Please contact me concerning anything to do with outlines or the Outline of knowledge WikiProject. Questions, problems, conflicts, AfD's, etc. etc. Thank you.
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]
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∴V22:08, 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.
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.
For an example, here's a search of "Jesus" in article titles: Google search
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]
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.
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 Transhumanist01:10, 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]
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 Transhumanist21:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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. Verbalchat10:46, 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.
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]
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]
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]
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 Transhumanist14:06, 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]
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]
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]
Buaidh is more like a frog. :) A leap frog. He's a highly independent and innovative editor of outlines who has made that project transcend itself. He has taken the Outline of Knowledge in several unexpected directions. It's difficult to keep up with him, and to be honest, I haven't been able to do so. Buaidh is an experienced outline developer, and I respect his opinions and his contributions very much. He just pointed in a creative way that you are on a witch hunt. And he's right, you are. See also Ku klux klan. The Transhumanist05:10, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikiquette procedure has clearly been ineffective, and has resulted in a lot of tension and the blocking of an editor. This issue is clearly unresolved, and it is now time to move on to the next stage. I think either WP:RFC or WP:ANI. Bhtpbank (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikiquette procedure was successful. I've admitted my mistake (more than once), and have ceased and desisted from making batch moves that include controversial renames. If you go to ANI with this, you'll be beating a dead horse, and the admins at ANI will not take too kindly to that. It would be deemed going after outlines rather than innappropriate moving. Going after outlines there has been tried before, and it was deemed the wrong venue and forum shopping. In other words: disruptive. But if you want to receive a Wikiquette alert of your own, go for it. We've beat this topic to death. I'd appreciate it if you would let me get back to editing outlines. Thank you. The Transhumanist05:12, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am afraid that your request cannot be granted. The evidence that you continue to move pages continues as illustrated by the ongoing addition of itmes to your talk page on this subject. You have continued to avoid answering the question as to how you have WP:CONSENSUS for what you are doing, and are no engaging the community by means of discussion on the talk pages of the articles that you move and rename. You are IMHO continuing to acting irresponsibly and need to be bought to account. Bhtpbank (talk) 06:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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 Transhumanist14:29, 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. Prodegotalk14:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right.. you threaten me with a block, but him, making completely unfounded accusations, not? Gee, want to make your bias even more clear here? What a joke. → ROUX₪14:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, taking on a threatening tone with phrases like "Is that crystal fucking clear?" and calling people's work on the encyclopedia a "stupid waste of time" is the height of incivility, and borders on personal attacks as well, definitely against his work. While I have not seen The Transhumanist's comments, so will not attempt to comment on them, Roux's comments were also out of line. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
He flat out called me a liar. A certain amount of leeway in being incandescently angry at such a baseless and sickening allegation is allowed. As for calling the project stupid? Stupid is what it is. It's also against policy and site norms (see WP:CFORK for one), and a colossal waste of time. Many, many other users have said exactly the same thing. I shall quote one of my favourite authors to make the point: "Opinions are customarily preceded by knowledge." Think about that the next time you feel like chiming in. → ROUX₪19:19, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I did not. I stated that you lied, which is a remark about your behavior rather than a labeling of you. Roux, you stated that "The entire project is a duplication of lists that already exist". That is a blatantly untrue statement. Here is a list of the outlines from the culture and arts section of the OOK, along with links to the corresponding list names:
As far as I can tell, none of the outlines above duplicate another list. ZERO. It is much the same with all the other branches of the OOK. So that makes Roux's statement "The entire project is a duplication of lists that already exist" a lie, doesn't it? Roux, please explain. The Transhumanist19:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You violated WP:CIVIL by lying, and now you are trying to side-step the issue. You can't get out of it by changing the subject. You made an untrue statement in a public forum about the entire outline project in an effort to discredit it. That is uncool. In fact the situation is just the opposite of the way you tried to represent it: relatively few outlines duplicate previously existing lists! The Transhumanist19:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did NOT FUCKING LIE. YOU WILL STOP SAYING THAT RIGHT FUCKING NOW. I don't give a flying fuck if I get blocked for saying that, but you WILL stop fucking accusing me of fucking lying, is that fucking clear? → ROUX₪19:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My God! You can both still offend and insult each other while discussing civility matters. What happend to the old policy; if you cant be civil, dont communicate (don't dare come back with a smart remark about old policy such as WP:FORK) Highfields (talk, contribs) 19:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No matter what he called you, it is NEVER acceptable to be uncivil. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Civility and cool down, then begin tackling content issues again. Your efforts will not get anywhere if you continue to attack editors in such a manner. Remember "Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment", and incivility includes "extreme verbal abuse or profanity directed at another contributor" (emphasis mine). Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Calling you a liar is absolutely not ok, but as I said, I am not familiar with his comments, I have only seen yours, which are equally as inappropriate. I am not here to defend anyone, I am just trying to cool things down before this gets really ugly. Cheers! Scapler (talk) 19:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a little hint: understand what's going on before you stick your nose in. Telling the person who is being called a liar to calm down is the wrong thing to do. You should be telling him to stop calling me a liar. One of us did something wrong (not me), and one of us is entirely justifiably angry in response (that would be me). One of these people needs a severe talking-to (not me) and one does not (me). → ROUX₪19:53, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You stated: "The entire project is a duplication of lists that already exist". That is an untrue statement. You wrote it, and now you are trying to ignore the fact that you wrote it. The Transhumanist20:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not, and you are focusing on semantics and wikilawyering--note where I said CONTENT just above--in order to have fun needling me further. Christ on a fucking bike, you are tiresome. → ROUX₪20:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The total hypocrisy of Thehumanist is on his talk page where the pages he started are listed. A large number begin "List of ...". So it is fine for him to change the list pages of others to outlines but turn a blind eye to changing his own!! Bhtpbank (talk) 19:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think everyone's being a bit hypocritical, quite frankly that includes you Roux, being offended doesn't give you the right to be offensive back. If everyone took an eye for an eye, the world would go blindHighfields (talk, contribs) 20:00, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's terribly hypocritical of me to be angry over being called a liar, since I call people liars all the time. → ROUX₪20:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that you are unable to see a difference between swearing in anger and accusing someone of lying--bearing in mind that other people believing what you say is the only credibility online--is monumentally depressing. → ROUX₪20:10, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is, dont accuse Transhumanist of being uncivil if your response to him isn't civil, and anyway, it's not me loosing the toss over seemingly nothing: you were accused of lying, you said you havent lied, so leave it, I believe you and I'm sure your reputation will go untarnished Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You'd note, if you actually read, that I never said any such thing. I said he made a personal attack. Which he did, by calling me a liar. Something that you--predictably; this is Wikipedia--keep shunting aside as though it were unimportant. → ROUX₪20:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The admin named Prodego reported above that he deleted those statements. You did what you did. You can't change that fact. The past occurred, and on Wikipedia the past is recorded. I'm pretty sure your statements are still in the database where all admins can see them. If you continue to press the issue, we'll have to seek an admin to verify my quotes of your statements. The Transhumanist21:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have read the whole conversation, and the accusation in question, before I commented and after your last comment, so don't dare say I don't know what I'm talking about. I've left you a message at your talk page on that particular matter, but back to the topic at hand. Were you accused of lying?, did you deny that?, have you been mortally injured by the comments here?, are you willing to let it drop before you get blocked? Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you did know what you were talking about, you wouldn't be saying half of what you're saying. So there's that. Again: you need to focus on the person slinging around vile accusations, not the justifiably pissed-off recipient. But since TT appears to be incapable of comprehending that anything he does is wrong, I'm clearly not going to even get a strikeout from him. Nor, indeed, is any admin going to block him--we all know it's perfectly acceptable to make such attacks, it's being pissed off that's the problem. Obviously. This is such a ridiculous goatfuck. → ROUX₪20:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly saw any point in answering blindingly obvious rhetorical questions. I'm not playing games with you, so stop trying. → ROUX₪20:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re your list: "Outline of drawing", which is a ludicrous and ambiguous name, was renamed from "List of basic drawing topics" by you. I tried to move it back but it needs an admin. I'll look into it later. Verbalchat21:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, that's a fun one. But it is grammatically correct. In the context of the "outline of" articles, it is not ambiguous. The move was made back in October of 2008. The Transhumanist21:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance you'd like to apologize to Roux? I'm not concerned about whether or not he's lying, and I acknowledge that he attacked you pretty badly. But all the same, there's no reason to attack him by calling him a liar. Yes, he did worse, but you participated all the same; conflict isn't a one-man thing.
All in all, I would really appreciate it if you could apologize. Settle your differences later in a calm, civilized manner; talk it over and discuss where the problem lies. I'd love it if you could at least consider this. Thank you. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D21:27, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can I say "no" to that? OK...
Roux, I apologize for arguing with you and keeping things going. I'm ready to start over from scratch if you are. Here' goes...
To start, please point out exactly what is wrong with the outlines, so that we can endeavor to fix the problems. If they are crap, how are they crap? I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist21:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Roux is considering leaving (or, rather, has already expressed that he's leaving); also, he's blocked, so he can't exactly reply to you here. But I thank you for apologizing, and I'd be greatly appreciative (as would other users, I am sure) if you tried to do everything you could to help things work out as smoothly as possible. Thank you again! Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D00:42, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been following the outline debates from a distance for some time, and it is obvious to me that there has not been a clear mandate from the community yet on whether these are a good thing or not. I've seen many complaints on your talk page and other places, and have seen many of your arguments. Since this keeps coming up as an issue, I would like to request that you open an RfC to gauge whether there is community consensus for a) outlines in general, and b) the unilateral changes that your project has been making to existing articles. It may very well be that there is a slim vocal minority that opposes these and the rest of the community thinks that they are very good, but so far I don't see any community consensus for the mass insertions and changes that have been made. I'd be willing to help draft an RfC, but I am not as close to the debates as you. Karanacs (talk) 19:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An RfC is the wrong venue in which to discuss the existence of a type of page. That's what WP:AfD is for.
It is also the wrong venue in which to discuss proposals of the creation of a type of page. There is no proposal process for creating new pages - this is a central design feature of Wikipedia: anybody can create new articles. If they are crap, they get AfD'd.
The fact is that outline (and other structured list) articles exist, and they were created in accordance with long-existing list guidelines (traceable back to 2003, long before I started editing on Wikipedia). Outlines are lists, and there is no pre-approval requirement for lists nor for any other type of page. The Transhumanist19:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My fear is that this is becoming a fait accompli situation, where your project is creating a lot of articles, all of the same general format, without getting any wide buy-in and in the face of a great deal of opposition. That is normally not good practice, and ArbCom has ruled in several cases that when an editing task is done on a mass scale to forestall objections that those doing so can be sanctioned. There are numerous threads on this page (and in your talk page archives) in which a large number of users are concerned with the steps that your group is taking. Why not put it up to a wider audience? Karanacs (talk) 20:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, Roux, would you be interested in helping to draft a neutral RfC on the matter? (and please note I really mean neutral). Karanacs (talk) 20:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I were to draft it, it would naturally be neutral, and don't you dare call that into question ever again. However, those who dwell in the walled garden would find some way to whine and complain no matter what I wrote, so pass. → ROUX₪20:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Karanacs, this group of lists grew organically over a long period of time. I've been working on them for about 4 years. A large number of others have worked on these pages as well.
Opposition to articles tends to be asserted on talk pages, while support tends to be reflected in contributions to the articles themselves and in page hits. It is important to look at all of these in discerning the proportion of opposition to support.
There is opposition to outlines, no denying it. But there is far more support. Hundreds if not thousands of editors have edited these pages (is there an easy way to count them?). Compared to dozens at most (over the years) who have objected on talk pages.
I call into question your measures of support. I have edited several of the outlines that have been recently created as part of your project (not those that have existed for a long time). I did this not because I support the overall goal (I personally think they are a waste of time), but because the outlines were full of MOS violations and incorrect or misleading information. My changes have been largely reverted, leaving the project with a few new outlines that are apparently specifically designed to confuse readers. Karanacs (talk) 20:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The simple fact remains that for a supporter of outlines you have a long list of "List of ..." Articles on your home page under "pages I started". Hypocrisy or what? You do not attempt to make any reasoned argument on why a list of page is now deemed better as an outline page on any of the talk pages. You might get less opposition through explanation and consensus than trying to bulldozer your views.Bhtpbank (talk) 21:15, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey their, I have a small request to make of you, it is not much, but if you chose not to do this, it will hurt the project in the long run, because we will end up losing a good editor. In a few statements, you called User:Roux a liar, and he responded with a series of personal attacks which got him blocked, I am asking that you retract your remarks against his integrity by making a statement saying so and removing those comments from the relevant talk pages. I understand he made personal attacks against you, and because of that he will remain blocked until his block expires unless we can come to some other remedy which I hope we can. Your remarks were borderline personal attacks in my opinion (but that is not the concern here, the concern is preventing Wikipedia from, losing a great editor and the project being hurt due to that lose), and because many people value their integrity very highly, Roux over reacted after you questioned his integrity. So what I am asking is that you put your pride and other feelings for Roux aside and apologize and retract your statements, I know you have the best interests of the project at heart, and I am asking that you do this for the good of the project to which was all contribute. If you still don't like Roux, than that is your right, but I don't think it is too much to ask that you avoid Roux and retract your statements for the good of him, you, and most importantly the project as a whole. Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk)
I've read the series of responses which have led to all this, and would agree that what Mifter suggests, is the best course of action. You are a good editor, and I'm sure you will do the correct thing. Best regards, Alan16 (talk) 00:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]
Dear Mifter, it has nothing to do with pride. My brain is frazzled! And I feel drained of energy. I can't deal with Roux anymore today. For some time now, Roux has been making false and misleading statements about the outline project in order to derail it. He even made misleading statements at my latest RfA to derail that. Of course I wouldn't make these allegations if they weren't true, and (most of) his posts are in print (read on). I will compile a list of diffs as I find the time - but I'm burnt out on this today. And Prodego deleted some of Roux's statements, so it will take an admin to track those down. With Roux hounding me all day with his haranguing, I haven't been able to think straight. I could use the peace and quiet to get back to editing. The block will give both him and me time to cool off, and provide us all with the opportunity to learn to appreciate the consequences of flying off the handle and disregarding WP:CIVIL. I think 24 hours or so should be adequate. Let me know how long the block is for. Thank you. The Transhumanist00:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I deleted nothing, the only things I removed were here: [5] Also, just FYI, your talk page shows up as larger than my browser window (1280x800), maybe you could make it a bit narrower? That way it won't require horizontal scrolling to read. Thanks, Prodegotalk02:00, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) That sounds like a good idea to me :), you both look like you've been acting on frazzled nerves and could use a break from each other and some sleep and short break could do you both a lot of good :). What I am considering is that if Roux is unblocked early (Due to the somewhat controversial circumstances of his block I will have to consult with other admins on that matter) is that he be placed on civility restrictions and that he would be forbidden from any interactions or comments with or about you, and his word that he would stay away and refrain from commenting on you and in areas where you are involved. If he accepts this, I am asking that you retract your statement calling him a liar and that you remove that statement from all associated talk pages (As a gesture of good faith and a sign of your willingness to move forward from your disagreements), and then hopefully you can both edit in peace without having to interact with each other, and the encyclopedia can be better off and not lose a good editor and hopefully we can avoid any more time spent on this matter when we all could be doing more important tasks :). Thanks and All the Best, Mifter (talk) 01:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The post that finally forced me to take issue with Roux's approach is this:
You are unlikely to achieve any sort of resolution here. TheTranshumanist is the most diligent practitioner of WP:IDHT I have seen on this site, and flatly refuses to comprehend that anyone with objections to this bizarre project has anything valid to say. The patronizing, in particular, is fantastically annoying. I would suggest an RfC on the entire concept, just beware of a flood of his acolytes jumping in to say--no joke--"But this has been discussed and it's good." "Lots of people have objected." "But the benefits are obvious." "We disagree." "Well since the benefits are so obvious, we'll keep going."
The entire project is a duplication of lists that already exist, is completely impossible to maintain, and is not IMHO in titles for which anybody would search. It's an utter waste of time, and even more of a waste of time attempting to discuss this with TT. You will have noticed this at the Mathematics page.
This so-called "valid" thing he keeps pummeling us with is that he thinks the entire outline project should be deleted. Of course his reasons aren't valid, if I believed that, I'd push for deletion myself. It doesn't mean I haven't been listening. I've done my best to articulate rational responses to every objection. I couldn't do that if I didn't read them carefully to begin with. I ask for feedback abroad frequently, and I'm interested in learning every idea on how to improve outlines I can find. Therefore, the claims of WP:IDHT are unfounded.
He accused me of patronizing, but provided no evidence, no diffs. Another unsubstantiated accusation.
I have no "acolytes". Everyone I work with regularly are incredibly independently-minded, creative, and capable editors. They've improved the project (and Wikipedia) in many ways I never thought of, and I don't stand in their way. And for the most part, they defend the project for their own reasons, in their own words.
Google searches show that Roux made up the following quotes:
Another Wikipedian assumed he was telling the truth and started arguing with me against one of the false quotes. I'm not going to sit here and just let Roux start rumors right in front of my face!
The most blatant mistruth that Roux wrote was "The entire project is a duplication of lists that already exist". I posted the following reply...
That is a blatantly untrue statement. Here is a list of the outlines from the culture and arts section of the OOK, along with links to the corresponding list names:
As far as I can tell, none of the outlines above duplicate another list. ZERO. It is much the same with all the other branches of the OOK. So that makes Roux's statement "The entire project is a duplication of lists that already exist" a lie, doesn't it? Roux, please explain.
... and instead of responding to the fact that outlines do not duplicate other lists in direct contradiction to his claim, he instead replied that "Wikilawyering is the last refuge of someone without a leg to stand on". (It's on this page in a previous thread above).
Roux is not being honest. He's been doing this for awhile now. Presenting false claims, making misleading statements, etc. He stated at my latest RfA that "my goal is to have the entire stupid OOK project deleted". And he appears willing to stop at nothing to achieve that goal, including stooping to using dirty tactics.
Roux stated that the collection of outlines is "completely impossible to maintain". But they are being maintained, not getting any worse than they started. Even more importantly, these works in progress are continuously improving, as editors are putting thousands of edits into them each month.
I like Roux and appreciate the contributions he's made to the encyclopedia. But I am very disgruntled and disappointed in his approach to discussing outlines.
I do not wish for you to retire. I will be happy to forget any and all indiscretions, as long as they are not repeated.
We got off to a bad start the first time we met (I was having an off day), and I shouldn't have taken your post personally or lashed out as I did. Friction between us seems to have escalated from there ever since, and I believe it was due in no small part to how I treated you during our first encounter. I believe I turned you into an enemy by not treating you as a friend. That was stupid and insensitive of me. Please accept my apology.
To be honest, facing the possibility of having 4 years of hard work deleted has been rather stressful. I tended to experience the fight-or-flight response every time you entered the picture, which led me to perceive the situation as a kill-or-be-killed conflict with the Grim Reaper himself, against whom I was forced to defend the project to the death! So I brought out the big guns every time. Not very rational, but there you have it.
It would be nice to be able to erase all that from history and just start over. I'm willing to give it a try if you are.
I've been feeling very frustrated as of late because avid outline users have an intuitive sense of outlines' usefulness and applications, and it's very difficult to articulate this in words. I can read and explore outlines much faster than I can browse or skim articles, but I suspect that isn't true of everyone. Some people take to outlines like fish to water, while others can't understand what we're raving about.
It is even harder to explain the potential of outlines (though state-of-the-art outline viewing and processing are very cool - and powerful).
I feel that the problems that have been pointed out (outlines being low on the search results, their incomplete state, design issues, etc.) are all solvable. In time we could fix these and move on to the more interesting aspects of outline application. I wish for the opportunity to do so.
I hope we can find some common ground upon which to build, or perhaps we should simply live and let live.
What might actually help is if you apologise for calling him a liar, which was rude and also incorrect (all those articles are renamed lists). Verbalchat 14:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
He said they are duplicates (copies) of existing lists, as in there being two existing topic lists on each subject. Outlines are lists, and they were previously titled "list of", but they are not duplicates of other already existing lists. The Transhumanist 20:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It would be very difficult for me to thank you appropriately for apologizing. Thank you very much for this; I really appreciate the effort made, and I can only hope that Roux accepts it. I think what he's looking for is a direct retraction of your statements, but if that's asking for too much, don't worry. Cheers again, though. Master of Puppets - Call me MoP! :D 14:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I certainly find it difficult to thank you for this apology. Verbalchat 17:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Hello, after this nastly little mess I would like to state my wish to leave the project. You can always rely on my help and support but for now I intend to give the project a break. I'll get back to you later with a final decision. Highfields (talk, contribs) 15:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the support, and Penubag. I think I will stay after all. Just needed some time to think the future of the project through and, although it looks stormy, I think, like all storms, it will pass. Highfields (talk, contribs) 13:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I notice that you engaged in a huge number of page moves without discussing those moves first. I have serious issues with many, if not all, of the moves I have reviewed. Please don't move pages to "outline of" titles in the future without first discussing those moves and reaching consensus on the talk page - it is very diffcult to undo moves. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
I think it's time we submit an WP:RFC on the inclusion of outlines. I imagine it'll be a bit dramatic, but we need a consensus one way or another to avoid repeating the same argument over and over. I'd be happy to initiate the RfC, if you agree that it'll be beneficial. –Juliancolton | Talk 18:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
The policy proposal at WP:OUTLINE has recently failed. You should probably wait a while before attempting to establish a new consensus. Verbalchat 19:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Verbal: You are claiming a failed policy proposal a lot. Was there an official and formal request including discussion and rejection beyond the placement of the {{proposal}} tag on Wikipedia:Outlines by an outspoken opponent of the outline project?[6]Cacycle (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
No. Someone slapped the proposal tag on there. But I didn't write the page as a proposal, but as a description of the processes we've been using for years - during which this type of page was variously "Basic topics", "Lists of basic topics", "Topical outline of", "Topic outline of", and most recently "Outline of". The format these pages share has been used since late 2005 or early 2006. The Transhumanist 20:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Outlines was obviously not written as, nor meant to be, a Wikipedia policy page, so pointing out a failed policy proposal does not make much sense to me (beside the dubious "proposal" procedure). Its structure is that of a typical (future) style guideline. Cacycle (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
It's not a policy proposal. The Transhumanist 23:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
As it is not policy, then your clearly do not have consensus for the pages moves that your are undertaking. You cannot make substantial numbers of page moves on the basis of an "essay" that you wrote and published on here. I think this now needs to go to WP:RFC as you are clearly POV editing. Bhtpbank (talk) 06:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't base my actions on an essay. The recent move (40 to 50 renames) was done on my own initiative to match the names of a set of pages that existed before the essay. I haven't made any objected mass moves since. The Transhumanist 19:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you please revert any and all mass renames and moves you have engaged in as part of the "outline" project where consensus wasn't clearly established on the talk page or the appropriate (not outline) wikiproject. Thanks. Verbalchat 21:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
At this point, they wouldn't be reverts, since they happened so long ago. The Transhumanist 22:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
I do not think that many of these renamings are actually controversial factually. Why do you think this could not be handled on the respective talk pages for the few exceptions? Transhumanist has made it clear that he is not pursuing any further semi-large-scale renamings. Cacycle (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you then revert those that are recent, say the last few months, or have had few or no edits since the renames and small edits you have done? He should not pursue any more moves of this type without establishing consensus locally or project wide. I find it an interesting coincidence that many articles have undergone 2 sequential moves by the transhumanist, which happens to make a move to the original name impossible without admin assistance. Verbalchat 22:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
That's what I tried to do with the recent batch move, and look what happened. Many of those pages I moved were watchlisted. The backlash for moving all the pages you refer to would be an order of a magnitude greater than what we just witnessed. The Transhumanist 22:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you post your list then and we could all go through them one by one. Verbalchat 22:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
That would take months. We have better things to do. What you are suggesting is to take a gigantic step backwards, while taking a long time to do it. That's a double-whammy bad thing and it would be a tremendous allocation of effort to achieve a negative effect: network disruption. Because dismantling a system that has become well-established in its present configuration is highly disruptive, and would therefore be met with great opposition (a lesson we just learned in the recent move). I must respectfully decline your request. The Transhumanist 03:23, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Now your activities have come to light they have met great opposition. Your refusal to do this transparently and be open about what you've done is telling. It's really no effort at all. Just put the last 20 up to start with. Fixing mistakes is a good thing. Verbalchat 10:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Solution: Every time a article is renamed/moved to "outline" or an "outline" created, make a note of it in your project space. You could also add an archive of recent renames, and suggest future renames. This way your work will be transparent. However, note that proposing renames, etc. in the project, and there being no opposition in the project space, doesn't mean they are unopposed by the community and have consensus. If you could list the last "batch" that would be a start. Verbalchat 16:11, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
The last batch were already reverted back. BTW, if you would make a list of "topic lists" that you would support moving to "Outline of" titles, that would be even more valuable a starting point. The Transhumanist 22:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
{{Infobox outlines|name=Chocolate|image=Chocolate.jpg|main=Chocolate|category=Chocolate|outline=[[Outline of chocolate|Chocolate]]|list=|portal=Food|out1=culture|out2=[[Outline of food|Food]]|cat1=Culture|cat2=Food and drink|cat3=Foods}}
Some Chocolate to cheer you up. It is work in progress, but when the box is ready it would help navigating the outline hierarchy as well as between outlines, articles, and categories. And also important, it would help to distinguish outlines from articles. Cacycle (talk) 04:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
You are a genius!! -- penubag (talk) 04:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
The original version is a damn good idea.
It definitely has cheered me up (making me even happier than I already am!). Thank you. The Transhumanist 21:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
In a spirit of conciliation and goodwill, would you please explicitly retract your unfounded accusations of lying against Roux. Thank you. Verbalchat 15:40, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
I second that, please be so considerate. This accusation should never have been made, irrespective of how disruptive his previous interactions were. Cacycle (talk) 15:59, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Verbal, the evidence presented above under the subheading #Evidence of the falsity of Roux's statements, shows that my statements were well grounded. Not only were Roux's statements unverifiable, they were verifiably false. But if you require further evidence backing up the statements I made (in reference to Roux's approach over a period of time), I will be happy to provide it.
Cacycle, if I hadn't addressed the stream of mistruths coming from Roux, what would have stopped him from making more? And if I hadn't posted the rebuttals, the posts they addressed would still be sitting out there unanswered to mislead editors who read them. It is not appropriate to leave misleading statements out there to continue to mislead. Silence was not a reasonable option.
Your statements were misleading and untrue. You have treated wikipedia as a WP:BATTLE and have been a detriment to the project. You have not shown that you have acted in good faith. Please retract your false statement and apologise. Repeating the lie is not going to make this go away. Verbalchat 08:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I acted in good faith by waiting months before taking direct action against Roux.
Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence.
.
My statements were specifically about the falsity of Roux's statements and Roux's making them. I provided evidence above. If my statements were misleading and untrue, then it should be an easy matter for you to explain how the evidence I presented doesn't prove the falsity of Roux's statements.
Roux was engaging in libel, and now you are starting down the same path. I did what I felt was necessary to make him stop and to begin correcting the misnformation he presented.
Which brings us to your statements immediately above. You have just accused me of lying. That's a serious accusation. Present your serious evidence.
I ask you to remove the legalese or I will ask for you to be blocked in accordance with WP:NLT. Verbalchat 20:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
But I didn't threaten to take legal action. "Homicide", "suicide", "slander", "burglary", "breaking and entering", etc. are all legal terms. "Libel" means printing false statements about someone, as opposed to speaking falsely about them. In addition to being a legal term, it is also a word of the English Language, and can be used as such to present concepts more clearly. But now you are changing the subject. You accused me of lying above. That's a serious accusation. Present your serious evidence per WP:ATTACK. The Transhumanist 21:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
1, You shouldn't use terms such as libel, slander, deformation, etc per WP:NLT whether you intend to take action or not, they are bullying intended to have a chilling effect and should be avoided and at the very least are uncivil. This is standard wikipedia etiquette. 2, I have not accused you of lying, I simply stated the aphorism that repeating a lie doesn't change the nature of the lie. In regards to your misleading statements, you have presented no evidence that passes even a cursory glance. Please strike you legal threats (in the wikipedia sense) or I will take this further. Verbalchat 21:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Please ignore any provocations and keep a cold head. Verbal and TT: You are free to think what you want, but calling somebody a liar in public is crossing a line and it harms any projects you are working on, poisons future interactions, and strongly backfires on yourself. TT, please write a formal excuse apology, that is the least you can do in this situation. Otherwise this will escalate again at one point. Cacycle (talk) 16:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
By the way, saying that "calling somebody a liar" strongly implies name calling. I focused on the lies and upon the fact that he made them - that is, upon the editor's behavior, as indicated in Wikipedia:No personal attacks. I never used the term "liar". The Transhumanist 20:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Going out on a limb, I think Cacycle mistyped and meant "formal apology". Forgive my presumption, Cacycle, but it seems like stepping in here is necessary. I would note that lying implies forethought and malice on the part of the liar. It is perfectly possible for both you, TT, and Roux to have made false statements without intending to deceive. Were I to be called a liar or accused of lying it would be the implication of malice, rather than the implication that I was wrong, that would be most insulting to me. It doesn't really matter here whether Roux was wrong or not, you still ought apologize for accusing him of bad faith action. Cheers, Danger (talk) 20:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Forethought and malice aren't necessarily implied by "lying". Intentionality is. Making up quotes is pretty strong evidence of intention. The Transhumanist 21:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
You're right. Malice isn't necessary in lying, but intentionality is. I misspoke. It appears, and again I may be wrong here and apologies to Roux if I have misinterpreted their intentions, that the phrases Roux listed in quotation marks were not intended as literal quotations of specific speakers but as summaries of arguments. It's a rhetorical device that I use often when there is no formal name for the argument I'm attempting to refute, or when I don't want to use overly technical language. I would hate to be accused of lying when I'm merely illustrating a point. Do you think it is possible that that is what Roux was doing, and that they had no intention of deceiving? --Danger (talk) 02:44, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
That is indeed a common device that is not intended to deceive, but can indeed cause confusion, especially if one party to the debate isn't AGF. An AGF would seek to find out if the author had misspoken, or really meant what was said or written. I also ask Transhumanist to take the high road and drop the enmity. You will not lose face, and will actully win by doing so. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
AGF applies both ways. Assuming I hold enmity is not assuming good faith. I don't hate anyone here. I just want the misquotes, the untruths, and misleading statements to stop - whether they are intentional or not! The Transhumanist 22:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Then stop making them. Simples. Verbalchat 05:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hi Danger... Well, if they weren't literal quotations, they should not have been presented within quotation marks, or the nature of the quotes should have been explained. As such, Roux's quotes were disproved. It would be up to him or his supporters to present any actual quotes that serve as examples for the type of behavior Roux was attempting to describe. It is impractical for the defense to prove that something general doesn't exist (Google searches are useless in such cases, as we'd have to search for every conceivable phrase), and it is only fair that the accusers (accusing users of stating specific phrases) prove that such quotes were actually stated. IMHO. The Transhumanist 22:03, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
It is a standard technique familiar to most accomplished English writers. The quotes were not attributed to an individual. Verbalchat 08:41, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Transhumanist I advise you never to respond to this thread again. The conflict was acted upon and resolved by administrators, we should now consider it closed. As you are also no doubt aware it would probably be within your interest to avoid all discussion of this topic in a sort of "I plead the fifth" sense, if you get me. (Avoiding talking yourself into trouble) Gavin (talk) 00:42, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Accusing someone of Libel is a legal threat. Please state clearly that you either do or do not intend to take any legal action against another Wikipedia editor. Please also review WP:NLT. Hipocrite (talk) 21:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I was merely classifying a type of lie. It was meant descriptively only. I have no intention of seeking legal action. Never have, never will. The Transhumanist 22:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Consider this a final warning, then, that the world "Libel" implies a legal offense. Do not use the word "libel" to describe other contributors statements, at any time. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 22:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Whatever your intentions are, the word is highly contentious and discouraged to an extremely high degree. WP:NLT: "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are "defamatory" or "libelous", that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording". Cheers! Scapler (talk) 23:07, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Will do. Thank you for the helpful guidance! The Transhumanist 21:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop moving articles without generating consensus, per the recent ANI discussion which supported my position, guidelines, and policy. Verbalchat 05:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The ANI discussion did not support your position. No one even replied . And the few that did supported my position. Feel free to refresh your mind [7] -- penubag (talk) 08:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
"No one replied. And the few that did" Contradiction! Sorry, but those that were against me had supposed, incorrectly, that I was the one doing the renaming - they all favoured the status quo of the original names for list articles, and lists in general. Also, that only (incorrectly) answers one of the four points raised. The outline project seems to generally also flout WP:MOS and more importantly the legal requirements of the GFDL. I would advise you both not to make any more moves or outlines without prior discussion. Verbalchat 08:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I count 4 people involved, not including us. 1 person agrees with you, 2 people agree with me, and other other guy was just there to be there. But it doesn't matter at this point since that report was poorly executed and the # of people supp/oppos are irrelevant. -- penubag (talk) 10:35, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
The moves and renamings made by The Transhumanist are made without a consensus on the articles' talk pages and are opposed by many. This has to stop immediately. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I warned you once before about moving lists to "Outline of..." Consider all such moves disputed, and take such proposed moves to the list's talk page or requested moves. If you move another list to "Outline of," I will ask an administrator to intervene. Hipocrite (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
As far as I can see, these were simply reverts of undiscussed (and in light of the current situation somewhat provocative and disruptive) page moves. This has been clearly stated in the move summaries. Cacycle (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
Hipocrite, why are you using such language? It assumed bad faith and can generate conflict. Might I suggest you reconsider uses of words like warned also- it isn't really your place to warn anyone. Gavin (talk) 00:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Of course it is his place to warn, anyone can place warnings. Also, The Transhumanist has been, repeatedly changing the names of lists to "outline of " without any form of consensus. That's the problem. Verbalchat 05:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
and so have you, verbal, but visa versa -- penubag (talk) 05:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
At most three, and I feel consensus can be established for those moves. You have (cough) misrepresented moves yourself very recently, while I have not. Compare to the wholesale disruptive moves and deletions carried out by the controversial and non-consensus "outlines project", with ridiculous claims of WP:COMMONNAME and WP:MOS and GFDL violations. In all this project is doing severe damage to the encyclopaedia, just from the repeated copyright violations. Verbalchat 08:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Was I incorrect in my understanding that you were no longer going to move articles from list to outline or from outline to list? You have moved an article again - unless you can convince me that you will not move another article, I will be forced to raise your behavior at appropriate noticeboards. Hipocrite (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
User:The Transhumanist you have, at Wikipedia talk:Outlines, given up trying to defend your actions ("List" to "Outine" pages moves), and are instead relying on faster editing and momentum to overcome critical commentary and even opposition. I think you should stop and seek an expression of consensus. I think the appropriate course of action in a Wikipedia:Requests for comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:13, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree. Stop immediately. While an RfC is proper, an immediate block is way overdue, since IDIDNTHEARTHAT seems to be the ruling editorial practice here. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
I see you have recommenced your mass edits.
See here: If you do not stop this now, I will impose a lengthy block on your account, intended to last until there is some solid consensus on the part of the community on what to do with your outlines.
Here is how this works: If you do continue your mass edit, I will issue a month's block on you. I will then post my action to WP:ANI for review by the admin community, and you will of course also be free to request third party review on your talkpage. It is probable that this block will then be shortened or lifted under certain conditions, such as a parole on proper behaviour on your part. --dab(𒁳) 09:27, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Per my comments above, a block is way overdue. We have seen no evidence that The Transhumanist has any intention of listening or slowing down. On the contrary. You have my support for a block. There is no need to wait for an RfC. What's been done already makes it necessary. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
TT, just stop for a bit. I personally agree with you but this isn't the way to impliment outlines, discussion is. I'm saying this because I don't want to see you blocked - your too good to let that happen. Think. Highfields (talk, contribs) 14:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
The Transhumanist has made 15 article space edits in the past 10 days, and had not edited in the 24 hours before the comment on WT:OUTLINE.[8] In addition Dab, I would consider any administrator action by you on TT to be inappropriate, as you have severely disagreed with TT on this subject matter in the past. Please leave any blocks to a third party administrator, or request one at ANI. Of course, I would not unblock myself, as I have done some work for OoK many months past, but still... NW(Talk) 00:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
And how many of those edits have been to repair the damage he has done? Zilch! A long block is way past due. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The edits that dab refers to above were in response to an undiscussed, provocative, and disruptive semi-mass moving of outlines to lists by User:Verbal. Please see the discussions above, here, and on Verbal's talk page . Cacycle (talk) 03:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Sort of like what started all this - The Transhumanist's huge undiscussed, provocative, and disruptive mass renaming of lists to outlines? Efforts to resist such moves are helpful to Wikipedia. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Compared to TTs behaviour, my restoration of original names per WP:BRD barely scratched the surface. It seems that the way this project reacts to criticism is to tell untruths and hound an editor until they quit, such as with Roux - who was even accused of libel (as was I, but I refuse to be bullied by Carter Ruck like behaviour). Not a single action of mine was disruptive. Further personal attacks will be reported to admins for sanctions. Verbalchat 08:03, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I think that the only way to solve the current conflict would be a community wide request for comment. Would you be willing to help in planning, phrasing, and referencing such a request? I have also asked Verbal on his talk page. I would like to hear your ideas about this and ask you to refrain from potentially controversial actions related to this conflict until we have sorted this out. Thanks, Cacycle (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Please see my last comment on Verbal's user page about the proposed request for comment about the outline project. Cacycle (talk) 13:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm not currently renaming lists to outlines, though I did revert some moves of outlines to lists. I've backed off from doing that as well, and have been replying on those articles' talk pages instead. See the talk pages for Outline of water, Outline of culture, and Outline of logic.
RfC isn't the proper venue of discussion for the fate of outline articles.
Discussing the deletion of outlines should be conducted at AfD.
And I'm pretty sure that a (contested) effort to move or rename a large collection of articles would need to be presented as a proposal at WP:VPR.
I support the status quo (leaving outlines and lists named as they are), which requires no action. If someone wants to change the names of outlines, the Village Pump (proposals) is the place to discuss it.
Note that no permission, proposal process, nor consensus is required for the creation of articles from scratch. That's what I shall be focusing on from now on.
I think there is no doubt that an RFC is an appropriate next step for discussing fate of outline articles, and of list articles. If applicable, this RFC would undoubtedly inform subsequent AfDs. Nominating individual but typical outlines at AfD at this point would be disruptive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to a mass deletion proposal. There is at least one editor who wants outlines removed from Wikipedia completely.
As for an RfC, I think it would be a waste of time. Whatever outlines are called, they're still hierarchical and they'll still be on Wikipedia under one name or another. The Transhumanist 21:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The Transhumanist can reasonably create articles from scratch, subject to violating some guideline or policy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
What is going on with Outline of logic? I had recently expanded it as an outline, and now it is being moved to a list (and the list was deleted). Does this make any sense at all? Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:23, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
The list was a redirect to the outline, created when the page was originally moved. It had to be deleted due to the chain of moves. Verbalchat 17:33, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Could you take this campaign against outlines somewhere else please? Deleting collected material is inappropriate. A whole list was deleted not just a redirect. Furthermore outlines are a more evolved form of organization than lists, so it really is a substantial step backwards.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 17:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
There wasn't anything there. You may be looking for Index of logic articles, which a few pages also redirect to. The only articles with content were the List/Outline and the Index. Verbalchat 19:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
Just seemed rather close to an outline to me. It's a structured, hierarchical list of articles relating to the topic of string theory. --Cybercobra(talk) 01:59, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Please stop your disruptive behaviour, misleading comments, canvassing, forum shopping, and threats of further disruption (duplicating articles) unless you get your way. Please resolve the central issue of outlines first. Verbalchat 07:43, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Rather than helping to resolve this problem, you are spreading it around and making the separation of topics (your behaviour and outlines generally) much more difficult. Please stop, and engage with finding a resolution. Verbalchat 14:31, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
Verbal: What is the context of this warning? AGK 10:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. I am posting this here because I think that both proponents of and opposers of the outline concept watch this talk page. Karanacs (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 Hours for Per talk on what is now Talk:Outline of drawing topics the requested move was closed as a move and you reversed it without proper discussion. This is disruptive and you have been warned more then once not to move any more lists to outlines without a clear consensus. Please use the timeout to consider your approach to consensus.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. SpartazHumbug! 12:33, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
It wasn't merely a move of a list to an outline, it was the reversion of an outline rename, an outline that had been called an outline for over a year. The person who renamed it didn't get consensus before he made the move, and there is clear opposition to the move on the article's talk page, firmly establishing that there is no consensus for that move. In addition to that, the mover used an underhanded tactic (via requested moves) to move the page, rather than propose the move on the article's talk page as he should have. The Transhumanist 01:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Although not included in Spartaz's block reason above, I believe that any disruption caused by your move was further aggravated by the fact that you chose to do it in two stages [9][10] so that it would require an administrator to revert the move. That action was petty and unworthy of you.
For the avoidance of doubt, I think it is now clear that the moving of "List of ..." articles to "Outline of ..." and vice versa now constitutes a move war (notwithstanding that many articles are involved and that some of these may not yet have been moved). Should anyone who has been previous warned move such a page without clear consensus, then I think blocks should be considered as a response. The whole matter has become extremely disruptive and I continue to be at a loss to understand your aversion to having an RfC to try and resolve it. WJBscribe(talk) 13:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
This was mentioned in my explanation in the block log but I agree 100% with everything you said. SpartazHumbug! 13:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
The subsequent rename to "Outline of drawing topics" was intended as a compromise, an amalgamation of the two contesting titles ("Outline of drawing" and "List of drawing topics"), and a fix to the ambiguity of and awkward pun in the outline title. The Transhumanist 01:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
It was a slight improvement to tweak it by adding "topics" to the end (at least you do recognize that ambiguity problems can occur), but the list title still sounds better and is clearer in English, and it always avoids ambiguity problems, whereas "outline" frequently runs into this problem. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I didn't deny that they occurred, I just don't think they are a big deal. They don't appear to have confused anyone, they've just triggered fear in a few editors who believe they will cause confusion. Just to be clear, you weren't confused by those titles, were you? Though the word "List" is more ambiguous, as it doesn't indicate what kind of list the article is, and implies that it's a straight list (rather than a tree structure - outlines are one of the types of tree structures). The Transhumanist 20:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
As it happens, thanks to your double move the talk page got separated from the article when it was reverted. I'm quite concerned that you don't seem to get the point that the outline / list nonsense is getting quite polarised now and that any moves are going to be disruptive until there is a general consensus on the point. You have been warned enough times about moving lists to outlines. I do hope that you take this on board now. SpartazHumbug! 23:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
What about the complicity of User:Jake Wartenberg, who participated in and thus encouraged this move war? He is even guilty of improperly moving at least one article. He let the crowd from the Outlines project pressure him into moving the following article in a very controversial situation without a legitimate consensus:
I don't know how he made the move, but the "move" tab disappeared from both the new and original articles, making it only possible for admins to move it. That has been fixed by a restoration of the original title, but he still needs to explain his behavior and be held accountable for possible misuse of admin tools. What he did was very similar to what TT did by removing the possibility for other editors to undo his actions. -- Brangifer (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
Not everyone that acts against your favor needs to be blocked. He acted on community consensus on the talkpage which was reasonable. Verbal was asked multiple times to stop editwarring, in which he didn't, Jake simply reverted his controversial moves. The nature in which Verbal got the pages move protected were unacceptable as well. Jake acted appropriately. -- penubag (talk) 00:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you're helping anything, by promoting the "rename outlines straw poll" that you created. I'd suggest that you either contribute quietly to the RfC that Karanacs is coordinating, or, much more useful, get back to improving the outlines themselves - like removing the much maligned Glaciers of Senegal from Outline of Senegal and other cleanup work. Quality before quantity, I think needs to be the OOK focus, for a while. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:45, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
