"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?
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Outline of Toronto for deletion, because it appears to duplicate an existing Wikipedia article, [[:{{{article}}}]].
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
It's an invalid speedy request. You didn't state which article it duplicates. Also, the page is a brand new article under construction. And finally, it's an outline, and is consistent with the design of the outlines found at Portal:Contents/Outlines.
I've removed the speedy tag, and have moved the draft to the draftspace of the Outlines wikiproject. The Transhumanist 18:18, 29 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's grown larger than many country outlines. So I've moved it back to article space. I didn't realize there was so much material on Toronto. The Transhumanist 06:46, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Heads up
Just wanted to give you a quick heads up, I removed 131 non-free files from your #27 sandbox because of WP:NFCC#9Werieth (talk) 14:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Outline of fantasy, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Landover and Wonderland (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) 19:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.
If the information is not provided, the images may eventually be proposed for deletion,
a situation which is not desirable, and which can easily be avoided.
I may have come to the right place (although I did click on "Goodbye" above to see if you were retired, and now I'm probably on some kind of watchlist????) Here are my questions two:
1. I've expanded the "Index of Vatican City-related articles" and have grabbed most of them. In my journey I've found many related categories. Is it kosher, accepted, or unheard of to make a section near the bottom listing "Categories" and then adding those (with the usual : before the category so the page itself isn't listed in the category).
2. An outline of the American Civil Rights Movement! I've added the large majority of the articles on the "African-American Civil Rights Movement" template, and kept watch on it, and a little while ago another user suggested doing it as an unfolding template. But instead, an Outline would work very well (I can see it in my mind's eye, until I go to sleep, and then I see other things). I've added just a little to the Vatican City Outline, but can add more after exploring the VC pages, but that is my only experience with an outline. Can I discuss the Civil Rights Movement outline with you further, and is there a set way to start it off? Pictures are accepted in an outline, correct?
Thanks. And good to meet you. Randy Kryn 11:50 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Regretting the timing of your retirement
Y'know, it really kinda sucks that you more or less retired right around the time I was going to ask for your help with a possible suggestion for how to improve the "index" articles.
I've never been particularly active on them, because, unfortunately, preferring some sort of "outline" format, I've never been entirely sure which articles belong in which outline section. I have in recent times been working on putting together lists of encyclopedic articles relating to specific topics, like Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Methodism work group/Encyclopedic articles and other pages in the Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles, based on existing reference works which relate specifically to the topics of the groups themselves. It has always been the case that there have been quite a few major articles in other reference sources which we don't have, which has made setting up any sort of outline more difficult. I was actually going to ask for your help in developing a few in your own particular areas of interest, or sources which are easily available to you, so that we would not only have an "outline" of the content we do have, but also a few good indicators of what content we don't yet have, and also what sources exist for a lot of the content we do have.
Anyway, sorry for having gotten to you a bit late. If you do decide to ever return to active editing, drop me a note and I might be able to offer a bit more help now, with a few crib sheets prepared, than I did earlier with your objectives, particularly the outline articles. John Carter (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retired? Are you sure? How could you tell? When did it happen, exactly? I think I missed it! The Transhumanist 22:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Open Help Conference will be taking place June 15-19 in Cincinnati Ohio, USA. The conference includes two days of presentations and open discussions, followed by team "sprints" - collaborative efforts to write and improve documentation.
It has been suggested to send a team from Wikipedia/Wikimedia: to share our own knowledge about help, learn from others in the open source community working on similar problems, and to carry out a sprint to improve some aspect of Wikipedia's help.
If you don't wish to receive this newsletter on your talk page in future then just edit the participants page and add "no newsletter" next to your name.
Wow, thanks for that! I thought it would take a lot longer and much more work to get that section up. You caught me in one of the rare times when I was inactive due to some family issues. I will get to work on putting that section up! Thanks again!--Amadscientist (talk) 06:53, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you so much for your improvements to that section. I appreciate your work!--Amadscientist (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Outline of Philadelphia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bishop of Philadelphia (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) 00:31, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mail
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.
For creating Outline of cuisine when the consensus of the AFD was clear, and Outline of cuisines had already been redirected. Pull that kind of stunt again and you'll be on AN/I. — The Potato Hose 04:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - you have been blocked for this behaviour in the past. I would have thought the lesson would have stuck. — The Potato Hose 04:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But I'm the one who renamed Outline of Cuisines in the first place, as part of a reverse split, as I explained, to put the edit history of List of cuisines back where it belonged (at List of cuisines). With outline content at List of cuisines, the title is now a misnomer. It is now a List of cuisine-related topics, not merely a list of cuisines. The Transhumanist 04:56, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You make no logical sense. First you say that the outcome was to keep... so the content should be at Outline of cuisines. But I (correctly, according to the consensus that the AFD reached, which was even commented on by someone in the discussion!) redirected that to List of cuisines. You then went and created a similarly-named page to get around that consensus. It's really, really clear what you did. Look at this again and ask yourself if you want another entry there. If you persist in saying that you were right to recreate the article at another almost identical title, while allowing the redirect to stand (which is what makes no logical sense), I will have no choice but to report you to AN/I for this. — The Potato Hose 05:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the example you pointed out was for move warring (renaming), not for splitting off content in good faith. The title of "List of cuisines" is now an error of scope. It misrepresents the scope of the list. The Transhumanist 05:01, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your actions are not consistent with someone acting in good faith. See above. — The Potato Hose 05:05, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
After looking at "Global cuisine", I decided "Outline of cuisine" fit better than "Outline of cuisines". It is also more appropriate now that the huge list of cuisines has been removed from the outline. "Outline of cuisines" as a title became just as awkward as "List of cuisines" is now. "Outline of cuisine" fits much better, concerning its intended scope. The Transhumanist 05:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Sure, okay. Except you're still ignoring the consensus at the AFD, Quiddity's sudden backpedaling notwithstanding. I'll quote his/her exact words, bolding in the original:
merge and rename the majority of the contents currently at Outline of cuisines and Global cuisine into a single article at List of cuisines. Any remaining list-style content that doesn't belong in that merged list, can hopefully be merged into Cuisine#See also.
That was the statement 4/6 other editors agreed with. Please show me where it said that Outline of cuisine/s would stay as a separate page. — The Potato Hose 05:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I believe you are misreading the AfD. Most of the voters didn't have the opportunity to consider Quiddity's final statement, and so it is up to the closing admin to that. I agree with Quiddity's final remark and the closing admin's interpretation of consensus. The Transhumanist 05:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) Of course you agree. See the quote above, and see my analysis of who said what. I was careful to note who agreed with which one of Quiddity's statements. — The Potato Hose 05:21, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please pause your editing at List of cuisines so I can clean up the mess from your sloppy edit here, where you failed to remove some of the flags while also removing swathes of useful data and refs. — The Potato Hose 04:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please also note that if you are going to copy and paste from one article to another you need to indicate the specific revisions which have been copied. Given the scale of this merge it makes a lot more sense to get an admin to do a histmerge and then recreate Global cuisine. — The Potato Hose 04:17, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, notes are required. Please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and refresh your memory. Edit summaries, are the minimum required. (After-the-fact edit summaries are acceptable, but not ideal. WP:HISTMERGE is an option, but not required.) –Quiddity (talk) 05:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Notes were provided, per Wikipedia:Merging#How to merge, in both of the articles involved in the merge, here and here. By the way, the character counts differ, because the African continent paragraph was already in there. The Transhumanist 06:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, my mistake. Sorry. (I'm still frustrated from this morning, which led to this whole debacle.) –Quiddity (talk) 06:32, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job. I'll gladly lend a helping hand. Cheers. The Transhumanist 09:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm preparing to log off very soon (notice to avoid edit conflicts). Northamerica1000(talk) 09:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I merged the South American material over. But my eyelids are drooping – I've got to get some sleep. See ya around, and keep up the good work! The Transhumanist 09:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you've worked on the List of cuisines article prior to all of this recent activity (per the revision history), which is appreciated. The merge process from Global cuisine is about 4/5 complete. I knocked out a big chunk today, performing it meticulously to ensure that there is no data loss. I created and was essentially a primary contributor to the Global cuisines article, so the familiarity with it was likely a factor in an expedient merge process. A question (rather than figuring it out through the revision history): did you reorganize the section structure of the article as it is currently organized? (I like the format, per detailed geographic areas.) The merge is working out quite nicely at this time. It took some time, because the organization in each article has significant variance, but it is worth the effort. This article has potential to reach WP:FL someday. Northamerica1000(talk) 07:31, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Most of the sections were already there. I adjusted the structure, and refined the heading titles. The Transhumanist 01:57, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Talkback
Hello, The Transhumanist. You have new messages at Northamerica1000's talk page. Message added 05:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Not sure whether this is your area, but here goes. In the article on the Argentine Government, there is a section on the Supreme Court. The last-named member of that court is shown as Dr Eduardo Coudet. However, the link is to an Argentine footballer of the same name. Surely that can't be right?Agent0060 12:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
