User talk:Gamewizard71

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Rune Factory 2: A Fantasy Harvest Moon, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Rune Factory 2: A Fantasy Harvest Moon was changed by Gamewizard71 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.850931 on 2011-06-25T23:05:13+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 23:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Category:Geography. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. John of Reading (talk) 06:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Gamewizard71! I saw your edit to Help:Contents. I think you're right, the page could do with some better organization and maybe a completely new look. But I think it will be more productive to talk about it on Help talk:Contents than to just tag the page. In fact, I remember that someone posted a new design for the page a while back. Why don't you take a look at that and see what you think of it? All the best. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I think I reverted the wrong person in that edit. Apologies. That Ole Cheesy Dude ^{(Talk to the hand!)} 00:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your clean-up work on some of the Help pages. Can I ask you to use more edit summaries to explain your reasoning? I try to check all the edits made in the Help namespace, and this would be much easier if I could see the reasoning behind your edits. I've undone one of your changes at Help:Contents/Browsing Wikipedia - I think it is important that new readers understand that Wikipedia is written by volunteers. -- John of Reading (talk) 05:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

...and now I've undone my "undo", since I've seen where you moved the link to. Please use edit summaries for each step of your cleanup! -- John of Reading (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat this request with respect to main space updates (Mathematics for example. A quick description of the change and some hint of the motivation makes collaboration easier. Its not always as obvious to us as it might be to you.

Also, some description on the Talk:Mathematics page as to what you think needs cleaning up would make for more coordinated resolution of those issues. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 17:18, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gamewizard71. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Portal:Contents/Outlines/Geography and places, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The reason given is not a valid speedy deletion criterion. Thank you. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 15:27, 24 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By all means suggest improvements to these pages, but could you make the suggestions at Portal talk:Contents rather than by adding {{Cleanup}} tags? These pages get a huge number of visits by readers, and, I suspect, not many visits by Wikipedia editors skilled enough to act on your tags. I think that posting at the talk page is more likely to lead to a discussion or redesign. -- John of Reading (talk) 11:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Democratic Party (United States). When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. –CWenger (^ • @) 16:09, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Regarding replacing plain links with navboxes on Outline of video games, this is contrary to general practices of WP:OUTLINES (though not disallowed). Keeping links in plain text form (topic outline) lets the editors add additional descriptions to the links (sentence outlines) and group them hierarchically (and browse through TOC). Is there a particular reason you believe navboxes are better? Regards. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 20:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They are neater, keep the page shorter, and a template's text can be grouped hierarchically. Also TOC is only useful on long pages. Templates make them shorter. Gamewizard71 (talk) 20:30, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gamewizard71, yer bot's out of control, eliminating all sorts of logic ariticles from category "Logic". I reverted one of the eliminations, thinking this was a one-time event, but then I observed the bot's gone wonky. Yikes! Heavens forfend! Bill Wvbailey (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I see you moved Index of optical articles to Outline of optics. This is not correct, the article is an index and not an outline, because it is alphabetical. Same applies to adding Category:Outlines to Index of electronics articles. Additionally, Wikipedia's generic list naming convention is "List of ___" per WP:LISTNAME. So moving List of engineering branches to Branches of engineering without discussion is not merited; open a requested move discussion is you believe this to be a better name. Thanks. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 07:55, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just saw that you were adding some chemistry articles into Category:Chemistry. This may sound sensible - but the problem is we have tens of thousands of articles like acetic acid and hydroxide. The top level category in a subject should really only include major concepts - the smaller topics should go in subcategories such as oxyanions or carboxylic acids, or else the top category gets swamped. Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:41, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Seconded. Further, this is rather useless category, and its adding to dozens of articles merely spams editor's watchlists, thereby irritating them. Please reconsider. There is certainly no sense adding this category to Plasma (physics) as you did. Materialscientist (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I wont add compounds.Gamewizard71 (talk) 04:44, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How about not adding anything? :-) Materialscientist (talk) 04:46, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have to. A lot of articles are part of chemistry and are not categorized as so.Gamewizard71 (talk) 04:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have to?? No, and not needed if in a subcat or daughter cat. Vsmith (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll see what I can do.Gamewizard71 (talk) 20:02, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:Categories and specifically note: Pages are not placed directly into every possible category, only into the most specific one in any branch. Vsmith (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can I ask why timekeeping catagory was removed from sundial. No problem I just cannot understand it, and may reinstate it as I can find no discussions concerning changing the catagory. Ta, Edmund Patrick – confer 05:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because Sundials is a sub category of clocks which is a catgory of timekeeping.Gamewizard71 (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Edmund Patrick – confer 05:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

as an me with 35 years of experience i am surprised that you have removed mechanical engineering from the category list of several turbo-machinery articles. stress, vibration, heat transfer, thermal-dynamics and fluid dynamics are just a few of the mechanical engineering specialties required in turbo-machinery design and development. I don't understand your justification. could you explain? Mkoronowski (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are sub categories that include those articles.Gamewizard71 (talk) 22:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Many of your removals from this category are clearly wrong; column, antefix and cupola are all classic examples of what belongs in this category. Frankly I don't think you know the subject area well enough to do these edits. If you don't mind I'll roll back the mistaken ones. You should also note WP:DUPCAT and WP:EPON. Johnbod (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So far, you've damaged the templates {{Decadebox}} (twice}, {{Centurybox}}, and {{YearsInCentury}}. If you don't understand the complex template calls, don't edit them. Furthermore, you removed {{tl|Decadebox}} in User:Pmanderson's in three comments in [[Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (numbers and dates)]. If you are not him, That's vandalism. If you are him, it's still discouraged to edit your comments after they have been replied to. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:16, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I don't understand the templates. That's why I put in a request in WT:YEARS for adjustments to be made to allow for the increased number of decade articles, and the renaming of (for example) 2000–2009 to 2000s (decade). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:45, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Every mistake is another step ahead.Gamewizard71 (talk) 00:51, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps not blocking you for damaging a few hundred articles ({{Decadebox}}) was a mistake, since you apparently don't understand what you did wrong? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:56, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Angioendotheliomatosis requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Decstop (talk) 14:44, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I reverted a couple of your recent edits turning List of vaccines into a redirect and adding the content to outline of vaccines because they did not follow usual procedure (did not keep the history clear).

If you want to move a page, please use the move function. If the move function will not work (e.g. because there is a page already at the destination), then one can request a move and an administrator can do the move for you. (See wp:MOVE)

Also, if you are merging content from one page to another, the edit summary should follow the standard form as outlined in WP:merge. Basically the merge from summary says where the content was merged to, and on the destination page the summary says this is a merge and gives the page the content came from. (This is needed to keep the histories and copyright information sorted.)

If you think List of vaccine topics would be better moved back to outline of vaccines you might propose the move on Talk:List of vaccine topics.

At this point I am neither opposed to nor in favor of such a move, I just want to keep the revision history clear. I hope the above links are helpful. Zodon (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can also make a request to an admin to remove a redirect page to make way for a move to that title. For example, Outline of mathematical logic (which was a redirect) should have been deleted so that List of mathematical logic topics could be renamed to it. The Transhumanist 21:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None Few of those is a "timeline". A list of years is exactly that, a list of "year in xxxx" articles. A timeline has a series of events. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:23, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then make it a timeline?Gamewizard71 (talk) 22:25, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you need to do, first, is to revert all those moves. If you haven't further edited the redirect, you can do that. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you, as you're making edits which have the effect of making it difficult for me to revert your clearly impoper moves. If you promise to revert your moves before making any other edits, I'll release the block. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well ok... But which ones...Gamewizard71 (talk) 22:31, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of them, where the article is actually a list of pointers to year articles. You know better than I which those are. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well some of them actually list a series of events. e.g. List of years in country music which i redirected to Timeline of country music This page does indeed list a series of events.Gamewizard71 (talk) 22:35, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you redirected it rather than moving it, you have also made some more work for other Wikipedians, or created a copyright violation. See comments about cut and paste moves in the section above. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that some of them (Paleontology) really are timelines. But you apparently didn't check. Will you promise to revert your moves before going on to other activity? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:40, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article can be rewritten... then cited properly with the citations on the pages. The copy and paste is just better than starting from scratch... and yes list of years in paleontolgy prolly needs to be merged with timeline of paleontologyGamewizard71 (talk) 22:43, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Copy/paste is a violation of copyright. Did you do any more of those in the List → Outline "moves", other than the ones commented on above? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, "List"s and "Outline"s on the same subject can coexist, as can "List of years" and "Timeline". If they both exist, suggest a merge, using the appropriate templates, and wait for discussion. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unblocking, now, but I'll be watching your edits for a bit. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the "year in xxxx" articles is a timeline for that year in that subject. Together, they make up a larger timeline. A split-up timeline is still a timeline. Just as a split-up index is still an index. See Index of Japan-related articles (it is a multi-page index). And see Timeline of Muslim history, which is split up by century.

Timeline of Canadian history, is split up by year, and therefore lists "xxxx in Canada" articles.

Gamewizard's renames sure look like timelines to me.   The Transhumanist 22:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An article which consists only of a list of pointers to "Year in xxxx", with no events, should be "List of years in ...", rather than "timeline of ...". I'm really not sure about Canada. Could go either way. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:57, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The first one I looked at (British radio) is not a timeline. — Arthur Rubin (talk)

I'd definitely move Canada to "List of years in ...." I'll do it, if I have to rename other incorrectly moved lists. Keep that in mind when deciding what to work on next. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 23:45, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought we had agreed that you would move the non-timeline articles back before you continued with other edits. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones... I thought you were discussing whether they should be moved or not since transhuman stated they were timelines...Gamewizard71 (talk) 01:50, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All of them which do not have text entries. It was your choice to move them. If you don't have time to look at them, move all of them back, and let someone with time to look at the articles decide. Note that I have no objection to your moves of "Foo timeline" to "Timeline of foo"; even if it weren't properly named a timeline, that's a style change per the appropriate project naming convention. I now think that some of your List → Outline moves also weren't correct. Please check, and revert all those which are not structured lists. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:00, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, your latest changes are clearly wrong. Just tagging a list with Category:Outlines is absurd, whether or not it is an outline. Either rename it to Outline (if it really is an outline), or don't tag it as an outline. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to... GEEEZ I cant do everything with super speed ok...Gamewizard71 (talk) 02:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to go back to fix your previous errors before you go on to make new errors changes. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain why you removed that category from 29 articles on August 25 (UTC)? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:13, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly... because i put them in their subcats...Gamewizard71 (talk) 02:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, except for the Hilbert problems, some of which have been solved. I re-added "unsolved problems" to two of the three. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have found several moves of mathematics list articles to "Outline" names on my watchlist. I could find no discussion of these moves at either WT:WPM or any of the article talk pages in question. As there is a small number of editors who are pushing these 'outline' articles, which are often no more than the proper articles of the same name with everything but the links removed, there is no consensus that Wikipedia even needs such articles. In the past, renames of the form "List" -> "Outline" have been very contentious, especially if they were not previously discussed in an appropriate forum. I am therefore going to alert WikiProject Mathematics, and if there is no quick consensus that your moves are OK, revert them so they can be discussed without the usual accusations of unfair advantage for an undiscussed new status quo.

In the future, for making such moves please go through WP:RM or at least get a consensus on the respective talk pages. _Outline">Hans Adler 07:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)_Outline">[reply]_Outline">

• I was about to ask the same question, and have commented here. Please stop moving pages until it is apparent that a discussion has recommended the mass moves. Johnuniq (talk) 07:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Before moving articles, please also check the history. Some of the lists you have moved have already been moved from the names you are using (and often moved back again). Such a history is pretty clear indication that the move is likely to be questioned, so should not be done without discussion. If there is a history of the article having been moved, then ask about/discuss the proposed move on the articles talk page before moving.

Also, once it has been discussed, if the article is moved, please be sure to fix the lead of the moved article. Zodon (talk) 07:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They just need to be fixed and made into outlines... list of topics are unorganized ... stop complaining and help make them into outlines. Gamewizard71 (talk) 19:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also WTF are you talking about? youre discussing the reason a page that should have been discussed to be moved? What is this? The move was logical. Most of them are already in outline format the others need to be revamped.Gamewizard71 (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Project Outline has any value to Wikipedia, but I have to admit that a number of them are outlines as WP:OUTLINE defines them. On the other hand, the clear WT:WikiProject Mathematics consensus is that they should not be "called" outlines, and it's unlikely that there really is an overall Wikipedia consensus that they should be called outlines. In other words, Gamewizard's actions here are reasonable, except for the few articles which are alphabetical lists, and those which have already be moved "from" the Outline name. However, they should be considered a WP:BOLD] edit for the purpose of WP:BRD. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) See WP:OWN. What appears logical to you may appear totally wrong to others. You most certainly do not own these articles. You cannot simply declare unilaterally that the have to be changed from their current state into something different. Or rather, you can do it, but this is likely to lead into conflicts and into you being sanctioned. Hans Adler 20:37, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No. What you are stating is just nonsense. You are not helping the progress of anything. Can you actually look at those lists and say they are useful? They need to be updated and improved. The majority of these lists are almost orphans. I wonder why.Gamewizard71 (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Look, regardless of the merits of your point of view, editing Wikipedia is a collaborative activity, and you need to respect the views of your fellow editors (See WP:CONSENSUS). Paul August ☎ 21:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gamewizard71. Thank you. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you were an admin you should assume good faith edits. Please help edit Outlines and etc. You just complain and dont even think about my edits... what ever that is posting me on an admin noticeboard whatever... just stop. I like to edit wikipedia. Im trying to make it simpler.Gamewizard71 (talk) 19:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was assuming good faith, but nonetheless often clearly incorrect, edits. You're still making arguable edits faster than multiple, established editors from WikiProject Math can revert. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

REVERT???Gamewizard71 (talk) 20:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

(Actually, only an Admin can use the "revert" link to properly revert a move.) By "revert", I meant "reverse". "Undo" is another term which may apply. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gamewizard, whether or not your page moves are helpful, please do not make any more page moves without the consensus of other editors. If you carry on doing this without consensus, you could be blocked (please take this as a last warning). As an aside, do not make copy-paste moves, they break the open content licence and stir up other woes, use the move button instead, see WP:Move. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?Gamewizard71 (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Consensus. Don't make any more page moves until you've gathered agreement from other editors to do so. If you move pages without consensus, you'll be blocked from editing. Sorry to be so strong about it but you must stop. Also, please have a look at WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You won't get what you want here by being snarky or too smug with other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that could a long time.Gamewizard71 (talk) 21:15, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It can take time. It can take forever if other editors don't think a move would be helpful. So far, you don't have consensus, so please stop. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:17, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

+1 to Gwen Gale. Gamewizard, I personally (unlike most WP:MATH participants who have expressed an opinion) really have no strong preference either way as to what these articles are called. But you are taking an aggressive attitude that is not going to be well received. If you want to move mathematical articles in bulk, you either have to convince mathematicians, or else convince the wider community (e.g. at the village pump) that the mathematicians are wrong. --Trovatore (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You just removed a "citation needed" tag for the fields of mathematics. The point of the tag was that any classification is done from a point of view. In mathematics, for example, the classification might magnify the apparent importance of a field, in disproportion to how many practitioners, publications, etc. it has. So there is something to discuss in how the fields of math are organized. In fact, this discussion is underway on Talk:Mathematics. This issue is a particular sore spot for me because the section suggests that "change", "structure", etc. are fields of mathematics, but no mathematician speaks this way about the fields of mathematics. Mgnbar (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well reword it so it doesnt require a citation. Gamewizard71 (talk) 23:33, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Gamewizard71, from reading your talk page it seems to me that people are jumping on you pretty hard. Based on your account activity --- 4 edits before this June --- you may be new here. But maybe not. If you are really are new to Wikipedia, I hope that you don't get completely turned off by the hostility you're getting. You're being a bit bold, which is fine. My advice, which you haven't requested, is to avoid controversial systemic changes (such as the outline project) and stick to solid edits of content/presentation of specific articles, and to try to build consensus for the more dramatic stuff. Anyway, I intend this little message as words of encouragement, and I hope you don't take it as patronizing, and I wish you good luck. Cheers. Mgnbar (talk) 02:59, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Physics. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - DVdm (talk) 06:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed you've been converting the subheading titles in Outline articles. Please stop. Many outline headings are contained in sectional redirects, and changing the headings breaks those links. Keep in mind that each section of an outline is itself an outline, and thus there is a need to be able to redirect directly to such sections, especially from the prose article that corresponds to the subject of the branch.

For example, when linking to a the "Outline of the history of foo", which links to the "History of foo" section of the "Outline of foo", it is potentially confusing when the subtitle is just "History". The reader is expecting the subject's name ("History of foo"), and "History" in general is not what they were expecting. Outlines are keeping up with innovations on Wikipedia, such as sectional links and sectional redirects, while MOS in general has not.

Also, the standard format for outlines is a little different than for prose articles, being established over the past few years through common practice.

Therefore, please don't reformat the outlines without holding a discussion first at Wikipedia talk:Outlines. Thank you. The Transhumanist 23:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article LTI Gray Matter has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This is an article about a division of a non-notable company. Company may not even exist - there's not much on the interwebs. Company doesn't even have it's own website

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Decstop (talk) 01:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed with your enthusiasm and energy level. We could sure use your help on the outlines. I would be honored if you accepted this invitation to join the Outlines WikiProject. The Transhumanist 01:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Transhumanist 01:04, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There was this battle about outlines that took up a whole month (from September 11 to October 12). It was caused by someone who renamed a bunch of math lists to outlines.

Here's the link:

• Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 78#RfC: Elimination of outline articles

Even though that discussion posed a major danger to the existence of outlines, it also provided some valuable feedback.

Some of the opposers of outlines posted what they thought was wrong with them, and most of the concerns are about things that simply need to be cleaned up. I've pointed these out in a thread on my talk page with other project members:

• User talk:The Transhumanist#Is there an RfC?

I hope you find these discussions helpful. The Transhumanist 00:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link to the Outlines participants list:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines#Participants

I look forward to working with you on the team. I hope you become a driving force of the project. The Transhumanist 00:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sister projects box includes external links, and therefore it belongs in the external links section.

The outline footer goes at the end of the article.

Just a heads up. See ya around the wiki! The Transhumanist 00:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know but it looks better aat the bottom of the page; when there isnt many external links the box creates large white gap between the external links and the footer.Gamewizard71 (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to painting:

Please do not remove the lead sentences like the one above.

One of the most frequent complaints we used to get about outlines is that a lot of editors thought they were copies (forks) of articles. When the tops of outline pages look identical to the tops of the corresponding articles, we've run into lots of trouble.

That sentence helps by making the lead section different, and...

...eventually, we'll linkify the word "outline" in the lead sentence, once the article outline has been well developed. That should help readers to understand what an outline is. The Transhumanist 00:23, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ok. Gamewizard71 (talk) 00:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you.

Please desist deleting various articles from the see also section. Your unexplained deletions - verges on vandalism. Basically leave the article alone unless you are improving it. Thanks...Modernist (talk) 21:01, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Use the talk page if you think some of those inclusions can be removed...Modernist (talk) 21:03, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Ancient Greek art, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heracleum (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:28, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious. The Transhumanist 02:15, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am actually very glad you asked. Philosophy, Physics, Sociology, Psychology, Political Science, History, Futurology. I myself am also very aware of Transhumanism... the merging of technology and humans to improve human's biology, esp. intelligence and the immune system. I also write poetry; I intend to learn to paint too. Knowledge in general is interesting to me, so are emotions, and my existence. Gamewizard71 (talk) 02:29, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning one's existence, have you read the article on the meaning of life? I think it is one of Wikipedia's best.

You have very broad interests. I'm impressed. The outline department is a good place for exposure to knowledge as a whole (everything). But I noticed you haven't joined the outline wikiproject yet. Please consider joining up, because we could sure use your help! The only active outline builders right now are myself and CaroleHenson.

I was hoping to see in your list a topic or two that we don't yet have outlines for (so I could make a request). But there are lots of branches of those subjects we don't have outlines of, in case you are in the mood to build a knowledge tree (outline) or three. Some major ones that come to mind are:

• History
  • Outline of prehistory
  • Outline of the Industrial Revolution
  • Outline of modern history
• Philosophy
  • Outline of metaphysics – this is a gaping hole in the outline system, as it is a main branch of philosophy.
• Psychology
  • Outline of abnormal psychology
  • Outline of cognitive psychology
  • Outline of psychometrics
  • Outline of emotion
  • Outline of intelligence
    • Outline of emotional intelligence
• Political science
  • Outline of communism
  • Outline of socialism

If you find yourself with some free time with nothing better to do, please consider filling one of the holes in our outline of knowledge (all the outlines combined).

By the way, nice work on the outline of painting.

There's a question I've been dying to ask somebody concerning the Outline of futurology. The corresponding article is future studies. Please take a careful look at that and the outline. And then answer this question: should the outline be renamed to match the title of the article?

Speaking of the future, you mentioned two aspects of transhumanism. I'm into those too (have you read about nootropics?). But the aspect of transhumanism I'm most interested in is preventing the extinction of the human evolutionary line and the techno-disasters that could cause this. For the past few years, I've been working on the democratization of knowledge and improving information access via Wikipedia to help increase public awareness of science and knowledge as a whole to enable learning in general and hopefully inspire more cooperation on the global level to deal with impending global crises. Basically, a lot of people are going to have to wake up. Wikipedia = expanded awareness.

Though when I first started on Wikipedia, it was just to learn more stuff. I hadn't even heard of transhumanism or singularitarianism. One's awareness tends to expand exponentially in this environment.

The outlines are the maps and the highway system through the vast territory of human knowledge. I look forward to working with you to improve the outline network. Nice to meet you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 02:28, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: (don't forget the outline of futurology question above.)

A very helpful tool for topic hunting for building outlines is:

grep

It searches article titles only, and its results are also article titles only, which makes the results easier to make lists out of.

You can use it to find all the articles with certain key words or phrases in the titles.

One of the many things I use it for is to keep an eye out for new outlines (by searching for "Outline of") and to monitor the use of the word "topics" in titles (they are usually outlines or indexes).

I hope you find it useful. The Transhumanist 03:08, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This has been annoying me for a while. These 3 elements of Wikipedia are usually ordered alphabetically. They should be grouped by concept. A more useful hierarchy is in order. for example:

• Conservation biology
• The Journal of Life Sciences
• List of biological websites
• List of biologists
• List of Russian biologists
• List of biology topics
• List of omics topics in biology
• Lists of biology journals and magazines
• Periodic Table of Life Sciences in Tinbergen's four questions

• Conservation biology
• List of biology topics
  • List of omics topics in biology
• List of biologists
  • List of Russian biologists
• List of biological websites
• Lists of biology journals and magazines
  • The Journal of Life Sciences
• Periodic Table of Life Sciences in Tinbergen's four questions

BTW. I plan on creating a whole course outline of chemistry. Outlines shouldnt be a combo a glossary and a list of topics. It should be an outline of the topic. I plan to create quite a few World History outlines also. (French Rev, Russian Rev, WWI, Renaissance, Enlightenment, Napoleonic Era, Industrial Rev, Etc). I also plan on creating an Algebra II outline. (Polynomial, Quadratics, and Linear Function and Equations, Complex Numbers, Matrices, Logarithms, Graphing Functions, Radical Expressions, Etc)

The question pertaining to the title of the outline. Futurology is the study of future developments. The Category isnt named Future Studies its named Futurology. So the article should be renamed... not the outline.Gamewizard71 (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning the futurology/future studies title, I think it has to do more with which term is the most commonly used out there in the real world. I'm not sure which - I've always heard it called "futurology", but I learned it in the life extension sphere.

Concerning outlines, let's slow down. I don't think we mean the same thing when we say "outline". To me, an outline is a hierarchical data set. As long as the tree and entry components are parseable, having all the elements of all the types of outlines included on the same page is fine. Why? Because the next phase of development will be programming outliner features to view and process Wikipedia outlines. In a Wikipedia outliner, you should be able to toggle the annotations on and off, to view the outline with or without them.

Annotated topic outlines are a hybrid of topic outlines and sentence outlines. Annotations have been included for ease of topic selection.

To me, an outline that doesn't have outliner support is sad. Currently, Wikipedia outlines are sad in this regard. There aren't any outliners or outliner features designed to view or process them. But...

The easiest features of an outliner to program are the viewing features. All we have to do is find some editors who are programmers or who are willing to learn programming for this project. I've already started studying perl, and I'll be adding other languages as I go. It's the next phase.

By the way, how familiar are you with outliners? Have you ever used them? Do you make use of one daily? What is the most state-of-the-art outliner that you have used?

Concerning list/outline/see also sections...

When sections of outlines are not structured, it is generally because the outline isn't complete yet. A lot of the outlines were thrown together quickly to provide content and rudimentary navigation support for their subjects. One of the main goals of the Outline WikiProject is to complete the existing outlines. The more outline developers we can get working on this, the better.

The list situation is a bit complex. There are basically 3 kinds. Two of them are general topics lists, that is, outlines and indexes misnamed as lists. The other type, which makes up most of the lists on Wikipedia are item lists (like List of sharks, which lists shark species).

I've been slowly but steadily cleaning up the general topics list mess, absorbing them into the set of outlines and indexes. How? Three ways.

1) Topics lists that have next to no editor activity are basically abandoned, and so usually nobody cares if they are renamed. It's better to adopt them into a project that is actively supported, and that describes outlines pretty well. Usually nobody complains because at the time I rename them, I also revamp them into better outlines. Mass renames are bad, and they stir up opposition because the pages are not being considered on a case-by-case basis. The Math department actively supports math topic lists, for instance, and renaming them all without their consent is just never going to happen.

2) Every once in awhile a random editor comes along and notices an outline that is called something else and renames it to an outline. I monitor for those using my watchlist and grep. (I have all the articles with "topics" in the title watchlisted, and I use grep to look over all the "Outline of" titles from time to time - when there's a new one, I spot it right away.) When a new outline appears, I jump on it and upgrade its formatting to match the set.

3) The set of outlines is being developed independently of existing topics lists. For example, even though there were 60 or 70 country topics lists, we went ahead and created country outlines for all the countries of the world. The set of country outlines is far more complete than the set of lists, and so it's a no-brainer to merge the lists into the corresponding country outlines. The rest of the set of outlines is growing in the same way. Once an outline is more developed than an existing list, usually nobody complains when the list is merged into it.

Therefore, the number of lists with "topics" in the title are shrinking. There used to be over 1200. Now there are about 170. Eventually there will be zero.

That brings us to item lists. I treat those as extensions of outlines. They're branches. They are fine as external branches, as long as there is a link to them in the outlines. Sometimes it makes sense to pull them into the relevant outlines. For example, List of Google products was merged into Outline of Google, where it was restructured. List stubs, orphaned lists, lists of branches/subfields/subdisciplines, and lists that are redundant with outline branches are good candidates for merging. There are over 7000 item lists, and so structuring them all is far beyond the resources of the outline project. I usually only structure them once they've been merged into an outline.

See also sections generally aren't worth the trouble, because there are millions of them, and almost nobody bothers to structure them - they are link dumps. The only see also sections I worry about are the ones in subjects corresponding to outlines or branches of outlines. The links in those See also sections usually belong in the outlines. Outlines are like comprehensive See also sections. When there's a corresponding outline link in a See also section, the reader is supported.

I love your outline task list. Let's look at is as links, in case any turn blue:

• Outline of the Renaissance
• Outline of the Enlightenment
• Outline of World War I (draft - needs to be completed and moved to article space)
• Outline of the French Revolution
• Outline of the Russian Revolution
• Outline of the Napoleonic Era
• Outline of the Industrial Revolution

World War I would be the best place to start, because a lot of work has been done on it already. And it's one of the most obvious gaps in the set of outlines, because Outline of World War II is sitting there all alone. Please take it on, man.

Your course outline idea is interesting. It is possible, because course subjects are probably notable enough to be covered by Wikipedia as subjects in their own right. For example, see Elementary algebra. See also Introduction to quantum mechanics, Introduction to mathematics of general relativity, Introduction to genetics, etc.

Another possibility for your course idea is the Wikipedia:Books department.

When you listed the outlines you wished to create, you ended it with "etc." What other outlines do you plan to create?

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 20:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: please don't forget the outliner questions above.

What's religious humanism doing under irreligion? The Transhumanist 21:37, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've been corresponding with Rich Farmbrough concerning programs that support the outline project in various ways. The abilities learned on these will probably eventually include methods we can apply to build outliner features.

You are welcome to join in, or read along. Here's the links to the threads so far:

• User_talk:The_Transhumanist#Stats
• User_talk:Rich_Farmbrough#perl table construction script

I basically just checked out Learning Perl from the library, and started using it to figure out what Rich's scripts do. And I downloaded and installed Strawberry Perl (it's free) so I could run them on my computer (so far, I've only run the stats script). Works great.

Pretty soon, I'll be writing scripts too. The Transhumanist 21:11, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. I'll be working on those merges eventually. Best to leave them in place for awhile first. They are a nice heads up. Thank you. The Transhumanist 22:37, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have an outline task for you, in case you are ready...

For this, you'll need to load Firefox. Then you'll need to load the WP:LINKY add-on.

Once you've done that, go to Portal:Contents/Outlines or this grep search of "Outline of| topics" and select (highlight) about 30 to 100 links. (Hold down the left mouse button and drag the cursor down the screen, and let go).

Then right click. A drop-down menu will appear. Put the mouse cursor over "Linky", and another drop-down menu will appear. In that drop-down menu click "Open Selected Links in tabs".

While your computer is doing that, you can go to another window to work on something else.

When it's done, come back and use Firefox's tab commands to switch between the tabs for rapid browsing. Each tab will hold a wikipedia outline or topics page. Ctrl+Tab ↹ switches between tabs. Ctrl+W does the same thing but nukes the tab you are leaving. When tab browsing, I usually use Ctrl+W.

Look over a page, nuke the tab, look over the next page, nuke the tab, etc. Scroll down the entire page and skim the whole thing before moving on to the next one.

OK, what I want you to do using this fast browsing method is look over (skim through) every outline on Wikipedia to become more familiar with them.

Also, while doing this, I'd like you to take notes in another window on my talk page: jot down any recurring problems that you spot, any questions that you have, and any design or project ideas that you think of. (A project would be changing or adding or removing something in all or many of the outlines). You'll probably notice most of the partially implemented projects.

You don't have to do this all at once. You can split this task up into as many sessions as you like. It's pretty fast though, and my guess is you like speed.

I think this will give us a lot to talk about. Once you are done, I will also be able to point out some problems and the most urgent projects. And you will know exactly what I'm referring to and the scope of each because you will have seen the entire outline network.

Interesting side effects of browsing outlines in this way are an increase in awareness of subjects' structures, expansion of topic-awareness, and by extension, an increase in resource- and option-awareness.

By the way, if you know of a faster way to browse large sets of pages, please teach it to me. The Transhumanist 21:46, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well I have skimmed the article on AutoWikiBrowser... it's supposed to be a mass editor of some sort... there is a lot of documentation on it so i didn't really read it all... ^_^*... but i was wondering if there is a way to mass edit using "what links here" to fix renamed pages... using the "What links here" to unlink pages to that redirect. BTW the way I quickly look at outlines is by using the Category:Outlines page and just opening new tabs. I will try the Linky gadget though. Gamewizard71 (talk) 01:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes.

But, in outlines, you generally don't want to delink redirects. (Standardized links are used extensively in the outline generating templates). Also, in most other cases, it is usually better to update the links and "bypass" the redirects.

AWB is an advanced super-deluxe list-making/auto-page-loading/semi-auto multi-search-replacement and appender/prepender program all wrapped into one. It is one of the most powerful tools for working on Wikipedia that I know of.

There are bots that clean up double redirects, and they usually have them all cleaned up within 24 hours of their creation.

AWB includes a list maker, which automatically makes the list of pages you want it to work on. One of the many list making options is "What links here". (Stop drooling).

I think you should wait on AWB for awhile (like a couple months or so). It's a machine gun, and you have a heavy trigger finger. Admins who add AWB permission to accounts generally check each applicant's talk pages to see what kind of communications are on there. If there's a pattern of behavior that would make them nervous, they will reject the application. Such is often the case with new users' talk pages (though nothing to be ashamed of). I think you should wait until you have built-up a track record of solidly cooperative efforts. A few thousand complaint-free mass-edits without AWB would probably be sufficient. The Transhumanist 01:56, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What kind of computer are you using? (I use a PC).

We are in the process of developing Perl programs that support outlines in various ways.

Can you run Perl programs?

Perl is free, and for the PC, it's Strawberry Perl.

Let me know when you have Perl installed. The Transhumanist 18:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which web browser do you use?

What method do you use for opening tabs? The Transhumanist 18:18, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Outline of search engines requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, a "See also" section, book references, category tags, template tags, interwiki links, a rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sparthorse (talk) 18:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your recent contributions. Getting started creating new articles on Wikipedia can be tricky, and you might like to try creating a draft version first, which you can then ask for feedback on if necessary, with less risk of speedy deletion. Do make sure you also read help available to you, including Your First Article and the Tutorial. You might also like to try the Article Wizard, which has an option to create a draft version. Thank you. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello
You recently tagged a couple of articles for merges: You failed to give any explanation for these, so I’ve removed them.
I suggest you have a read of the guidance on mergers to see how to go about proposing these, and if you still believe these pages need merging, perhaps you’d be good enough to open a discussion and provide a rationale when you re-propose them.
Thanks, Xyl 54 (talk) 03:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WTF do you think you are doing?
You posted hit-and-run tags on two articles yesterday; when I challenged you about it you declined to answer, but blanked the two pages, calling it “cleanup”. Please be aware, blanking a page is not cleanup. I have reverted your edits and opened a discussion here, where you are welcome to offer an explanation of what you are up to. Xyl 54 (talk) 15:25, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Portugal in World War I a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Portugal during World War I. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Zangar (talk) 10:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Outline of painting (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Situationism, Constructivism, Romanesque and Gothic

Submarine warfare (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Merchantman

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let me know when you are done, and I'll post your first mass editing assignment. The Transhumanist 21:16, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• here's one way to search for related links

Keep in mind that WikiProject Outlines has a draft space. See also Wikipedia:WPOOK#Work_on_a_draft.

I like your new outline, and have done some work on it. But it still needs more work. I've moved it to article space because it is no longer a stub.

Keep up the good work. The Transhumanist 23:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like to do things with flow... I mean I go off to other things... there is a lot of things that need to be done with wikipedia... but I like to be knowledgeable about a subject before creating an outline. I like to be in the mood. Its like my poetry. I cant write without ideas or on command. An outline of something isnt just a hierarchy list... which i will show you when I make the history outlines. It teaches. It is an outline of a subject its like a summary but divided into sections and ordered. With the outline of painting... if you look at the essence of painting section you will see that knowledge is from an artist point of view. You cant write a cook book if you dont know how to cook. Articles should be explained philosophically and with expertise not just cut and paste. Thats why a good journalist goes out and takes pictures not just copy ones from the internet and put them in their article. The list of types of art can be copy and pasted because there are a lot of movements, but the info describing them should be original. The search engine outline was made because I was trying to find websites good for downloading books to continue my knowledge interest; I'm too lazy to go to a library. I noticed that digital libraries have very much to do with search engines. Excuse my grammar by the way. Gamewizard71 (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With respect to developing specific outlines, I also use the flow approach, branching out from the outline to work on some other page or study after clicking an external link.

Though I'm always in the mood to build outlines, and usually have a few or more windows open just for that.

I find it interesting that you avoid libraries. I do most of my Wikipedia development at libraries. Libraries and Wikipedia are synergistic. Using the library, it is quite easy to write a book about something you know nothing about - you learn (via research). Isaac Asimov wrote over 400 books; about 10 per month. He was a fast learner who loved libraries.

There are quite a few tools that help build outlines fast. I expanded Outline of search engines using grep and WP:LINKY.

But there are 2 main types of outline development. Developing a particular outline (flow), and making similar changes to multiple outlines...

The entire set of outlines is still under development. None of the outlines are completed. So there are a number of tasks that need to be done to all or most of them. I could sure use some help with these.

For example, most outlines are missing a "Nature of" section (not applicable in country or region outlines, as it is covered in their geography sections). Many outlines have empty sections (that should be removed). And most need additional external links.

So if you are ever in the mood, let me know, and I'll provide the specifics. Cheers. The Transhumanist 00:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/Drafts/Outline of the Russian Revolution Gamewizard71 (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious... Where did it come from? Where did you cut and paste it from? The Transhumanist 01:16, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Poster Lenin Slogans 1917.gif. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or provided a license tag. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, select the appropriate license tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you can't find a suitable license tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 05:05, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying, and for the explanation. If you think that, then post that as the rationale for a merge and see if anyone agrees.
A short answer, though, would be that the scope of the articles at present shows very little overlap, save in the use of the words “submarine” and “warfare” in the title.
SW is a history of their use in war from their earliest times and only mentions USW in one place. USW is a specific term, used by the Germans when they threw the rulebook out in WWI, and had huge political ramifications; ISW is related to the same period. The articles are currently connected at the "See also" section, (the contents of which also illustrate the divergence of the subjects). Putting them all on one page wouldn’t make the subjects any clearer, and would break all kinds of links.
And yes, they are stubs; but the point of a stub is that it can and should be expanded. Further expansion of the subjects would take them even further apart than they are now. Xyl 54 (talk) 14:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's settled... You expand the articles! :) Gamewizard71 (talk) 04:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Vladmir_Lenin_slogan.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 20:27, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Then it's settled.... you expand the article! :) 75.80.242.1 (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is this accurate? Is it complete? Please take a quick look. Thank you. The Transhumanist 23:56, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think about something you should know what something is... If you know how to use it in a sentence you should know what it means... You should remember reading a book of fiction... What sets it apart from every other genre? You are being too broadly defined with your definitions... You can relate the subject to the topic... like not just copying and pasting a definition but actually defining something while keeping the subject in mind... Gamewizard71 (talk) 03:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that outlines are under a great deal of scrutiny. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines/List of discussions concerning outlines. Anything we add to an outline that isn't obvious should be referenced. The Transhumanist 22:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Talk:Outline of fiction#Improve the section 'What is fiction?'

The Transhumanist 03:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn to use the move tool, rather than copying other people's hard work and pretending it is your own. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:25, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do that because I cannot move pages to already created pages.Gamewizard71 (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, in fact you can move a page over a redirect, and at any rate in at least one case you specifically created a redirect when you could just have moved the page to that title. If you do not know how to do technical stuff, the right course of action is to ask for help, not to copy others' writing, claim it for your own, and hide the documentation. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ummmmm... I dont take credit for edits... i dont get paid for this... I just edit wikipedia to make finding information more convenient... Gamewizard71 (talk) 05:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

When there is just a redirect leading to the page you are trying to move, you can move the page over the redirect. If there is more than the redirect entry in the edit history, you need to request a speedy deletion from an administrator, or post a speedy deletion tag on the redirect page. Cut and paste moves are not allowed because they leave the edit history (and author attributions) behind. If you have any questions about Wikipedia whatsoever, I will be happy to (try to) answer them for you (on my talk page). The Transhumanist 22:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Roxcelese, please assume good faith, and please do not bite the newcomers. Gamewizard simply didn't know the appropriate procedure. Gamewizard is an awesome editor-in-training, and he's learning fast. Thank you. The Transhumanist 22:37, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Outline of fiction, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:43, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page that you created was tagged as a test page and has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. GILO   A&E⇑ 04:33, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that in cleaning up the template {{Sex}} you have inadvertently created a page in article space, hence the {{db-test}} tag. Regards, GILO   A&E⇑ 04:36, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gamewizard,

When you make a new outline, please be sure to do the following:

1. Put a construction tag at the top. That way, other editors will know that you are working on the page. I always use {{subst:Outline generator}}, because it includes all the standard sections and links, the construction tag, and a hidden comment to editors in the wikicode. Simply remove any section that isn't relevant.
2. Drop me a note on my talk page, or post a notice about the outline on the Outline WikiProject's talk page.

The more effectively we work together, the more effective we will be as a WikiProject team.

Keep up the good work. The Transhumanist 22:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good start.

There are a lot more articles on the subject on Wikipedia.

You may find Grep useful for finding them.

Let me know if you find it helpful. The Transhumanist 21:52, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.: here's a grep search that looks for article titles with "Sex" or " sex" (with a leading space) in them: http://toolserver.org/~nikola/grep.php?pattern=Sex%7C+sex&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia&ns=0

Entertainment is a component of culture. The sex industry is a sector of the entertainment industry. The Transhumanist 23:48, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more links to consider for Outline of human sexuality.

Took about 10 minutes using AWB, which has a built-in list maker. Though it is still incomplete, as it would hours or days to track down everything on Wikipedia on this subject. The Transhumanist 00:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ACategoryTree&target=Human+sexuality&mode=categories&dotree=Show+tree

There's so much material, I'm not sure what to add next. It looks like this is going to take more than one outline.

• Outline of BDSM
• Outline of reproduction
• Outline of sexology

What else? The Transhumanist 01:39, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Outline of human sexuality, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vibrator (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:50, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Outline of human sexuality (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Lips and Kinky

Individual (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Independent

Outline of relationships (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Longing

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy, please do not mark potentially controversial edits as minor, as you did on the penis article. Your edit summary was also misleading. While I don't take any position on the inclusion of the photo, trying to keep controversial edits hidden is not helpful. Discuss controversial edits on the article talk page, and review Help:Minor edit and Help:Edit summary. Thanks, --TeaDrinker (talk) 07:49, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Sex education, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Trust (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. When you recently edited Chemical elements data references, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Critical point (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Index of BDSM articles (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Feminization, Harness, Servitude, Master/slave and Male dominance

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Outline of exercise (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Balance, Depression, Hydration, Strength, Power, Coordination, Stamina and Strain

Erotic humiliation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Servitude

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cto has been nominated for deletion. Template:Cto creates a conditional topic overview linkbox for the See also section of an article with links to (1) the topic article, (2) the outline of the topic, (3) the index of topic-related articles, (4) the bibliography of the topic, and (5) the Wikipedia book on the topic. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion#Template:Cto. Yours aye,  Buaidh  20:11, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Moosehadley. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Optical computing because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Moosehadley (talk) 03:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Lie detection (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added links pointing to Pitch, Department of Defense, Department of Energy and Autonomic

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phreaking boxes, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White box (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lock (device), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Egyptian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please propose your changes to Glossary of musical terminology at the article's talk page. Simply destroying a long-standing list is disruptive editing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing, as you did at Glossary of musical terminology. Your edits have been reverted or removed.

• If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page. Alternatively you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
• If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

Do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive until the dispute is resolved through consensus. Continuing to edit disruptively may result in your being blocked from editing. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:05, 18 March 2013 (UTC)will[reply]

You're taking things too seriously... long standing list or not it was terrible... destroyed? No no no my child it was made better... now stop complaining and help me add definitions Gamewizard71 (talk) 12:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Toccata quarta (talk) 12:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am not vandalizing and if u block me I will report you Gamewizard71 (talk) 12:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you havent noticed I have been editing wikipedia for years... Gamewizard71 (talk) 12:33, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

the page is simply under construction... it would go faster if u actually helped instead of threatening me... we need more editors not people like you Gamewizard71 (talk) 12:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It really wouldnt matter anyway because I will just change my IP and sign up for a new account... Gamewizard71 (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It'll prolly take a day to reconstruct it but i guess ill revert my edits for now and work on notepad when im done ill add the edits Gamewizard71 (talk) 12:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When working on such a long page, you should add the {{Under construction}} tag to the top of the page.--Auric talk 14:52, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's not sufficient for such a heavily linked-to article; changes ought to be proposed and consensus be sought on the talk page. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:39, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

While you are reading or browsing Wikipedia articles, please...

...keep a lookout for outlines embedded in articles.

I've run across a number of these over the years. One example is the Outline of fencing, which used to be part of the fencing article.

If you know about or spot any structured general topics lists in articles, please let me know (on my talk page).

Another thing you might find are articles that are comprised mostly of lists (without "Outline of" or "List of" being in the article's title). If you come across any of these, please report them to me on my talk page. I'd sure like to take a look at them.

Happy hunting.

I look forward to "hearing" from you (on my talk page). Sincerely, The Transhumanist 08:10, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good to see you back online here. The Transhumanist 21:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The current step in outline development is to automate their development as much as possible.

Building and maintaining the set of outlines entirely by hand is not feasible, because we can't keep up with the updating of the 630+ existing outlines, and because constructing the needed 10,000+ new outlines will take about 100 man-years if done just manually.

I've been looking at some amazing things.

Are you ready to make things more interesting?

If so, install Wikipedia on your computer.

Can your computer handle it? The Transhumanist 21:56, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Outline of political science does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history.

The edit summary appears in:

• User contributions
• Recent changes
• Watchlists
• Revision differences
• IRC channels
• Related changes
• New pages list and
• Article editing history

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. Thanks! Iselilja (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC) Iselilja (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you tried the database scanner in AWB yet?

It is a powerful search engine that works on Wikipedia data dumps, and it is very useful for gathering topics to go in outlines.

I think it works even if you are not registered, because it scans a Wikipedia dump file that you've downloaded onto your own hard disk.

Definitely a power tool.

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 07:28, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to be knowledgeable on the subject if you're making an outline on something. You cant just pull topics related to a subject. It helps but it wont be organized well... it will just be a list Gamewizard71 (talk) 05:54, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before building a stone house, you've got to gather the stones. And once you've gathered them, you don't just leave them in a big pile. You've got to build the house, because a pile of stones doesn't make a very good home. And keep in mind...

Like building homes, outline building is a skill. One that improves with practice. The more outlines you build, the easier it gets, and the better your outlines become. As you acquire familiarity with relationships and the types of relationships there are, your outline quality goes up. Quality also improves as the authors' knowledge expands, because of increased awareness of relevant topics and how subjects and their structures compare.

An editable outline is a great learning tool. It is the perfect place to organize a subject as you are learning it. It's a place to store topics and rearrange them as you get to know the relationships between them better. So, you can start with a crappy list, and from it pick out topics to start an outline with, and then over time turn that outline into something special. That's exactly what wikis are all about: incremental advance. Check out the edit history of Outline of Buddhism to see how the most extensive outline on Wikipedia evolved over time.

Keep in mind that I've built over 500 outlines, knowing very little about most of the subjects when I started each one. They are in various stages of development, all of them useful (to various degrees), and all ready and waiting for further improvement.

Just as you don't need to be knowledgable on a subject when you begin to write a book about it, the same applies to articles and outlines. Many authors pick subjects that they know nothing about, because they are interested in them and want to learn more, while engaged in their labor of love (writing). So they research the subject along the way. See The Demon Under the Microscope and The Alchemy of Air, by Thomas Hager as examples. Writing those books were journeys of discovery, for him, and (through him) for his readers.

Teachers and professors have students write an outline on a paper or thesis as a preliminary step. Just like those students, I generally don't know much about a subject when I begin its outline, but I know a heck of a lot more once I've worked on it. I've worked on all the outlines on Wikipedia, and I know a lot more in general because of it. I believe that if I share what I'm studying by presenting the topics in tree structures, it will help make it easier for others who follow after to explore these subjects too.

Outline building is a lot like map making. Think of yourself as an explorer mapping out the territory your journey takes you through.

But I can't build outlines and maintain them fast enough. I can't explore nor map out the subjects fast enough. So, I'm currently in the process of developing software programs to read text and build and update outlines by applying information extraction and Semantic analysis. I was pleasantly surprised to learn that there is an entire field devoted to this called automatic taxonomy induction, which I found out about while working on and researching the Outline of natural language processing. The technology in these fields is progressing rapidly, and I intend to harness as much of it as I can and put it to use building useful outlines.

I still spend some time building outlines by hand, and with a wide variety of tools, to maintain insight into the process which I can then apply to the design of my programs.

One approach is the data dump. Gather a bunch of related links and put them on the talk page (or See also section for small dumps). Then go through them one-by-one, placing each of them into the outline proper wherever they fit the best. Repeat.

The "Make list" feature of WP:AWB is awesome for gathering links for link dumps. The Transhumanist 23:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up from the WikiProject Outlines. The following outline was recently built:

• Outline of Yukon

Please take a look at it and see if you can improve it.

Thank you. The Transhumanist 23:40, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gamewizard71 (talk) 01:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really like geography... lol Gamewizard71 (talk) 23:54, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about Outline of technology? Have you seen these yet?

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNZPRsrwumQ
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE3fmFTtP9g
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SD6Okylclb8
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6b4ZZQkcNEo
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtRnzlO7m_M

You can run. But they will catch you. You can hide. But they will find you. :) The Transhumanist 00:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gamewizard71 (talk) 00:20, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen those. Have you seen this?

• List of emerging technologies
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N3E7fUynrZU
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDAw7vW7H0c
• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXQlpY0LXgg

Geez comments look terrible they should have boxes around them and sign your name automatically...

Should make commenting an art lol at least I'm different :P

An article that you have been involved in editing, Outline of search engines, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 11:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Dread (fear). Since you had some involvement with the Dread (fear) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Mr. Guye (talk) 22:42, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Africa Labelled Map Portals has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:Psychology subfields requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Mahdy Saffar (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social discovery websites, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Rathfelder (talk) 07:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Outline of futures studies is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of futures studies until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Guy (help!) 13:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Top of page has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:54, 28 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Algebra 2 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 January 6 § Algebra 2 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 19:44, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gamewizard71. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Outline of the Russian Revolution, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:09, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]