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 meaningless in an argument, really. Basically it means "anything not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: "Delete, because I want it deleted". This is just repeating yourself. What we want to know are your reasons why you think something shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Simply answer the question, What's wrong with it?
Heya
Hi. I'm glad to see you're back. I was planning to post here in the next few days. Hope you had a good wikibreak (relaxing, aren't they!) :)
Regarding the rfc, I'm having a very slow/steady conversation with Karanacs at User talk:Karanacs#Outline bump. I'm hoping she'll reply to my last lengthy post there soon. I'd really like to disentangle the 2 issues (outlines, navigational pages) before we progress any further with actually drafting the rfc(s). I suggest/counsel patience with that part. (She's busy with arbcom cases currently).
Have a good 'un. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibreak? What the hell is that? I'm busier than ever! I've switched over to designing software features to support outlines, most of the communications for which is handled via email. It would be nice if outline articles were still here when the program development is completed.
I estimate that the software will increase outline editing productivity by a factor of 5. That is, one editor should be able to easily produce 5 times as much outline output than he or she could do previously in the same amount of time without the software solutions.
I'm not sure if I'll even work on outlines again until the software features are ready to apply upon them. We're looking at 9 months, maybe more (I'm learning programming from scratch), before we have something rudimentary to apply, while a full-blown implementation of the design concept will take years.
I would suggest that you need to include a specific date or diff (probably not both), for GFDL satisfaction. More replies at my talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal is not an admin. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Outlines#Fixing accreditation has an up-to-date list and some workflow advice. It took me 90 minutes to fix A-C the other day. We'd really appreciate it if you could assist with this. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Whilst you're updating country outlines, perhaps you could also help out with fixing their accreditations? List (C-Z still to go) and instructions at Wikipedia talk:Outlines#Fixing accreditation. Thanks! -- Quiddity (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to do with User:SMcCandlish/Coaching now that I'm actually in a position to do admin duties regularly and thus interested in doing an RfA. My coaching page has you mentioning assignments at a backlink, but not link seems to be there, and all the coaching related stuff seems to be different these days, so I'm not entire sure what the next step is. :-) I have 4+ years under my belt as an editor across all the namespaces, but I figure anyone can still learn from another's tips and tricks. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 10:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you'd be interested since it revives
this discussion we had in July at Wikipedia Talk:Content forking. (I don't suggest you spend too much time re-reading the old thread, since I've clarified and re-stated the issues in the meantime.)
Long time no talk ! Anyway I have just been looking at the Cyprus outline and see there are lots of red links and missing bits - without getting too far into debate at this point I wondered if any plans were in your head for going over the article or if I am free to go ahead and edit it - I will of course ref the guidelines etc and would be grateful if there was anything i should know about the article before I go ahead.
Chaosdruid (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on? The list was kept at the AfD above, but you seem to be recreating/duplicating it at Outline of geography. (?!!) 8) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. It's an outline, not a "basic list". The new article matches the structure used in Outline of cell biology and Outline of Buddhism, and is being designed for the Outline of Knowledge. Better to make a new article than try to convert the list to an OOK outline. The Transhumanist 22:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few of them are misnamed due the disagreement and pagemovewar, but they're still part of the set of "outlines". Please, please, elucidate/explain what in the heck you're trying to achieve by forking the LOBT/OOK for geography. Is this meant to be another navigational structure, somewhere in between an LOBT/OOK and a glossary? What is wrong with adding these annotations to List of basic geography topics? -- Quiddity (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a distinct article, which differs greatly in scope from the page you mentioned. The List of basic geography topics is limited in scope as its title indicates, and it's current title/scope is being defended by a certain editor, and attacked by another editor on the grounds that the topic isn't notable/verifiable. The outline I'm working on has a much greater scope than "basic", shall go into far more detail, and seeks to be much more comprehensive. It is being designed as an "Outline of" article specifically for the Outline of Knowledge, and contains hierarchical tree structure outline content in Wikipedia annotation style, matching the format used in Outline of cell biology and Outline of Buddhism, as opposed to being a crappy montage of footer templates and tables, which is what the "List of basic geography topics is". Also, "basic topics" is a very problematic inclusion criteria and may have notability requirements as a subject, while the only inclusion criteria of the outline I'm constructing is that a topic fall under the subject of geography, which is the focus of the article - it's not about outlines, but is an outline of the subject's content. The outline is under construction, so please reserve judgment for a week or so, to see how it turns out. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I think I understand. Am happy to watch/wait patiently. :)
I'm not in agreement with your commentary on the "crappy montage of footer templates" though. They help maintain a consistent set of links across multiple articles, as at Outline of the United States and Outline of history and Outline of Asia. Though I recognize that this is debatable. (Also, the in-article templates should probably all be forced to "state=uncollapsed" so that their contents are instantly visible/useful.) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A better way to describe the footer templates is "sloppy" or "a poor fit", as they tend to be redundant or overlap the outline's tree content, and the templates don't always fit the context of the sections they are placed in. But more importantly, footer templates of prose article links don't fit the context of outlines as well as outline links do! That's because, in outlines, links to the branches in the subject's topic tree are more appropriate, that is, links to outlines of the subtopics. And in most cases, it doesn't make sense to include a prose article link when an outline link exists for the same subtopic, because subtopic outlines include a link to their corresponding prose article right at the top in the opening sentence of the outline's lead section. By linking outlines together, you improve the browsing experience by extending the tree the user is climbing, thereby extending his or her reach. The Transhumanist 20:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
February 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Outline of geography. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Verbalchat 08:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm constructing a new page, with a construction tag you keep ignoring. You are not practicing good wikiquette. The new page is intended to have a much wider scope and much greater level of detail than the introductory-level page you keep comparing it to, yet you keep ignoring that fact. Your reversion of the page back to a redirect is the same thing as deleting the page I've created. That's not acceptable. You are basically telling me I can't create the page without your approval. But that's not how Wikipedia operates. There is no requirement for seeking approval for a new page, and the page I'm building is not subject to speedy deletion either. Your reversions go against the spirit of Wikipedia's development philosophy. If you don't like the page, take it to AfD, which is the proper venue for discussing the existence of a page.
To develop the page further, I've moved it to project space as a draft. The Transhumanist 22:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Outline of life extension, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of life extension. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Verbalchat 20:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
Please cease referring to good faith edits as vandalism. Any good faith edit with the intent of improving the encyclopedia is not vandalism - even if that edit is horribly, terribly damaging. It is very, very rare that contributiors with more than a few weeks of experience at Wikipedia is comitting vandalism. Please review WP:NOTVAND. Hipocrite (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look over Verbal's edits of outlines, you'll see that they are carefully calculated. He's been assaulting outlines in every way he can think of. The Transhumanist 20:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because he thinks that will improve the encyclopedia. That he may or may not be wrong does not make it vandalism. Stop calling it that. Did you inform him about your AN (now ANI) thread? Hipocrite (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. I initially posted the message on his talk page, but he deleted it. I'll post a link for him now. Thanks for the heads up. The Transhumanist 21:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Hipocrite that using the word "vandalism" for these issues is using fighting words, and will not result in positive outcomes. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Graphic Designer
Hi.
You say here that you're looking for a graphic designer. I'm not totally familiar with what you're looking for but am well qualified technically and looking to learn as much as a can about wikipedia (as a budding transhumanist). My capabilities and portfolio can be found here at the bottom of the section.
Hello, The Transhumanist! Just reminding you that you are listed as a member of the Random Picture of the Day! It would be great if you could add a picture or too! Put the template on your user page with {{User:Presidentman/potd/template}}, and encourage other users to add pictures. You can also put our userbox on your userpage using: {{User:Presidentman/Ubx/RPOTD}}. Hopefully you'll help out! Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC) - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I saw your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject Demographics and thought you may be able to help. I've been taking a class on sociology latley, and that sparked my interest in exploring the demographics of the United States Marine Corps. However, I'm not really sure where to go as a starting point... as in, what is demographically relevant? Gender, race/ethnicity, rank, occupational specialty? What should I avoid? What would be redundant to Demographics of the United States? My main reference will be the Marine Corps Almanac (the final chaper in all but the oldest three volumes)... I don't merely want to parrot statistics, but have to walk a fine line against OR and synth. Any insight you might have would be suprememly helpful. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, very much so. I will have to much more research on the topic, it seems. The distinction is something I'm happy to learn now, as I will be taking a statistics class next semester, so you hit two birds with one stone there! With much appreciation, I will get back with you when I have more to work with. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
help request
Hello,
Who is the best person to talk to regarding "Lists" and the differences compared to "Disambiguation" pages? I am trying to understand what is going on at: List of Carpenter named articles. For example: Why is duplication prohibited or frowned on here? Why are partial listings or linking to "Carpenter" in an article is bad for a "List of" page is bad? Any help is appreciated. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilove
This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions
It's been a while since I've spoken to you. Hope you're doing well, TT! Regards, AGK 21:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
