: Roux, describing someone's behavior truthfully is not a personal attack. I have remained civil, while you Roux, [[WP:CIVL|have not]]. If you continue to lie, I will continue to call out your lies and prove them false. '''''[[User talk:The Transhumanist|<font color="#880088">Th</font><font color="#0000FF">e Tr</font><font color="#449900">ans</font><font color="#DD9922">hu</font><font color="#DD4400">man</font><font color="#BB0000">ist</font> ]]''''' 14:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
: Roux, describing someone's behavior truthfully is not a personal attack. I have remained civil, while you Roux, [[WP:CIVL|have not]]. If you continue to lie, I will continue to call out your lies and prove them false. '''''[[User talk:The Transhumanist|<font color="#880088">Th</font><font color="#0000FF">e Tr</font><font color="#449900">ans</font><font color="#DD9922">hu</font><font color="#DD4400">man</font><font color="#BB0000">ist</font> ]]''''' 14:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
::I have not lied a single time about you or your stupid waste of time project. I gave you the chance to retract your accusations--ones you are making ''only'' because I am a threat to whatever value you invest in these stupid outlines. The only thing I have on Wikipedia is my word, and I ''never'' lie about ''anything'' here. → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#355E3B;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#355E3B;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 14:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)</small>
::I have not lied a single time about you or your stupid waste of time project. I gave you the chance to retract your accusations--ones you are making ''only'' because I am a threat to whatever value you invest in these stupid outlines. The only thing I have on Wikipedia is my word, and I ''never'' lie about ''anything'' here. → [[User:Roux|<span style="color:#355E3B;font-size:80%;">'''ROUX'''</span>]] [[User talk:Roux|<span style="color:#355E3B;">'''₪'''</span>]]<small> 14:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)</small>
:::Transhumanist, your comment wasn't really productive, and in the future it would probably be better to avoid needlessly provoking other editors with edits that attack them. I've removed both of your comments, and I hope that you two can start again, this time in a more civil manner, and discuss whatever problems you may have in a respectful way. [[User:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">''Prodego''</font>]] <sup>[[User talk:Prodego|<font color="darkgreen">talk</font>]]</sup> 14:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Please contact me concerning anything to do with outlines or the Outline of knowledge WikiProject. Questions, problems, conflicts, AfD's, etc. etc. Thank you.
Already gotten started, I look forward to creating the outline.--SKATERSpeak. 18:45, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your back
Hi, thanks for your message,good to talk to you again. My summers been fine, thank you. I've been easing off on the editing myself as it goes. I've really enjoyed building outlines so I'll definately do it again - as for the subject, who knows? Highfields (talk, contribs) 17:09, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My talkpage has some rambling for you to read :) -- penubag (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Colds7ream's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hello transhumanist! I've been messing around with the Wikipedia:Help Project and just realised I hadn't introduced myself to its founder :( !Hope you don't feel too disgruntled ... After fixing / or attempting to fix the intro pages in a valiant attempt to convert casual readers / interested parties into new, constructive editors - keeping the complexities of wikipedia hidden to avoid confusion, whilst hinting at the complexities of wikipedia to avoid confusion ;) I noticed a number of the help pages get an occasional editor with a good idea and some motivation, but the pages aren't watched and subscribed enough . My answer was to point them all in the same direction - there is currently no real central discussion, so currently I'm working on slapping a project banner on the numerous intro pages to this end... I might instigate a few other ideas e.g. why not assess help pages ? keep spreading the knowledge :) 22:06, 16 September 2009 (UTC) p.s. I think I might be a transhumanist too, my own intention is to try to prevent unecessary stress and suffering due to lack of quality knowledge .. L∴V 22:08, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm very happy that the help project has found a new leader - I've been far too busy with the WP:OOK and WP:WPOOK to work on much of anything else. I look forward to seeing what you do with the help project and Wikipedia's help system.
It looks like you've captured the attention of Quiddity, and that's a good thing. It appears he has touched up the project page to assist you.
Hi Transhumanist, I think the Outline of Christianity article I've been working on (with help) has become a well developed outline indeed. This could serve as a guideline for other religion outlines. Burningview ✉ 16:19, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa. I feel like we're characters in a fairy tale, with you asking...
"Mirror mirror on the wall, who is the fairest one of all?"
I'm sorry Snow White, but you've got comptetion. :)
Outline of Buddhism is currently the most well developed religion-related outline, and it is also one of the best developed of all the outlines on Wikipedia! Eu.stefan has gone all out, and has dedicated an incredible level of effort to improve it. The outline covers just about every aspect of Buddhism (as far as I can tell), including its teachings, definitions of terms, etc. And it is still growing...
I couldn't believe Buddhism is more extensive than Christianity (I still don't know), so I went poking around on Google, using Google to search Wikipedia only, and noticed a huge number of articles on a great many aspects of Christianity.
Outline of Christianity barely scratches the surface of Wikipedia's coverage of the subject.
Well, I really appreciate the fresh insight and yes I was not aware of the Outline of Buddhism article; well developed indeed. Thanks for bringing the google/wikipedia search thing to my attention; no I was not aware of that either. Now that you have given me this information and new insight; I will be more motivated and will work dilligently on improving this outline and adding new content. Oh yes, I will look to the more developed Buddhism outline as a guideline. :) Burningview ✉ 20:48, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.- Did you ever see the Barnstar I gave you a while back on your talk page? Burningview ✉ 20:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I've been so inattentive - I've been on a wikibreak of sorts, and I've had my hands full "in real life" for the past couple of months. Hopefully, that will never happen again. :)
Thank you for the barnstar. It means a lot to me to be appreciated. It makes me feel like I've done something worthwhile. I'm very happy that you've found the OOK useful.
The barnstar you awarded to me is now on my userpage, where I display it with honor and pride for all to see.
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Colds7ream's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
By way of renaming, there's now Outline of string theory, which might benefit from some OOK-love. [not watching your talkpage] --Cybercobra(talk) 05:31, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
CUBA PROJECT
Hello, I have an article which may qualify for the WP:CUBA Project. I authored Alberto R. Games Hernandez the first Cuban Weightlifting Champion in Cuba post Castro in 1962. I would like to improve this article. Can you assist?--Agames (talk) 05:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My extreme Wikibreak has ended
My fellow editor,
You may have noticed that I have been on a huge wikibreak over the entire summer, or you may not have. I am dreadfully sorry if my unexplained, unannounced, unplanned absence has caused harm to the project involving Outlines of Knowledge, but I am confident that you have recognized my absence and have delegated tasks to this project's additional staff. I have no real excuse for my absence; I haven't suffered some sickness or injury, nor a family emergency. I can't really say that I decided to take a wikibreak...it really just happened. I stopped checking my talk page, stopped editing, moved to other "hobbies". This is really just reflective of my style when editing...I have been through relapsing/recurring cycles when editing before. This was just the first time that I was engaged in an active project.
But enough self explanation. I am sorry for disappearing without notice, and while I can't say that it won't happen again (it most likely will), I can say that I will give due warning if I decide to take another break. With that said, I can start doing work again, although I will be limited to working in the evenings (Mountain Time) as usual. My bot is still functional; it still has its bot flag, and work with AWB should still be no problem. I look forward to your response, and hope that you can forgive my "discrepancy." Thank you very much, Robert SkyhawkSo sue me! (You'll lose) 23:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the heads up, and welcome home! I've also been on wikibreak for the past couple of months, with occasional sessions online to keep an eye on things. We have lots of work left ahead of us, though not any bot or AWB work at the moment. All the work right now seems to be manual, but you might be able to figure out a way to speed it up. I've been using WP:LINKY to speed up work on similar tasks on multiple pages, and I can use as much help as I can get because there is a great deal of this type of work. I'll be in touch again soon. The Transhumanist 01:10, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: while you are waiting for your next assignment, please take a look at Outline of space exploration and see if you can improve it. Thank you. -TT
I think I already posted a little on my vacation on your talkpage. Well, just to recap I spent a few weeks in Japan which was extremely fun. Towards the beginning of the vacation I went to a huge outdoor swimming pool in Inage but moments after, it started to down pour, which was when my camera and everything else broke. I managed to take a few pictures before that happened, which I will hopefully upload soon (I don't have access to anything that can read CF cards at the moment). But I didn't really take anything that would be too useful to Wikipedia and the pictures I did take, I see we have better alternatives here. Everything in Japan is so green and lush, whereas Southern California's as brown as dirt all around. I would just stare in awe at the beauty around including many large insects and miles of rice fields. In addition, the technology there is like 5 years ahead of ours. All the cell phones have TV capabilities and 10 megapixel cameras! I would get one except I can't read the language :( . I attended a few ceremonies like the obon and omatsuri which was a great experience as well. After I came back from Japan, we ended up not going camping because we ran out of time so instead went to San Diego and toured the area. It was very nice, the temperature was perfect for going out on the beach and view some of the wild life there. It was very relaxing. After I got home, I ordered a new camera among other things and that was the end of my vacation.
Right now, though, I'm overloaded with work from my classes and contributing is becoming more difficult, so I probably won't be able to help out for a while. When I get the chance, I will help out as much as I can. Working with you is such a pleasure. Well, until next time -- penubag (talk) 22:01, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting to read that Japan is ahead of us in technology. I wonder if that is covered on Wikipedia. I'd enjoy reading an article comparing the technology of the two countries.
I'm glad you enjoyed yourself, and yes, now I'm jealous as hell. :-)
That probably isn't covered in Wikipedia because it would have to be verified, be npov, etc.
Right now, I'm taking a programming course, when it is over, I will try and make an outliner for Wikipedia. But I'll definitely need you to tell me exactly how you want it as I haven't worked with outliners before. One feature that may be useful is for the user to type a word and have the outliner search Wikipedia and Google and automatically generate a list of all the Wiki pages that may go in the outline. Don't worry about the specs right now though, I still have a huge mountain to climb.
The outlines you suggested on my talk page are excellent! Once they are created, I may spend hours reading through them. I particularly like the outline of time and planets the best. You will probably get a lot of help on outline of planets from that Wikiproject... from what I know, they're extremely active and have a tendency to make everything they touch a featured article. :) -- penubag (talk) 01:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these subpages (in fact, nearly all of them) redirect to the mainspace. Do you want the redirected pages themselves renamed, or just the pages that haven't been moved to mainspace? Robert SkyhawkSo sue me! (You'll lose) 23:15, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Lists vs. outlines: Where's the consensus?
I notice that you've been doing a lot of moves. Where are the talk page discussions and/or RfCs for and against such moves? Where is the consensus for such moves? The links you provide don't give me a clue as to why you're doing this. Maybe a discussion has happened, but where is it? -- Brangifer (talk) 02:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're not currently renaming lists per se, just "topics" lists. There are a myriad of discussions on the disposition of topics lists, under the Contents project and its various subprojects. Probably the best place to start is WP:WPOOK, but perhaps a quick synopsis of the situation will help even more...
A problem with lists is that they come in two main varieties: alphabetical lists (indexes) and structured lists (outlines). The problem is that both types have been sharing the same name-set and they have collided - you can't have an alphabetical "list of psychology topics" and a structured "list of psychology topics", just one or the other under that name.
So editors who were building indexes with the name "List of x topics" ran into the problem of names already being taken by outlines, and editors developing outlines (structured lists) under the name "List of x topics" found themselves stuck when those names were already taken by indexes. So a team of editors has been working over the past year or so to sort out this problem, splitting the set apart, enabling Outline of psychology and Index of psychology articles, for example. No one complained about the renames since they are so descriptive and follow Wikipedia's naming guidelines, though there has been a great deal of discussion about where (in which namespace) topic lists (of either type) belong - in these debates, the guideline WP:LISTS has remained the standard (according to it, lists belong in the article namespace).
The WP:OOK has been being developed for many years under various names as one of Wikipedia's contents navigation subsystems, and its member articles were renamed to the more descriptively accurate "Outline of" about a year ago. A great many new outlines have been constructed since then. A recent addition and by far one of the best is Outline of Buddhism. Some of my favorites include Outline of Japan, Outline of Iceland, Outline of robotics, Outline of chocolate, and Outline of water.
Now, of all the structured topics lists on Wikipedia, the vast majority of them are called outlines and are part of Wikipedia's Outline of Knowledge. The rest are being gathered up and added to the collection. For more information about outlines, see:
By the way, would you do me a favor? I've been staring at these pages for years, and I've gone "blind" to the simplest of problems. It really helps when someone with a fresh perspective looks at them and lets me know how any (or all) of them can be improved. It would be really cool if you would browse through WP:OOK and let me know what rocks and what sucks.
Thanks for the nice explanation. My wonderment was mostly because of the bypassing of the normal consensus process on each list/article talk page that is/should always be used in such happenings, whether it be merges or title changes. I guess if no one objects, then I won't either. Keep up the good work. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calling things outlines when they are not outlines is ridiculous. I'm thinking particularly about mathematics lists. Some of these lists do not resemble anything you could call an outline. The word outline implies that that it fully describes the outline of some subject, and secondly it presumes that anyone really knows what the outline of that subject looks like, and thirdly it presumes that you can nail down an area of human knowledge that is constantly growing and morphing and say "here - this is an outline". It's total nonsense. These lists are not outlines, they are lists of articles that wikipedia happens to have, they are a collection of the articles that people have randomly created.
If there is a collision problem between alphabetical lists and structured lists then there is a simple solution - use a title like "Index of" for the alphabetical lists. Charvest (talk) 13:41, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Currently, most of the outlines in the OOK collection are topic outlines (outlines comprised of topics, as opposed to sentence outlines, which are built of sentences). Some outlines are starting to take on characteristics of sentence outlines, but full conversion would be a very long slow process.
True, some of those recently renamed lists are poor outlines. But if you let WP:WPOOK adopt them, we'll certainly improve them - many of them haven't been touched significantly in months. The lists, being structured (hierarchically using headings) qualify as rough (perhaps very rough) topic outlines, but we could improve them relatively quickly.
The alternative is to build outlines on each of these subjects from scratch, which is what we did for the geography branch, and we certainly could continue in this fashion for the other branches (history, culture, mathematics, etc.).
Though I was hoping to use the various remaining topics lists as a starting point - and achieving two aims at the same time: producing outlines from them and thereby improving their quality in one step (by refining the arrangement of their content and by adding them to a more refined set of topics lists - WP:OOK).
Not sure where you got consensus from to do this move. At the very least one would have expected some mention on the talk page prior to doing the change. Your reference to the Outline pages was somewhat oblique, I could not find the moved page on this other page. For an apparently experienced editor, your actions are quite extraordinary. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:24, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The page isn't listed at WP:OOK yet, because it needs to be reformatted. If the name sticks, I'll be happy to reformat it. Reformatting first is problematic, as it could strand the format if the name change doesn't stick. To prevent such a problem, it is better to build a new outline from scratch with the proper formatting. The Transhumanist 21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Outline of pseudoscience
The naming of this article has been the subject of several heated debates. Please give reasons for the bold move you have made on the talk page, or it will likely be reverted per the extant consensus. At the moment I'm not sure which title is better. Proposing the move on the talk page first would probably have been better. Verbalchat 10:46, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To give it a better home - the WP:OOK is a much better maintained collection than the Lists of topics page (upon which "pseudoscience" isn't even listed).
To give it a more accurate name - the page is a topic outline.
To save time - we were planning to create an Outline of pseudoscience from scratch, but the existing list provides a good starting point which would save a lot of development time.
To make it part of an integrated system of outlines - each outline is a branch of the whole of Knowledge. They provide a systematic subject-by-subject presentation of the structure of knowledge as well as of the contents of Wikipedia.
And the consensus for that move is where exactly? SpartazHumbug! 14:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your mass moves
You want to stop mass-moving articles without consensus immediately. Since your unilateral moves are a pain to revert, I will not hesitate to block you to prevent further damage if you do not stop this and respect to WP:DISCUSS in every case. You want to move an article? Then seek consensus on its talkpage or at WP:RM. --dab(𒁳) 11:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to have moved somewhere in the region of 350 pages in the last 3-4 days. Do you have consensus for all these changes? Its too big a change to just justify by being bold. Please find a consensus before you do any more moves. SpartazHumbug! 12:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
2/3 of those were a minor spelling correction. The Transhumanist 21:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you finally concede the namespace point, how about you move all your "outlines" to Portal: namespace for now, until you get consensus for your personal Outline: namespace. If and as soon as you get such a consensus, you will still be able to move them all there. I just want them out of main namespace, and I want you to stop duplicating article leads. As long as your pages are clean lists (no copy-pasted leads) residing in Portal: namespace, you will have no more trouble from me. --dab(𒁳) 08:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Outline of triangles"?
How much thought did you give to that particular page title? Michael Hardy (talk) 13:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
no, your titles are not grammatically correct, and "outline of triangles" is just a particularly bad example, there are many like it. outline (summary) is a very marginal meaning of the term "outline", and such "outlines" are made of texts, not "of topics". Thus, your "outline of triangles" is really an "outline of the triangle article", and not an "outline of triangles" at all.
If you are interested in the grammaticalty of your titles, and the meaning of the term "outline", OED has a meaning 3b,
A brief verbal or written description of something, giving a general idea of the whole but leaving details to be filled in; a rough draft, a summary. Also: a précis of a proposed article, novel, scenario, etc.
note how the "hierarchical" aspect you make so much about is completly absent from this definition. An outline is just a draft of an article. It may be a good way to begin writing an article, but it is futile to abstract an "outline" from an article that is already written. --dab(𒁳) 08:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"dab", how can it appear to you that the article that was moved to outline of triangles is an outline of the triangle article? Obviously it is nothing of the sort; it's a list of many articles about triangle-related topics. Michael Hardy (talk) 12:30, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dbachmann (dab), outlines are more than a mere composition tool - they are much more versatile than that. And abstracting an outline from an existing composition is called "reverse outlining", and it is touted by the education field as a powerful revisioning tool. However, the outlines we're constructing are of subjects, not specific articles. They're intent is to organize and present the topics on each subject as a whole, not merely its root article on the subject. These are subject outlines, not article outlines. In addition to presenting a structure that shows what belongs to what, outlines display most of their entries as links, making the outlines into navigation trees or menus of Wikipedia content. Thus, they are outlines of both Knowledge and Wikipedia. The Transhumanist 14:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to emphasise the absolute necessity to respond to the detailed points being raised here. You are clearly operating both carelessly and outside the normal boundaries of the system of discussion on Wikipedia. Continuing to do so over objections is an extremely bad idea all round. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm in the process of replying to all points. Thank you for the heads up. The Transhumanist 20:37, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
TT, can you pretty please absorb the minor point that you need WP:CONSENSUSbefore you embark on rebuilding Wikipedia's structure single-handedly? Just "replying to all points" and then carry on with what you were doing regardless doesn't cut it. If you don't have consensus for your moves, just do not do them, ok? --dab(𒁳) 08:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiquette_alerts
Your actions are, in my view, un-wikipedian and require immediate explanation. Please see here, to explain yourself and your recent actions to the community[4]. Bhtpbank (talk) 07:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. I couldn't have said it better myself. The Transhumanist 14:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
October 2009
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive comments. The next time you make a personal attack, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Do it again and I will have you blocked. Is that crystal fucking clear? →ROUX₪ 13:59, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought ROUX₪ was too preoccupied with the grease trap to comment. Yours aye, Buaidh (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roux, describing someone's behavior truthfully is not a personal attack. I have remained civil, while you Roux, have not. If you continue to lie, I will continue to call out your lies and prove them false. The Transhumanist 14:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have not lied a single time about you or your stupid waste of time project. I gave you the chance to retract your accusations--ones you are making only because I am a threat to whatever value you invest in these stupid outlines. The only thing I have on Wikipedia is my word, and I never lie about anything here. → ROUX₪ 14:34, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Transhumanist, your comment wasn't really productive, and in the future it would probably be better to avoid needlessly provoking other editors with edits that attack them. I've removed both of your comments, and I hope that you two can start again, this time in a more civil manner, and discuss whatever problems you may have in a respectful way. Prodegotalk 14:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
