User talk:Verbal/Outlines

Db-move
I cannot delete List of logic topics as you have requested because you did not identify another page to be moved to that title. The db-move template has a required parameter, which is the title of the other page that is to be moved. Without it, your request is incomplete. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:32, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Odd, I'll mention that on the twinkle page - it usually prompts for things like that. I've done several of these no problem, so thanks for bringing this to my attention. I guess usually it's obvious, but there are two possible sources for this one. Verbal chat  17:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Outlines have failed : Please calm down
Please read WP:POINT, this and this is one of the more WP:POINTY moves I have seen, please discuss, see consensus! --Stefan talk 09:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * They aren't pointy, they are following current guidelines, policy, and consensus. Please demonstrate otherwise. Verbal chat  10:14, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The disruption of wikipedia to prove a point seems to be one of the main activities of the outlines project. I'm simply dealing with this disruption whenever I come across it - note I'm not seeking it out, it is only when it is within my sphere or I am directed to it that I will act, and only when there is no consensus or there are clear reasons to. Verbal chat  10:29, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not talking about what have been done before, I am talking about what you did, you must have know that what you did would create a strong reaction, that is pointy to me.
 * How can you say that a page created with one name is disruptive? Wrong name maybe, put a move tag on it ok, but just moving it was disruptive!
 * See for at least a discussion that seams to have gotten consensus on the 'naming' issue. Please show me one that have consensus that states otherwise. Also please answer at the Talk:Outline of chocolate  --Stefan talk 10:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * 3 people? Have a look at the talk page of WP:OUTLINE, a recently failed essay, and have a look at the clear rejection at the mathematics wikiproject. The outline project has failed, if you want to revive it show community consensus, not just yes votes from members of the project. Verbal chat  11:23, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You need to stop
You arbitrarily decided that outlines need to be "renamed to be more conventional". Before you start an edit war on every page as a consequence of this, you must gain consensus before 1000s of pages are changed. Please seek consensus before a war erupts regardless of your views on outlines. May I remind you that outlines have existed since Wikipedia was set up. Renaming them requires consensus. -- penubag  (talk) 19:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it was you that needed to get consensus. Sorry you feel bad about this, but you're disrupting the project. Verbal chat  19:43, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * "Disrupting" is what one prolific editor decided to do. The other opposers haven't aggreed on what they would like to do, it's just you that want's them to be renamed. At least form a consensus with the other opposers before you act.-- penubag  (talk) 19:55, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm undoing damage on a case by case basis. Feel free to establish a consensus for the "outline of..." naming, but since it duplicates other functionality I don't think you'll get very far. I've also seen a lot of GFDL violations looking at these pages. Verbal chat  19:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Please address the issue above. "Outline of" has existed forever, it is you that needs the consensus. -- penubag  (talk) 20:02, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That isn't a very good argument. Please establish consensus for the activities of your project. Also, GDFL concerns should not be flouted; it is a legal requirement of the licence. The MoS is also a common sense guideline. Verbal chat  20:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:ANI
You've scored a mention. Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents Thought you should know. Crafty (talk) 09:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Merci. Verbal chat  09:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI
Just wanted to let you know that I reverted only the page moves that were originally created as outlines. It would be nice if could get Outline of water back to outline status. I won't bother you as much then :) -- penubag  (talk) 01:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC) Also just wanted to let you know, I believe you are a nice person on a social level, it's just this situation that's made us both dicks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Penubag (talk • contribs)
 * Interesting, as that isn't what you've done, is it? Two of the three I just looked at were lists - hence I've undone those. See WP:CONSENSUS, and have a look at WP:DICK too. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  05:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * unfortunately I was gravely wrong... -- penubag  (talk) 08:29, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say gravely, but you were wrong and that's why I reverted you. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:31, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Outline revert war
Dear Verbal,

you are currently engaging in an edit war by repeatedly moving pages from "Outline of" to "List of" titles in a large number, (e.g., , , , , , , or ).

I strongly urge you to stop this and, ideally, to revert your moves. Most of the articles in question have been part of the Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge project for extended periods of time and without any objection. Your page moves are therefore not simple reverts and they disrupt the outline categorization scheme and project on Wikipedia. I could not find discussions that would indicate a consensus for your moves (the appropriate place to discuss these moves would have been Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Outline_of_Knowledge or the talk page for article-specific reasons). In light of your and Roux's ongoing heated dispute with User:The Transhumanist (that got Roux blocked for incivil behavior) and your repeated demands to discuss page moves in advance, these recent repeated moves are very provocative and disruptive. Cacycle (talk) 05:03, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You are incorrect. The outline project's activities have no consensus and renames to "outline of" should not take place without consensus, or they will be reverted. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  05:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Outline of water (and others) was originally an outline not a list, but you moved it to list space and then got it move protected. Your above reason must not be the only reason for you moving outlines to lists. Please stop the controversial moves. -- penubag  (talk) 05:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not made any controversial moves. I will revert any moves from list to ouline that I come across that don't have consensus. I have moved maybe 2 or 3 articles that were originally "outline of" to list format, but in each case I'm willing to defend these as policy and guideline supported. I will continue to revert moves that do not have consensus in this area, as they have been repeatedly contested. It is the original moves that are the problem. Simply look at the transhumanist's move log. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>  chat  07:57, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

User:The Transhumanist has, at Wikipedia talk:Outlines, given up trying to defend his actions ("List" to "Outine" pages moves), and is instead relying on faster editing and momentum to overcome critical commentary and even opposition. Trying to revert his actions is not the way go. I think the appropriate course of action in an Requests for comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The difference between WikiProject Outline of Knowledge is that they work on an established and accepted hierarchical navigation system on Wikipedia, they do this as part of a wiki project, and in an open and transparent way. Procedures and details about this project have been widely discussed in the public and across Wikipedia for a long time. Their work is widely accepted (which is evident in the request for deletion discussion on outlines). This gives the project quite some legitimation. In sharp contrast, your recent outline to list moves were aimed at sabotaging this work without any legitimation by discussion or consensus.


 * If you think that the outline of knowledge project hurts Wikipedia, then you have to discuss this issue project-wide in order to find a consensus to shut down or change the aims of that project. And if you cannot find consensus for that, then you will have to accept that, too. But your Guerrilla-like tactics are not acceptable, they are diametrically opposed to your requests for consensus, and making your point in a disruptive way or gaming the system (like here or as seen on Talk:Outline of water) does not help solving the conflict. I would be willing to help working on a community wide request for comment and would like to hear your ideas about this .Cacycle (talk) 02:37, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If The Transhumanist is applying the Project's ideas in a way that is approved of by the Project, then he and the Project are hurting Wikipedia, and are definitely wasting lots of editors' time. You are elevating a Project to the level of a policy, and above a guideline. Only policies can justify such actions without consensus at the local level of the individual article's talk page. If the Project thinks it has a good idea, which it obviously does, then it should seek to change policy. Then objectors wouldn't have a leg to stand on. They would have to bow to policy. Right now we are resisting the imposition of a Project's will on all of Wikipedia, without any consensus on the individual talk pages. That's the issue. You are wrong in supporting this, and The Transhumanist has brought the Project some very bad press. You should not be railing against Verbal for doing what The Transhumanist did on a very large scale. You should be focusing on controlling The Transhumanist and in seeking to save the reputation of your apparently dubious project. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I have also asked The Transhumanist to participate in crafting the proposed request for comment and invite anybody to contribute to this. I see this as the only way to solve the current conflict. Such a request would have to consist of a list of objections against the WikiProject Outline of Knowledge on the hand and an explanation of the aims and the history of the project on the other hand and both sides need to find relevant and good references for their claims. The request for comment would explicitly not be about other users or their behavior as we had enough mud fight during the last weeks and this has to stop. Cacycle (talk) 13:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As far as TTs behaviour goes, it's well beyond the need for an RfC/U. Any continuation and he'll likely be blocked. The persoanl attacks that have been made by the supporters of outlines are not good evidence in their favour. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  13:50, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been in one of these situations before, I haven't read all the back log but from the little input and involvment I've had, there'd be a number of editors who would (and probably should) be chastised, it almost always better for all involved to step back and calmly settle their differences. Lee&there4;V (talk  •  contribs) 13:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm all for an RfC, but both sides (that includes Verbal) need to stop moving, regardless of the situation, until a clear result has emerged from it. Keep the Status Quo. <font face="Batik Regular">Highfields (talk, contribs) 15:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, but we need to get to that position first - by reverting the undiscussed and non-consensual moves made previously, per WP:BRD. Once we have returned to the status quo I'll be happier. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  16:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

FYI and sorry
I formally apologise for my UNWP:CIVILness, sorry! --Stefan talk 13:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment on the term "outline"
You have repeatedly said that you don't like the name/word "outline". May I point out that this term is used everywhere in scholarly works including Britannica's own outlines which, in fact, are also called "Outline of Knowledge". The term "list" is very ambiguious and it would be ideal if all lists became outlines where applicable. Lists would then gain the usability that outlines have among other benefits. Although the last part of my reply is an opinion, I just wanted to let you in on some perspective from the other side. Thanks. -- penubag  (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's bull. While the concept of an outline is fine, getting anal about having to use the word "outline" every time is nonsense. It must be done on an individual basis, and usually accompanied by some qualifying words, depending on the subject. Outline is ambiguous and often confusing if used with the wrong subject word. The way it is being used it sometimes sounds like the literal line around an object. A title about a line around water sounds ludicrous. Adding a word or two would help: "Outline of water subjects" or "Outline of the subject of water", which is too wordy. In such cases the word "list" is unambiguous and simpler, which is why it is often the preferred and natural choice we have used. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * That's taking it too literally. The term outline is common-practice in this usage. Additionally it serves as an identity to pages that appear in this manner, allowing others to be accustomed to ours when they see it. -- penubag  (talk) 06:16, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I know that's too literally, and that's the problem. In English a title shouldn't need any explanation. Outline is a word that's far too ambiguous, and your project has no right to force others to get used to your way of thinking or wording things. You need a change of policy to gain such a right. The Project is not above policy, so its ideas are just the opinions of likeminded individuals with no binding effect on any other Wikipedian. Consensus must still be followed and the failure of the project, or at least The Transhumanist and those who defend him, to seek consensus in each case, is very disrespectful to the community. It needs to stop. You can't go around irritating so many people and expect to get treated nicely. You don't deserve it. Show respect for consensus and you might get some respect in return and save your project. It's in danger now because you have raised our ire. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:29, 16 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with BR, and discussion on my talk page isn't going to establish anything. Britannica's own outlines are not common knowledge, they are not part of the encyclopaedia, and are not uncontroversial. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  07:48, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Attacking outlines one-by-one
I don't like how your changing things without consensus; especially on this one-by-one attack method you seem to be doing with outlines. It's not high up there on the behavioral guideline scale. Outlines have been on Wikipedia for awhile it's not some recent proposal. Some Outlines you changed were outlines from the very beginning; they were not converted lists. See my comments on Outline of water talk page for further objections to your changes.  Burningview   <FONT COLOR="black">✉ </FONT> 20:57, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What I'm doing is reverting renames of lists to outline that have been changed without consensus. I have also objected to 2 or 3 (at most) articles that started as outlines. All but those three are reverts of contested moves that go against established policy and consensus, and have only gone on so long as hardly anyone knew about the changes. It is not me that changed things without consensus. IDid you read the discussions above and at WP:OUTLINE? <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes I have and I agree that an RfC would be neccessary in attempting to resolve the outline dispute. Changing outlines to lists or lists to outlines is not good practice without consensus anytime. I think everyone involved in this debate is now aware of this as a form of edit warring, and it shouldn't arise as an issue again. Until consensus is reached on this debate no more changing lists and outline titles. I look forward to being a part of a healthy, constructive debate with you and others as a proponent of outlines.   Burningview   <FONT COLOR="black">✉ </FONT> 23:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You are saying that the first mover is always correct, that is against policy. All outlines that were lists, and moved without consensus, should be reverted. TT and other have already used the arguments based on this false "fait accompli" reasoning. I would rather decide outlines on benefits, not because TT has moved 400 articles. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  10:18, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe TT violated policy by converting lists to outlines, but they should not be reverted until we reach consensus through RfC or other methods on the future of outlines. Let me explain, reverting 400 or so outlines back into lists at this point would be disruptive. As I said, until we decide on the future of outlines no more title changes. No I am not saying that the first mover is correct. What I meant was changing any titles at this point would not be constructive in resolving this debate. My beef with you was that you acted alone on this, and did not notify anyone. TT may have acted alone to without adhering to policy, but hardly anyone objected to it for a long period of time until just recently. The changes that you made you knew would be challenged. If consensus is reached to do away with the outline project I have no problem with changing the titles after that.   Burningview   <FONT COLOR="black">✉ </FONT> 14:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * He broke the rules, so his actions should be reverted. It's simple application of basic policy. If you want to complain, point your complaints at TT. I'm the wrong target. He's done a lot of damage to your project. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  15:49, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Ping
I want to be sure that you read this. Please consider it a final warning. — Jake   Wartenberg  21:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I will consider this a first warning, and an improperly thought out one. The "unilateral moving of pages en mass under controversial circumstances" has been carried out by members of the outline project, and it is correct to revert them until consensus for other names is established. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  21:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Why do you move pages and then fail to respond to asking why they were moved :/ Shii (tock) 22:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Where? All pages, apart from about three, have been moved back to their origina "list of" designation as was made clear in the move summary etc. <b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b> chat  08:23, 17 October 2009 (UTC)