow several times its current size. It would probably be best to develop it to be as good as it can be, and then provide a link to it from all relevant articles, navigation boxes, infoboxes, etc.
I hope the above observations help. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 00:09, 13 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Dear Transhumanist, Hi. I've been working on "outline of science" for ten years, and I might put the rest of my life on it. I can't become a member of wikiproject outline for now. but I can Improve the article "outline of science". I'm bold in editing, but I thought this one is sensitive and might need someones permission. I was wondering if I could have your opinion. Would you mind answering in my talkpage or inserting a talkback template there? Thanks. --Saeed 17:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Dear Saeed,
Thank you for your message concerning the Outline of science. You are totally welcome to edit any outline you wish. We have around 500 to choose from. The outlines are list articles, and like any other article or page on Wikipedia, they are open to being editied by anyone and everyone. No permission is required. The only times that access is restricted to general editors is when something goes wrong with a page and administrators protect it according to Wikipedia:Protection policy.
Wow. sorry. I didn't know the difference between outline and overview. outlines are arranged alphabetically. overviews are arranged logically. so I should correct myself:
“
Dear Transhumanist, Hi. I've been working on "overview of science" for ten years, and I might put the rest of my life on it... I can Improve "Wikipedia's Overview" or things like that. I'm bold in editing, but I thought this one is sensitive and might need someones permission. I was wondering if I could have your opinion.
”
I should explain. wikipedia's current overview is great. but it can even be greater. For example,
here is the current order:
General reference
Culture and the arts
Geography and places
Health and fitness
History and events
Mathematics and logic
Natural and physical sciences
People and self
Philosophy and thinking
Religion and belief systems
Society and social sciences
Technology and applied sciences
here is a better order, carefully arranged (in 3 years) from prerequisite subjects to dependent ones:
General reference
Mathematics and logic
Natural and physical sciences
Geography and places
Health and fitness
People and self
Culture and the arts
Religion and belief systems
Society and social sciences
History and events
Philosophy and thinking
Technology and applied sciences
It's never perfect, but
For 10 years, I've been studying at least an hour a day to improve it.
Every step of the classification is better than before
I can bring reason for every slight arrangement that I choose. for example:
We must start with references, because a reference is what separates information from other types of text.
Math is immediately after that, because it contains coherent and formal info. not every info
Ontology, then separates real info from just coherent formal info
Physical science
Physics is the rules study of rules governing quantities. or simply, the relation between reals.
Chemistry studies the properties of this reality,
and cosmology studies the part of this reality that we are in contact with. (what's definite. not just what's possible)
Geography is a part of cosmology. (but it should be separate here).
History (time) is NOT after geography (place), because we mean History of societies.
...
Since the alphabetical order is not required here, I can also classify the arrangment of sub-contents. example: the section about technology really needs to be arranged. so, I was wondering if I could have your opinion again.
No, it appears to have been wrong from the start, and according to the list at Wikipedia:Tip of the day, it appears to be intended to be about tommorrow's featured article. Thank you for pointing out the error. Ouch, it's been in error since 2006. Here's the repaired tip:
Preview Tomorrow's Featured Article
To monitor the upcoming featured article so that you can make last minute improvements to it, place {{Wikipedia:Today's featured article/{{tomorrow|long}}}}
on your user page.
Thank you for the heads up. I didn't get to it in time for it to do anyone any good this time around. But at least it will show up correctly next year. :) The Transhumanist 00:12, 21 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks very much for fixing the problem - esp. as it wasn't one you'd created!
I've copied the revised template onto my user page, and see that it now works very well.
I'll be paying more attention to upcoming FAs, now!
Btw, did you know your Talk page has 'consideres' near the top?
I'd make other observations, but for respect for its excellent features.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on WikiProject Philosophy for an upcoming edition of The Signpost. 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, you can find the interview questions here. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. If you have any questions, you can leave a note on my talk page. Have a great day. – SMasters (talk) and Mabeenot (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
"Botswanan" is not a word. It is like "New Zealandan" or "Afghanistanian". The correct adjective is "Botswana" or "Batswana". I wondered if you had found a reputable source which repeats the error, because I have never seen one which does. --John (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
According to Webster's, it is precisely the right word, and they give examples of its use in mainstream media. See Webster's online entry. Not only that, but in its entry for "Botswana", Webster's says "'Botswana' is a common misspelling or typo for: Botswanan." Guess what? Now I get to whack you with a fish. :) The Transhumanist 20:13, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Sorry, but that tends to diminish my trust in Webster's rather than change my mind. The "mainstream media" it gives examples of are both Wikipedia, so that doesn't help us. Is that the best you could come up with? --John (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
As I thought. Our article suggests that this resource is largely drawn from web searches and user-generated sources and therefore would not qualify as a reliable source. --John (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Noted. I couldn't help but notice that one participant in that discussion pointed out that the Oxford English Dictionary includes "Botswanan". See also Exonym and endonym. "Botswanan" comes up in searches of articles in Time Magazine, US News and World Report, Newsweek, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and even National Geographic. The term definitely exists, even if it isn't the most commonly used adjectival or demonym. The Transhumanist 21:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'd think of it like virii, the cod plural of virus. I suggest adding material on the correct demonym at the Botswana article then making Botswanan a redirect. If you could find a single reputable source that states that "Botswanan" is a correct adjective (as opposed to repeating the mistake), I might change my mind. --John (talk) 00:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
From your reference to exonym and endonym, would it be fair to say you don't know that English is the official language of Botswana? --John (talk) 01:29, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
I created the Languages of Botswana page, as a redirect to the languages section of the Demographics of Botswana article, where English is listed as "official". But with 2.1% of the population as speakers, one can't reasonably be expected to consider English the native tongue — for the vast majority of the population, it is, practically speaking, a foreign language. Even if you do consider it "native", it's a local dialect, and I believe the terms exonym and endonym work in the context of dialects, as they pertain to foreign/domestic. It is primarily foreigners who use "Botswanan", making it an exonym.
I was able to access the Oxford English Dictionary through my local library account online, and it has the entry "Botswanan, n. and adj."
For the noun it says: "A native or inhabitant of the republic of Botswana, which became an independent state in 1966." It gives usage examples from N.Y. Times, Times, and Facts on File.
For the adjective it says: "Of or pertaining to Botswana. In Botswana itself the standard terms amongst residents are Motswana (and pl. Batswana) for the noun, and Tswana (q.v.) for the adjective." The examples it cites are from 1967 Britannica Bk. of Year, 1980 D. Hunt Times Yearbk., and Japan Times 21 May 1989.
For the etymolgy it says: "the place-name Botswana + -AN suffix."
I was also able to access the Britannica Public Library Edition, and a search of "Botswanan" returned 5 results from various articles in various volumes. Here are quotes from each of those sources:
From the Mogae, Festus entry in the Britannica Book of the Year 2010: "In 2009 former Botswanan president Festus Mogae continued to have an impact on politics but on a global scale as he took centre stage as a speaker or panelist at various international conferences"...
From the entry African Union in Encyclopedia Britannica: "In 1993 the OAU created a mechanism to engage in peacemaking and peacekeeping on the continent. In 1998 the OAU sponsored an international panel headed by former Botswanan president Ketumile Masire to investigate the genocide that took place in Rwanda in 1994; its report was released in 2000."
From the entry Head, Bessie Emery in Encyclopedia Britannica: "The Collector of Treasures (1977), a volume of short fiction, includes brief vignettes of traditional Botswanan village life, macabre tales of witchcraft, and passionate attacks on African male chauvinism."
From the Botswana entry from Year in Review 1998: "The spread of sexually transmitted diseases also skyrocketed; reportedly, some 30% of sexually active Botswanans aged 15-49 were infected with the HIV virus."
From the entry Commonwealth of Nations in the Britannica Book of the Year 1999: "A Commonwealth observer group led by Sir Lynden Pindling, a former prime minister of The Bahamas, went to Lesotho for the National Assembly elections on May 23. The group recorded concerns about the polling and disappointment that voting had not produced a multiparty parliament. Some proportional system of parliamentary representation was suggested. Later the government was almost overthrown. South African and Botswanan troops moved in. Serious fighting ensued, but the elected government survived."
I'm finding "Botswanan" all over the place, and it doesn't look like mere typos or word usage errors. It appears to be a common exonym. The Transhumanist 06:47, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've copied this thread to the dab-page's talk page. Please continue this discussion there. Thank you. The Transhumanist 07:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Ktr101's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
TT -
I found the problem. There is an upper right corner screen icon that controls the editor in use. I had not idea. Clicked it, and I'm back in business. Thanks for the concern. My own ignorance. ...best, JMOprof (talk) 22:19, 16 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello The Transhumanist,
I hope you're well. My name is Aaron and I'm one of the Storytellers working on the 2011 fundraiser for the Wikimedia Foundation. For this year's campaign, we're interviewing as many interesting and involved Wikipedians as we can to broaden the range of appeals we run come November. I wonder if you would want to tell me more about your experiences editing and writing here? If so, I'll ask you your personal story and I'll ask you some general questions about Wikipedia. Please let me know if you're interesting by emailing amuszalskiwikimedia.org. Thanks! Aaron (WMF) (talk) 01:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
I've been putting off updating my user page, which used to have my story. I believe that is the most appropriate place for it. I'll bump it up on my priority list and will try to complete the revamp/redesign of my userpage before November. The Transhumanist 23:29, 24 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! If possible though, I would also appreciate the opportunity to speak with you over the phone (or Skype). These interviews typically take between 30 and 75 minutes, and can be conducted whenever is most convenient for you (I still have available interview times today, as well as on Monday). Aaron (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 21 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hybrid/bastardized article/outline/list/??? about History of Potteryedit
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, The Humanist.
I am a frequent user and ocassional contributor to WP. I am now working on one of my more ambitious projects, History of Pottery, in my User:grapeguy/sandbox/. While I have worked on it for a while, it is still crude. However, I think I have it to the point where it gives a hint of where I am trying to go with it. The introduction to the beast points to one of the issues and my objective. It all started with the Pottery#History which touches on a just few aspects of the history -- and those few in varying degrees of detail. From there I found myself wandereing all over WP to get a better rundown (I was starting to learn the good, the bad and the ugly of navigating by using categories -- following relevant articles to categories to other relevant articles in other categories to other categories, etc.).
Currently there is not a good article, category, list for the topic. There are a number of articles tied together under Category:Ceramics, but that category tree does not include a great number of articles on archaeology and history which talk extensively about pottery artifacts. There are also a number of articles about pottery or ceramics that have extensive discussions about history Potter's wheel#History that I am trying to pull together for insight about the history of pottery. There are also a number of stubs and defective articles (no citations, orphans, bad redirects Pottery firing etc.) that relate to the subject that need to be corrected or expanded (I've worked to improve some of these, but that isn't one of my primary objectives at this time). There are a number of articles that are not contained in any related category or don't discuss the relevance to pottery (e.g. Bentonite, shale).
Of course, my problem is: What is this thing I am creating? I have summary text, categories, navigational templates, timelines, maps, pitures, and want to add tables showing relationships in time and geography). I happen to like this combination of approaches. How could it be better integrated into the WP scheme of things? Does it, or part of it, look like a candidate for "outline" in your project. I would appreciate any of your ideas. Grapeguy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC).Reply
Thank you for contacting me. That is a very interesting page you are creating. I had no idea Wikipedia had that much material on pottery, let alone on the history of pottery. The page most resembles an outline (short for "hierarchical outline"). We've found that navigation footers do not generally work well in outlines, because they are not in list format and don't support annotations. But sometimes you don't need annotations, such as in the species classification section of the Outline of birds. Also, paragraphs are not outline format (they're paragraph format). Your page will need some conversion, but not much, as most of it is a structured list. I will be happy to help. In case you'd like to compare your work with the work of others, here are some examples of well-structured outlines:
I hope I've been of help to you. Please keep in touch and let me know of how I may be of further assistance. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 01:29, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. Since I wrote you, I looked at WikiProject Outlines. But your comments about what I have done, what I might change, and links to models have been a big help. I like what was done with Outline of Buddhism which has more text and summarizes the content of some topics with bullet points that are not links to articles. I will look at a few more models and rework my article. I may remove some of my constraints on the content to make it more comprehensive, since I have included much of what I said I would exclude in order to give more context to what I included. Grapeguy (talk) 02:43, 29 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
well, no -- a little more labor and the bottom line:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:History_of_pottery
Sorry to be so melodramatic and bother you with it. We had a good, encouraging discussion about my outline project which led me to extract the narrative from what you saw first and expand on it, leaving the outline part as a follow on. The outcome might well be favorable. But this is a bit dispiriting. A previous article that I submitted Talk:Lilakai Julian Neil was given a little more time to decide, in my favor, when it was viewed as not notable and an orphan (which it remains, alas). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grapeguy (talk • contribs) 20:54, 10 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I have found the best way to improve Sikhism articles is use books with ISBN numbers from decent publishers. Unfortunately a lot of "Sikh" website have a lot of "junk". Examples of these are www.info-sikh.org, www.tapoban.org, www.panthic.org etc are all extremly bad websites. Good websites are www.sikhs.org, www.sikh-history.com, www.sikhphilosophy.net etc. Mainly use books. Thanks SH 09:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Offiikart's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Offiikart's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion
Hi TT. The've been some changes made recently to the topic coverage - most notably the article formerly known as James Bond film series, including renaming it to James Bond in film and elements within it reworked - plus some old content from that page has been split between 2 new pages: List of James Bond films and Motifs in the James Bond film series. They're the only changes that I can see that could alter such statistics, although I don't see why it would have that big an impact. You might want to read Talk:James Bond in film for more. Hope that helps... - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS) 22:21, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Usually, sudden increase in interest in a subject can be blamed on it being in the public eye. My first thought was that there had been a movie marathon around September 23, though I see a correlation with news on the same day that the 23rd James Bond film will begin production soon. [14]. Mandsford 23:37, 5 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Offiikart's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
After looking at this - i have no clue why the stats are so much higher now. Was the article under some sort of review?Moxy (talk) 00:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I appreciate when people ask for advice on my talk page, but alerting 50+ editors may be perceived as spamming. — Kudu~I/O~ 00:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I chose those interested in outlines, figuring they would be interested in helping to solve this difficult problem. We'll be lucky if any one of us can figure this out. ;) The Transhumanist 00:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
(answer to Moxy) The James Bond article? I don't think so, but if it was, I would expect it would affect the traffic to both itself and the outline. Why the Bond portal all of a sudden just doubled in traffic would be good to know. The Transhumanist 00:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
Google advanced search allows you to see how many websites link to a certain page. [15] September 14th was when you added the notice about the outline page being considered for deletion. [16] Ah, got it! I searched Google news for James Bond. Being mentioned in the news increases traffic to the Wikipedia, dramatically so if its Google news, Yahoo news/trending, or other well trafficked sites. Actors and musicians mentioned related to it probably had their articles increase in visits also do to coverage as well. You can use Google to search between specific time periods also, but the results are surprisingly not listed in chronological order. Compare how many hits it got each month. 7070 in the month of September [17] and only 2,940 times the month before. More news coverage, more traffic to Wikipedia. DreamFocus 00:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Tried to figure it out but cannot, I do not think it is because of the news, since the actual Bond page did not get any higher traffic, why shold the portal get more traffic. I tried to find a place that added a link to the portal on the 23:rd, but I find no good tools for that, think you need a special database query. I randomly checked links at[18] but can not find anything added on that day. --Stefantalk 06:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Did the other outline articles get more views also? Did someone mention the debate in an area that got noticed? Its not really unusual for any article to get a few dozen views some days and a hundred or so views in another day. Its not a massive jump really. The James Bond article has 5 to 10 thousand views per day recently. I don't see why the two are being compared. DreamFocus 10:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hi Transhumanist. You left a message for me regarding the Bond portal a couple of weeks ago. Sorry for the delay in replying. I have absolutely no insight into the jump in views. It looks like a few people have made some suggestions and I don't have any better ideas. Be well, --bodnotbod (talk) 08:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Sorry, I don't know why the traffic doubled. I don't normally follow traffic statistics. Perhaps you might want to post this question on the Help desk. Good luck solving the mystery. Truthanado (talk) 03:32, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I also looked into this. I did a Google search but was unable to identify a particular reason for this. I am not even sure whether the reason for this lies inside Wikipedia itself or somewhere outside Wikipedia. Without additional information I think it is nearly impossible to say something conclusive. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 07:11, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have no special interest in this but suppose that the spike might be connected with the new Johnny English movie. Warden (talk) 11:35, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
"Competition" equipment is, without further explanation, unclear. You and I know that sometimes a game clock is used and sometimes it's not, but that's not clear to the casual reader (because all chess games are, in some way, "competitive"). Perhaps "Specialized equipment" and/or further explanation, under Game clock, that this is not used in casual games?
Overall, I wonder if you want to separate out "Playing chess" from "Chess competitions" in a much stronger way - first a person just wants to play chess, then he/she may want to compete.
Also, it seems to me that historical matters could be more consolidated - "Famous games" and "Chess players" seem historical to me.
What I'm trying to get at, regarding organization, is that fourteen main sections seem to many. For example, you could put "Chess equipment", "Rules of Chess", and "Game play" under "Basics" or "Fundamentals".
Change "Competition equipment" to "Specialized equipment" - Done
Expand explanation of "Game clock" - Done
Rearrange "Rules of chess" by relevance - Done
Create and populate "Minor variants" section - Done
Divide venues into "Casual" and "Competitive" - Done
Consolidate "Famous games" into history section - Done
Further consolidate main sections - Done got it down to 10 main sections
I'm not sure about moving the people section to history, since some of those people are still alive. I'll keep it in the new location for now, to stimulate the pros and cons. In the rest of the outlines, the people section is toward the end, after organizations. The Transhumanist 21:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Interesting. I have no explanation for this. Do you suspect this is a maneuver of somebody to influence the voting from the village pump proposal to remove the outline pages? Or maybe this is a maneuver of yours to influence my vote and the vote of others? (I hope not and tend to think it isn't) -- Petru Dimitriu (talk) 12:39, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Petru, how could I possibly influence your vote, since you already voted for the outlines. I'm focused on improving outlines, and so I only contacted those who might likely be willing to help. But I do have an ulterior motive. ;) I'm also trying to recruit as much help as I can. Hopefully through more active communication, more editors will become involved with developing outlines (outlines need a lot of work). "Ask and you shall recieve." And so I'm asking for assistance. The current issue is about increasing traffic (the more traffic, the more developers, the higher the quality, the greater the attraction, the more traffic, and so on). I'd like to double, triple, or even quadruple the traffic (and thus availability) of outlines. Any ideas that you may have on how to do that would be most appreciated. If we find that a method was responsible for the doubling of the James Bond portal's traffic, that same method might be useful elsewhere, such as with outlines. If we estimate average page views per month of each outline to be 1000, then the annual page views for the whole set of outlines would be 533*1000*12 = 6,390,000 page views per year. I would not mind doubling that. Any ideas? The Transhumanist 20:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
My only thought this is that's there's been a fair amount of recent news and speculation about the next James Bond sequel. [19]. The increases in hits although alot %wise, the raw numbers are small. The recent sequel news might just be driving a few 100 more users to check out James Bond stuff.--Mike Cline (talk) 14:00, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
I agree, it probably has something to do with excitement surrounding the upcoming movie. The odd thing is that traffic to the portal went up, while the traffic to the outline stayed the same. That's the mystery. How did the announcement of the James Bond sequel cause the volume of traffic to go up on one page type and not the other? The Transhumanist 20:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
As I stated on my talk page, its not really unusual for any article to get a few dozen views some days and a hundred or so views in another day, as the outline article has. And the James Bond gets 5 to 10 thousand views on any day. Some might've seen the outline deletion debate, and looked through the list of outlines, and saw James Bond, and clicked on it, to see an example of what the squabble was about. DreamFocus 20:46, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Back in July, you kindly answered & sorted out a query I had, for which I again thank you.
Before I remove your page from my watchlist, please humour me. I feel I should elaborate on what I mentioned then:
"Btw, did you know your Talk page has 'consideres' near the top? I'd make other observations, but for respect for its excellent features.".
Well, you had every right not to ask me for my further observations, but my nature is still to make them known, and I thank you for taking time & trouble to read this unsolicited feedback. My suggestion is that:
your talk page is exceptionally good in many ways - it's very well artistically designed (to the extent that I've pinched a bit for my user page),
however, if I may be so bold, it's less user-friendly than owner-friendly. I suggest that users would like to see the TOC, without having to page down a couple of times to locate it. To me, it seems that your info. above the TOC is mainly for your own benefit. I hope I'm not being harsh. It would be better, IMHO, for that info. to reside on your user page, or at least be wrapped in a collapsed table, so that you (or they) can still access it if desired.
Apologies if I'm speaking out of turn. Best wishes nonetheless, Trafford09 (talk) 22:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Good comments. Implementation commencing:
Fix typo of "consideres" - Done
Move TOC to top - Done
Thank you for the feedback. Most appreciated. The Transhumanist 22:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Okay, I've been studying Perl, and today I finally took a crack at the script you sent me:
useLWP::Simple;$month="09";$year="2011";$lang="en";while(<>){s/ /_/g;print"$_";$page=get("http://stats.grok.se/$lang/$year$month/$_");$page=~ /has been viewed (\d+) times in/;$total+=$1;print" $total\n ";}print"\nTotal: $total";
It's a command with the syntax perl script list
You use LWP, because that's the module where "get ()" is.
The "$" lines set literal variables to the values provided.
while is a looping command, and in this case works on the default variable $_. The default here appears to be each successive entry in the list specified.
The angle brackets <> turn the script into a command that is executable from the command prompt in the same way that a Unix command is.
In the loop, you substitute all spaces for underscores, to make the entries work in URLs.
Then you print the current entry to the screen, but print; would have done the same thing.
Then you employ the bind operator to specify a pattern (regular expression) match from toolserver's output (taking the match from the content of the $page variable), for the purpose of using the automatic match variable $1. The \d matches digits and the + means one or more of them in a row.
Then you assign the matched string to $total using a cumulative numeric assignment operator. Because it's a numeric operator, Perl automatically strips out the non-numerical stuff from the string (well, not quite, the stuff on the left of the numbers is set to zero, while the stuff on the right is dropped).
Basically, you've scraped the monthly page views from toolserver's output.
Then you print that value to the screen and advance to a new line.
And the loop repeats on the next item in the list.
When the loop is done, you repeat the final total at the end.
I'm ready for my next one. Please send me another simple but useful Wikipedia-related script. The Transhumanist 01:48, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
P.S.: Thank you for the Strawberry recommendation. It works fine.
P.P.S.: is there a collection of perl scripts on Wikipedia somewhere?
Good work. The angle brackets actually take next line of input. If you ran this without the list file, the script would take input from the command line, one item at a time. The input from the angle brackets is automatically assigned to $_. (As you can see, perl does a lot of stuff automatically for us.) I'll ferret around for something tomorrow, and see what I can find.
I'm not sure if there's much simple perl floating around, perhaps we should start a library. But there are quite a few bots, Anomie's code is rather beautiful, if a little obscure. RichFarmbrough, 02:32, 9 December 2011 (UTC).Reply
In fact a little challenge:
get the stats for the previous year for one page
output the data in a format suitable for a wiki-page - using a by-month table and a year total on the right.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Offiikart's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at 7D HMS's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Thank you for your message. I am afraid I cannot reply to the question at the Village Pump as I have just discovered the discussion was closed about twenty minutes ago. The answer that started writing half an hour ago before it closed, that I would have given, is this:
The article is impenetrable because of the dense prose
The index is impenetrable because it is in alphabetical order
The category is impenetrable because it is largely in alphabetical order and is a tiresome click-fest
The portal just seems to link to the category and a few articles selected for quality rather than the importance of their subjects
"Lists of law topics" redirects to a list of lists on the outline itself which is again largely in alphabetical order
I'd like something that looks like the contents page of a book (arranged by subject) and this seems to be it. I am not convinced of the need to rename them either, since I am not sure a contents page could really be said a list and I am afraid I don't see the point.
If I do not give a reason it means that it is a snap judgement that I have made more or less on instinct and I do not expect you to accord a lot of weight to it.
I trust that you find this in order. I thought I had better answer this here as I don't want to appear to be being rude. James500 (talk) 01:49, 12 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
That makes a great deal of sense, since outlines double as a table of contents or a site map of its subject's coverage on Wikipedia, along with their primary purpose of presenting a taxonomy of subtopics that both identify those topics and show the parent/offspring relationships between them. Elucidation and navigation.
I'm happy the debate is over, because it means we can get back to building the encyclopedia. Thank you for your participation and your response.
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Original Barnstar
Your fine contributions are not overlooked. You are a quality editor, and we are so glad you are here. Thanks to the user:Transhumanist! Pinkstrawberry02™ talk 01:49, 13 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
Note to user getting this message: Please respond on Pinkstrawberry02's talk page. If for some reason you cannot, please send them a {{talkback}} and reply on your own talk page. Thanks for your understanding in this manner. See ya around the wiki!
Hello The Transhumanist! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you.
If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only.
If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it.
Please click HERE to take part.
Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback.
You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 13:33, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I have been working on Angola related articles over the last year or so, but only now discovered there exists an "Outline of Angola". Which is, of course, useful but should be announced somewhere where people interested in Angola can find it - e.g. in the Angola Project and in the article on Angola, don+t you agree? -- Aflis (talk) 14:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, Toshio Yamaguchi. I'll get rid of the banner, then. I'm not sure if there is some standard way to document this on the talk page; I have just added a new section. RockMagnetist (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Rock, thank you for taking care of that. The Transhumanist 22:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Dear Yamaguchi,
That RfC is over, and I guess I missed removing one of the banners. It was that discussion about renaming outlines that turned into a debate about deleting or keeping them. I was amazed at the level and thoughtfulness of the support outlines received, and also at the lack of reasoning that the opponents to outlines provided (their side was almost a sheer "I don't like it" vote). The archive link is Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#RfC: Elimination of outline articles, and your initial comment in that discussion was "Outlines are useful to group topics together in a way that cannot normally be achieved by categories. They are not supposed to reproduce content from articles but to structure articles thematically, which I think can be very useful if a reader wants to know more about a subject area that reader has few or no previous knowledge of."
It is very important that we learn something from these discussions, as they provide a valuable source of feedback. There is a lot of critiquing in there. For example, one of the opposers pointed out a problem with circular redirects, so I've been tracking down those links and fixing them. Another opposer mentioned excessive and arbitrary redlinks on the state outlines. Therefore, I removed almost all the redlinks from those outlines (I just got done with that yesterday). While on that chore, I found other minor problems that I fixed along the way, and did some content development as well. The state outlines are starting to look goooooood.
Another critique is that outlines are confusing to some readers. This one stumped me for awhile, and then it dawned on me that the person may have been talking about the lead sections. Many of the leads are duplicates of the leads from the corresponding articles, and so upon first glance (in which you only see the top of the page) those outlines look like copies of the articles. That can be confusing, and it may give a very bad first impression. Sometimes one's first impression sticks forever. Another critic pointed out the lead problem explicitly. This design element is a serious problem, and so I've been reformatting all of the lead sections, to differentiate outlines from the corresponding articles - the goal here is to make sure the reader sees instantly that outlines are not copies of articles but a distinct type of list article. I'm about half way through the conversions, which entail moving the introductory sentence to the top of the lead section, followed by the outline's first list entry in annotation format. Most of the ones left to do are the country outlines.
The "mish mash" and "variously structured" comments lead me to analyze the differences between outlines, and I found 4 different designs. Three aren't outlines, as they include elements that lack outline formatting. I haven't gotten around to cleaning these up yet. There are about 20 or 30 of them. Some include infoboxes and embedded navigation footers (which don't always fit the context of their placement, have abbreviated links and duplicate links, and do not support annotations). Some include run-on lists, where multiple links are provided on the same line separated by dashes, pipes, or dots. And the rest have column formatting, which tends to interfere with linear scrolling and with annotations. In a nutshell, these outlines are a horrid mess. The best example of an attrocious "outline" (because the inserts disrupt its structure) is Outline of Christianity. The biggest problem with non-outline elements, is that they tend to propogate – editors come along and follow their example and use them as models for new outlines. But they are better than nothing, because at least they provide the links. Now we need to provide the formatting.
Another thing we can learn from the discussions is what misconceptions and misassumptions people have about outlines. Then we can go about addressing those in the support pages on outlines. But I've been way too busy cleaning up outlines to work on the support pages (guidelines, WikiProject, talk pages, etc.) lately. I think it is most important right now to clean up the outlines and make sure they all match the same standards. If the outlines are excellent in every way that we can make them excellent, then more readers will find them useful, and fewer readers will be offended. I'm working on this as fast as I can, and I could use all the help I can get! (hint, hint). Sincerely, The Transhumanist 22:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
I hope to jump in soon and lend a helping hand. I just have WAAAY too much stuff on my ToDo list, which is the main reason why I haven't done much work on outlines yet (for example my NFCC work also keeps me quite busy). Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 22:59, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
I look forward to seeing your contributions. Thank you. The Transhumanist 23:02, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Wow, The Transhumanist, you are really on a mission! I'll help out when I can; but in addition to my core goals of improving articles on geophysics and magnetism, I have been heavily involved in creating the new WikiProject Bibliographies to protect another favorite target of AfD's. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
If all you can manage is to keep an eye on the Outline of geophysics and improve it as you find the time, that would be a big help. The more outline caretakers we have, the better. By the way, I love what you've done with it so far. Keep up the good work! The Transhumanist 23:15, 19 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
The Original Barnstar
Thanks so much for your work on the Outline of domestic violence, it is so much better that it's astounding how far it's come along. Thanks for making my first outline "sing"! CaroleHenson (talk) 11:11, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
You're first one? Wonderful! I can't wait to see what you come up with next. And I also look forward to seeing what you have in store for this outline. Thank you for the barnstar. It's very nice to feel appreciated. The Transhumanist 22:10, 21 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion
Hi. I'm curious. What is the status of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of astrophysics draft? Did it ever go live? What was behind the effort to propose this draft in the first place? Links to where any of this was discussed would be very helpful.
I'm also interested in the answer to the question: where on Wikipedia, or in what WikiProject, is astrophysics discussed? Cheers. N2e (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
There is no proposal process for creating pages on Wikipedia. Instant page creation (just click and create) is a core design feature of wiki software, and it is one of the reasons Wikipedia has grown so rapidly.
Instead of requiring approval for the creation of pages, we have a nomination process for the deletion of pages (WP:AfD). Easy creation, discussed deletion. Rapid growth.
The status of the page is what you see: it is a draft and it needs editors interested in working on it (hint hint wink wink). By the looks of it, it hasn't grown beyond a mere skeleton. When a page like this has "gone live" it means it was renamed/moved to article space. This one is clearly not ready to be moved into the encyclopedia proper.
To see the history of a page's development, click on "View history".
I hope you have found my answers helpful. The Transhumanist 20:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
P.S.: My guess is that you could build a useful rudimentary outline on astrophysics in a few hours. I look forward to seeing what you can create.
P.P.S: For some insight on the page-creation and outline development process see Outline of domestic violence which was created recently, and check out it's edit history, it's talk page, and the talk page of Carole Henson, its main contributor. She just created a page and started adding topics/links to it. It's easy to get started. The outline is coming along nicely.
Thanks very much for the comprehensive and helpful answer. I will check in on WikiProject Astronomy sometime. I've created a number of pages over the years, and am active in WikiProject Spaceflight, but am really quite ignorant of Astrophysics, so am probably the wrong person to drive that effort. Thanks for the encouragement however. Best. N2e (talk) 22:06, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
The right person for building an outline is someone who is interested in the subject, experienced or not. I've built over 400 outlines, on subjects I knew very little or nothing about. But, after each outline was built, I knew a whole lot more. Outlines are learning tools - that's why teachers have their students make them. The Transhumanist 22:13, 22 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well, I've not done much, but did put a little time in expanding the Astrophysics outline just a bit, including a very first draft of a concepts section. Would appreciate feedback, and ideas on how to complete a determination of when the scope of the concepts list is adequate for a WP Outline. I pretty much just used existing categories to help me make the first cut. N2e (talk) 22:58, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
A good rule of thumb is to move an outline draft to article space once it has at least good basic coverage of the subject, is broken down into major subheadings, and has at least some topics listed under each subheading. The Transhumanist 23:12, 4 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion
Hello Transhumanist. I was alerted to some page moves you've been making--such as LGBT topics and Wicca, which you had moved to "LGBT orientation and Wicca". Whether LGBT is an orientation is doubtful in the first place, but it certainly isn't a simple grammatical matter--it isn't a matter of grammar at all. (I have undone this and one other move.) I don't know if there are more articles you intend to move, but I would like to ask you to refrain pending some discussion, here or elsewhere. LadyofShalott (talk·contribs), who pointed this out to me, will come along shortly, I'm sure, to comment. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Of course it's a grammatical matter. Each title is the subject. But "topics" is synonymous with "subjects". It would be like renaming "Geography" to "Geographical subjects" or "geographical topics". "Topics" is superfluous. The Transhumanist 23:11, 29 November 2011 (UTC) \Reply
No, it is not. This is semantics at best, not grammar. Your examples also have nothing to do with grammar. Drmies (talk) 02:03, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
I stand corrected. The term I was looking for was usage. It's a word choice problem, as are the titles. :) The Transhumanist 02:19, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I was a bit bothered when I started seeing some of these in my watchlist. Unless I've missed it, there's been no discussion prior to moving all these articles. As the term LGBT combines several things, some of which are not sexual orientations at all, I don't think "LGBT orientation" is at all useful. I'm not opposed to trying to come up with something better than "LGBT topics and...", but I am sure "LGBT orientation and..." is not a good solution. LadyofShalott 15:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Please STOP moving articles around and join the discussion at WT:LGBT! LadyofShalott 23:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
But I've moved them all back to their original locations (except for one), per WP:BRD. I have turned my focus to a single article, based upon what it says, and have posted a discussion on its talk page. The Transhumanist 00:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Drmies's talk page. Message added 04:05, 30 November 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
I just wanted to let you know you got me inspired to check for counts - and compare the findings to the # of links. I was surprised that there's a nearly direct correlation between the number of links and the rate a page is viewed, I thought it would be related more to the topic. Here's the portion of my page I set up with the link you provided: User:CaroleHenson#Sites to check traffic. Thanks!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 01:58, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Almost all of the traffic to outlines is coming from within Wikipedia. I expect that as the quality of the set of outlines improves over time, and as search engines become more sophisticated, external traffic should increase too. The Transhumanist 02:16, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
I like tutorials. I wrote the tutorials on Linky and Learning the ropes. Here's a tip: select your title first, to differentiate it from existing pages; your angle.
Keep in mind that even if the material is already covered, you can always write your own tutorial, keep it in your user space, and provide a link to it on the tutorial library and on all relevant non-article pages. Putting your name in the title lets readers know it's another treatment of the subject.
I hope these tips help.
I'll comment on your deletion notice essay soon. The Transhumanist 01:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Ok, thanks! By the way, I do add user talk pages to my watch list if I've added a comment. I think we may be on very different time zones and so there may be a delay sometimes in getting back to you. This time, my computer crashed, too.--CaroleHenson (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry to hear that. I hope it isn't coming down with a cold. The Transhumanist 21:03, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Thanks, me too! It's got virus protection but is acting pretty wonky, so who knows. It crashed again today.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Thanks for the information about WP:Linky that you posted on my [page]. I frequently get an Error 403, which I thought I would fix with a registery cleaner called WiseFixer, but it seems that I still get these errors that lock me out of Wikipedia, I think mostly or nearly always when I have been using multiple tabs for Wikipedia articles in Internet Explorer.
I do have the Foxfire browser (needed for Linky) but have two questions:
Do you, by chance, know if the Linky application will solve the Error 403 issue?
From information I read on the foxfire site, it seems like another download is needed to make the Linky application compatible with Foxfire. Do you know anything about that?
I doubt you'll have the 403 problem when using Firefox.
To use Linky, all you need to do is download it with the Firefox browser. Click the download button at the linky site, and then click install, and then restart Firefox (the download will provide a link to do that). The Transhumanist 00:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I made edits to the following pages and user pages. Before I go too crazy, maybe you can check out if this is the way you'd like changes approached.
20:31, 7 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:Sara1252 (→Outline of Quebec: new section) (top)
20:30, 7 December 2011 (diff | hist) Outline of Quebec (Undid revision 464577647 by Sara1252 (talk) moving content to user's talk page with an offer to help get it into an annotation and/or article) (top)
20:26, 7 December 2011 (diff | hist) N User talk:Sara1252 (added welcome)
20:22, 7 December 2011 (diff | hist) User talk:190.234.78.206 (→Edit to Outline of geometry reverted: new section) (top)
20:20, 7 December 2011 (diff | hist) N User talk:190.234.78.206 (Welcome)
20:18, 7 December 2011 (diff | hist) Outline of geometry (Undid revision 464277431 by 190.234.78.206 (talk) Ge puta ometryh -- back to Geometry) (top)
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Who are we?, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Treating "Who are we?" as a subject, and providing a link to that subject, is very constructive. Wikipedia's coverage of that question as a subject is in a section on the Meaning of life article. Redirecting the question so it serves as a shortcut to the article on a particular American book does not represent a worldwide view and instead pushes or favors a regional or nationalistic point-of-view. The Transhumanist 01:24, 11 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Its a good idea, but your crazy to have gone back all the way to 2008 post. Good job made me laugh. LOL Moxy (talk) 06:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
What's done is done, but in future, please file a BRFA like everybody else. Running unauthorized bots with hundreds of edits floods the recent changes, watchlists (making them virtually useless) and uses precious server resources. There's a reason our bot policy exists, and this usage most certainly falls under its scope. SnowolfHow can I help? 06:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Bot, etc. In addition to this being a bot issue, edits like this might not strictly be forbidden, but are certainly discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:19, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
It's a very very very bad idea. Feel of course free to change you sig in the future, but AWB has quite specific rules about making insignificant edits. Please stop, and if you must start a request for this mass-editing job! Amalthea 22:07, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
It is not insignificant. Besides, there are only a couple hundred edits left to do, not enough to justify a bot request. If necessary, I'll do them manually. The Transhumanist 22:10, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Seriously, final request before ANI. Mass-editing of this magnitude is covered by policy, and it would be a first that the community approved of edits like this. Amalthea 22:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion
I saw you posting to RF. I do not know of any editors written in Perl, but editors that handle regular expressions (similar to those in Perl) are available (and have been since the early days of UNIX). UNIX hackers tend to use either vi or emacs (two tribes at war ;-0 ). If you are running Microsoft OS then check out Cygwin as both editors run on top of it. There are probably ports directly
to Windows (but Cygwin comes with lots of other regular expression handlers that are part of UNIX). Under Linux or Apple OS you will be able to get native compiled versions. -- PBS (talk) 06:35, 12 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
I assume that you are aware that AWB has a regular expression parser built in and there are lots of small programs lying around that interrogate the Wiki data base. But this is not an area I have looked into, so I can not give you any specific advise on using Perl to interrogate the Wiki databases. -- PBS (talk) 09:43, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Yes, I love AWB's regex support. ([A-Za-z -]+) is especially useful. Though I have not found the small programs you mentioned. The Transhumanist 18:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello,
Mind if I run something by you? I started an outline User:CaroleHenson/Outline of primitive technology because there's nothing that seems to bring together primative technology - but I may be digging too deep. I'm getting into info about different hominids use of stone tools, fire -- and am stuck at the moment because I'm not sure if it's good to delve into each hominid's use of stone tools, etc. -- or just mention when there were notable changes (such as development of a new tool set, etc.). Do you have any thoughts about that?
It's meant to also be a companion to Template:Prehistoric technology - and I'm thinking the endpoint is when the culture develops writing. Thanks much!!!--CaroleHenson (talk) 23:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Never mind, I think I've worked it out. Thanks anyhow!--CaroleHenson (talk) 17:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Transhumanist, I see you have added Television in the World list to the article Outline of television. The original article was about the technical aspects of Television. The list of countries is highly irrevelant in this respect. How about reverting the addition and creating a new article about Television in the World ? Cheers. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
I thought content relevance depended upon its being a part of the subject specified by the title. Each article's title sets the scope (and therefore the inclusion criteria) for the article. It seems natural that since the title indicates that the subject is "television", the article's scope includes the entire subject of television. Readers of the title would naturally expect to see every major aspect of television covered. What are your thoughts about the title as subject indicator? I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 20:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
You may remember that the original name of the article was not Outline of Television and it was intended to focus on technology because of a very good reason. The size of the article was about 5Kb. ( Addition of the list of countries added an extra 4kB to size) Other aspects of TV required a much bigger size. TV programs, studio design, films shown on TV , anchor people, political power, social impact, history etc, etc may end up in a big and quite unreadable mess. That’s why I propose to create separate articles for different aspects of TV. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
The subject in the original title was "television broadcasting", and the content I added belongs to that subject. The article is still far below the size usually recommended for splitting. Do not worry. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, and this article can be split as it grows. Until then, subheadings will keep the contents of the article organized and readable. Based on your desire for the original subject, I've renamed the outline to Outline of television broadcasting. The Transhumanist 21:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Seasons Greetings
Have a Merry Christmas
and a
Happy New Year
Apologies, slight technical problem in the Christmas Cheer Distribution Network Automated Felicitations System (no electricity) meant a small delay in getting my greetings out this year ... Chaosdruid (talk) 17:10, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. You have a new message at User talk:SMcCandlish#The topics lists mess's talk page. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 00:55, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
Happy new year to you, too, and I left you another short note, in case the convo needs continuance. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 01:26, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hey TH. I think your edit altered the design of my userpage. Before your adjustment to the width, the TOTD template was always positioned to the right of the Motto box and the TOC. Now it's always underneath, leaving a large whitespace gap. Any idea how to fix this? Happy new year, Ϫ 14:39, 1 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
The box adjusts to the width of whatever container or column it is in. I enclosed it in some CSS that should do the trick. Fixed the motto box too (its right border and its text were touching). The Transhumanist 20:02, 2 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I am actually very glad you asked. Philosophy, Physics, Sociology, Psychology, Political Science, History, Futurology. I myself am also very aware of Transhumanism... the merging of technology and humans to improve human's biology, esp. intelligence and the immune system. I also write poetry; I intend to learn to paint too. Knowledge in general is interesting to me, so are emotions, and my existence. Gamewizard71 (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
List/Outline/See-also-sections structure and ETCedit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This has been annoying me for a while. These 3 elements of Wikipedia are usually ordered alphabetically. They should be grouped by concept. A more useful hierarchy is in order. for example:
BTW. I plan on creating a whole course outline of chemistry. Outlines shouldnt be a combo a glossary and a list of topics. It should be an outline of the topic. I plan to create quite a few World History outlines also. (French Rev, Russian Rev, WWI, Renaissance, Enlightenment, Napoleonic Era, Industrial Rev, Etc). I also plan on creating an Algebra II outline. (Polynomial, Quadratics, and Linear Function and Equations, Complex Numbers, Matrices, Logarithms, Graphing Functions, Radical Expressions, Etc)
The question pertaining to the title of the outline. Futurology is the study of future developments. The Category isnt named Future Studies its named Futurology. So the article should be renamed... not the outline.Gamewizard71 (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. When you recently edited Outline of Bahrain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Khamis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:51, 5 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Well I have skimmed the article on AutoWikiBrowser... it's supposed to be a mass editor of some sort... there is a lot of documentation on it so i didn't really read it all... ^_^*... but i was wondering if there is a way to mass edit using "what links here" to fix renamed pages... using the "What links here" to unlink pages to that redirect. BTW the way I quickly look at outlines is by using the Category:Outlines page and just opening new tabs. I will try the Linky gadget though. Gamewizard71 (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes.
But, in outlines, you generally don't want to delink redirects. (Standardized links are used extensively in the outline generating templates). Also, in most other cases, it is usually better to update the links and "bypass" the redirects.
AWB is a advanced super-deluxe list-making/auto-page-loading/semi-auto multi-search-replacement and appender/prepender program all wrapped into one. It is one of the most powerful tools for working on Wikipedia that I know of.
There are bots that clean up double redirects, and they usually have them all cleaned up within 24 hours of their creation.
AWB includes a list maker, which automatically makes the list of pages you want it to work on. One of the many list making options is "What links here". (Stop drooling).
I think you should wait on AWB for awhile (like a couple months or so). It's a machine gun, and you have a heavy trigger finger. Admins who add AWB permission to accounts generally check each applicant's talk pages to see what kind of communications are on there. If there's a pattern of behavior that would make them nervous, they will reject the application. Such is often the case with new users's talk pages (though nothing to be ashamed of). I think you should wait until you have built-up a track record of solidly cooperative efforts. A few thousand complaint-free mass-edits without AWB would probably be sufficient. The Transhumanist 01:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I like to do things with flow... I mean I go off to other things... there is a lot of things that need to be done with wikipedia... but I like to be knowledgeable about a subject before creating an outline. I like to be in the mood. Its like my poetry. I cant write without ideas or on command. An outline of something isnt just a hierarchy list... which i will show you when I make the history outlines. It teaches. It is an outline of a subject its like a summary but divided into sections and ordered.
With the outline of painting... if you look at the essence of painting section you will see that knowledge is from an artist point of view. You cant write a cook book if you dont know how to cook.
Articles should be explained philosophically and with expertise not just cut and paste. Thats why a good journalist goes out and takes pictures not just copy ones from the internet and put them in their article. The list of types of art can be copy and pasted because there are a lot of movements, but the info describing them should be original.
The search engine outline was made because I was trying to find websites good for downloading books to continue my knowledge interest; I'm too lazy to go to a library. I noticed that digital libraries have very much to do with search engines.
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
I don't really care that much, but is removing a standard list article and keeping only an Outline article normal? Personally, I never use Outline articles, nor do I really like them, but maybe I don't know much about them. My opinion has always been that we shouldn't have duplicates (i.e., a List and an Outline and a Portal), but I know I'm in the minority there. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Per my understanding of what you wrote on my talk page, I have reverted your redirection of the List article to the Outline. That's a big move, and I'm not sure it's one the community supports. There is strong precedent for lists of this type to be under the "List of..." name, so you either need a community wide consensus that we want all of these to be called outlines, or, at a minimum, need consensus on that specific article to do the merge. I recommend starting a normal merger discussion, with tags, let the discussion run for a while, and see if there is consensus for the move. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:55, 12 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Well, it's fairly comprehensive I'd say. Is it really necessary to define all of those terms? Does a link to each respective page not suffice? It just looks a bit patronising to me... - HIGHFIELDS (TALK • CONTRIBUTIONS) 00:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
What I'd like to do is add a feature to toggle the annotations on/off. But the annotations are included to help readers (including young readers) choose what topics they want to read up on further. Thank you for the feedback. The Transhumanist 00:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Tarheel95's talk page. Message added 02:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
If you really think about something you should know what something is. "If you know how to use a word in a sentence you should know what it means." You should remember reading a book of fiction... What sets it apart from every other genre? You are being too broadly defined with your definitions... You can relate the subject to the topic... like not just copying and pasting a definition but actually defining something while keeping the subject in mind... I edited it to show you what I mean. Gamewizard71 (talk) 03:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Lets make the first section of each outline the philosophical part. :) Gamewizard71 (talk) 04:07, 14 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Hello, The Transhumanist. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I see that you've got this moving, so thanks :-) John b cassel (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your work on supporting and setting up the Futures Studies project so far. It's a wonderful start. John b cassel (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Toshio Yamaguchi's talk page. Message added 18:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion
I notice you added a link to the transhumanism project on the new future studies project page. What is the relationship? Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
I respect your opinion but I find the link tenuous at best. Transhumanism is essentially an ideology. Future studies, OTOH, is an academic discipline known for its research methodology. I'm not really seeing the connection in this context. Viriditas (talk) 07:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Transhumanism is also a branch of philosophy interested in (i.e., studies) future possibilities, especially the positive and negative potential of technological advance. (Inorder to achieve the positive and avoid negative outcomes). I am primarily a philosophical transhumanist. See category:Futurology. Transhumanism is listed there. The outcomes that transhumanism seeks are studied by futurists, including the technological singularity. The Transhumanist 08:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Yes, that's what I said. Transhumanism is an ideology. However, future studies is not. They are not related. Please find me a single future studies textbook or relevant academic source that says they are. However, I am not interested in seeing a transhumanist source that says they are related. Future studies could not accurately study the future if it were an ideology or if it embraced transhumanism as "true". Transhumanism is also not the only ideology related to the future. In my mind, there is no difference between linking Transhumanism to the Future studies project page and linking to, let's say for example, Christianity. Please take a look at this list of recent publications from or related to the Hawaii Research Center for Futures Studies. There's a lot here, and nothing about transhumanism. Viriditas (talk) 08:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Christianity, and its prophecy of armageddon? Comparing transhumanism to that hints of POV. Transhumanism extrapolates future possibilities from current technologies. Though highly speculative (like future studies), it isn't mythological or spiritual. But you totally ignored the philosophical aspect of transhumanism. It's a branch of humanism, which is in turn a branch of philosophy. Philosophy studies things. Transhumanism studies the future. In that pursuit it conducts future studies extensively. Future studies (that is, analyzing future possibilities) is integrated into its approach. See The Singularity is Near – it is a core transhumanist future study. Transhumanist philosophers are futurists. The Transhumanist 09:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
I am well acquainted with transhumanism and its literature. It is not "POV" to compare transhumanism's vision of the future "singularity" with the vision marketed by Christianity. They are both considered to be religious visions of the future in the relevant literature. In any case, I am not interested in what transhumanists claim, but in what scholars of Futures Studies claim, as I've previously made clear. It is actually considered POV pushing to associate the two as you are doing, which apparently you don't realize. I've requested a source, so please provide it when you have time. Thanks. To remind you, I've provided dozens of sources related to the current Futures Studies literature that says nothing about transhumanism. Please provide sources that do. Viriditas (talk) 09:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
There is a large body of transhumanist future studies. That is, future studies conducted by transhumanists. It appears you are using a very specialized context of the term "related". I suggest we explore the requirements for being called a "related WikiProject". The Transhumanist 09:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
As I have previous explained to you, Futures Studies is not the study of transhumanism. What transhumanism believes or does not believe is not under discussion nor is it relevant to this discussion. You can't continue to ignore this. Either find a single, current academic Futures Studies source that discusses the relevance of transhumanism, or admit that you are drawing the connection based on your own personal beliefs. Viriditas (talk) 10:03, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Err, guys, feel free to take this discussion to the relevant talkpage, the WikiProject's. Viriditas, please note that we're discussing a WikiProject's work here, not an article's content. Demanding reliable sources is not justified here. — Jeraphine Gryphon(talk) 09:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've copied this thread to the WikiProject's talk page. Please continue the discussion there. Thank you. The Transhumanist 09:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Note: asking for a reliable source showing that the concept of transhumanism is a scholarly avenue of study and part of the domain of what is called Futures Studies is entirely justified. I suspect that no sources will be provided because a user by the name of "The Transhumanist" is pushing the POV of "transhumanism" when in point of fact, that POV is not part of Futures Studies. Viriditas (talk) 09:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
I've replied on the WikiProject's talk page. The Transhumanist 10:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 29 January 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
The Original Barnstar
Wow! Thanks for your help on the Future studies project. I can't believe all the pages you've contributed to, but glad you found ours!... RealFuturist (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. You have a new message at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Glossaries#Revamp begun's talk page. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒〈°⌊°〉Contribs. 23:17, 11 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Personally, I don't have an opinion about them, since I've never used them to make a glossary. But I recognize them from the glossary guideline draft. They seem easy enough to use. Good job. And thank you for the heads up. The Transhumanist 03:36, 18 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:11, 19 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
What should be done when a part of an article is repetitive? for example, schools of thoughts are discussed both in philosophy and modern philosophy. — Saeed (Talk) 10:41, 24 February 2012 (UTC)Reply
Possibly unfree File:Blue Marble Puzzle Globe in stand.xcfedit
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Offiikart (Talk) 17:01, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
