Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.161.227.210 (talk) at 00:24, 5 November 2010. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Outline of cell biology

What exactly do you wish to see referenced of the Outline of cell biology page? Please don't tell me you want to reference every single definition? Cause in my opinion that's a HUGE waste of time. This (and pages like it) are simple glossary/nav page that link to main articles as it's primary purpose, and you should be able to reference the material on the article pages. Because of this I think the tag is ref improve tag is just unneeded clutter. Earthdirt (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Every assertion needs a reliable source. Personally I think all outlines are a huge waste of time, but if we are to have them they must follow the rules. Verbal chat 13:08, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that outlines are sort of a waste of time, I disagree that glossaries are, which is what this outline is. If you think it's such a waste of time, why are you spending so much time there? There are tons of cell biology articles you could be adding content to. I made this glossary awhile back simply as a way to go through the cell biology articles, it was actually really fun (and scary) to see the poor shape of this subject's articles. For instance Interphase was one paragraph of nonsense. I see that you don't like the moss cell picture I used in the lead. May I ask what you are looking for? I think the moss cell photo is actually a beautiful and dynamic photo that really captures the essence of a plant cell and when I added it originally (before you deleted it the first time) it wasn't used anywhere else. I suppose the ref improve tag will have to stay there cluttering up the top, citing single sentence definitions is not in my job description. Earthdirt (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If it was renamed without consensus (most likely) then please move it back to the glossary name and I'll support you and help you improve the article. If you need help moving let me know. Verbal chat 19:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

See earliest history of the page for the original name, "List of basic cell biology topics".

All the pages currently called "Outline of foo", were originally titled "List of basic foo topics" (or "Foo basic topics" or similar). All these pages have now grown into a variety of structures, from annotated lists (eg Outline of cell biology and Outline of forestry and Outline of Buddhism) to the more plain list-format topic "outlines" (eg Outline of anarchism and Outline of economics and the far-less developed Outline of biology).

As I've said before, I have no strong preference for article title (I agree that "outlines" is problematic, but so is "basic topic list", "overview", and all other variations we've tried or discussed), but this set of related articles should share a naming convention of some sort.

However, they are not "glossaries", as that term is currently used at Misplaced Pages. The items listed at Portal:Contents/List of glossaries are almost all alphabetical glossaries (e.g. Glossary of architecture and Glossary of climbing terms and Glossary of Buddhism); they are not structured-overviews of a topic.

Sorry for jumping in. As ever, I hope my providing details will help everyone see the forest, instead of just a few trees.

(Side note to Verbal: Please please stop describing all the pages ("outlines" or whatever the hell we're calling them) in such sweeping negative generalizations as "all outlines are a huge waste of time": Some are great (most of those listed above), and some are completely missing-the-point and should be deleted (Outline of Google, sigh), and some are worth discussing. -- Nuance is required, damnit!)

Thanks. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

This one is more clearly a glossary. THey should all be named back, then assessed on their merits. Verbal chat 21:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

While called outlines, they are all a huge waste of time. Verbal chat 21:54, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

If the title convention of "Outline" offends you, let's concentrate on that. If a single editor has infuriated you, perhaps concentrate on him. If navigational pages as a whole are of no interest to you, then please stop trying to convince everyone else that we should also have no interest in them.

I spent almost an hour writing the above, trying to be clear and concise, with checked history and good examples. These curt gross-generalization dismissals are beneath you, and are insulting to everyone who do find value in the pages in question. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Some of the pages themselves may be useful (cf outline of cell biology), yet the whole outline issue and the generic outlines are a waste. Verbal chat 22:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmmmmm....I've been away for the Fourth of July. I agree with Quiddity that it probably wouldn't be appropriate to rename this a glossary for his stated reasons, and I think this might be more useful the way it is structured, as a topical outline. I think topic outlines are best when they are more than just a list of words/links. Earthdirt (talk) 00:10, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Verbal is a prolific editor. Imagine the progress that would be made if Verbal switched from his disruptive tactics to helping to develop outlines to the quality-level of the Outline of cell biology. The Transhumanist    20:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Note: In case it gets lost in your watchlist, please see User talk:Karanacs/Navigational pages RfC draft. Ta :) -- Quiddity (talk) 21:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Morning

Thanks for the above. A note for your morning: There is no rush - quite the opposite! I'd hugely appreciate it if you took the time to read the whole page at User:Quiddity/Navigational pages RfC, and each of the subsections at User talk:Karanacs/Outline RfC draft#Restart, before replying to any of them. In both cases, I've been trying a reduce an exceptionally large issue down to an absorbable amount of information.

Regarding the Navigational pages: there really are many groups of pages, that get exactly the same kind of complaints, from just a few editors, perennially. (E.g. there are 3 editors who really dislike having glossaries at Misplaced Pages. Almost everyone else says either that they're fine & useful here (albeit most are still underdeveloped), or that it should be discussed further before any decisions are made. I won't elaborate here, but can point you towards the long history whenever you like. :)

I look forward to hearing from you, when you're friendly and considered. Please take your time! -- Quiddity (talk) 00:42, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In regards to Portal:Contents/Outline of Knowledge/Culture and the arts, the pages you are trying to delist were originally created as "List of basic X topics". Check the history, e.g. + . You are the editor who most recently changed the title of those 3 pages (you changed them to a wholly original title).

Hence, those articles are part of the set of "List of basic topics", and should be listed at that page. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

They are not outlines, and not part of the set. Verbal chat 19:23, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Because you moved them! What part of my explanation was unclear? -- Quiddity (talk) 19:26, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

If you want to move them back, start a discussion. I will oppose it, and they were not originally "outlines". I don't think this is worth the candle though. Verbal chat 19:28, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

In another life

A long time ago, we used to edit together towards the same ends. I am left leaning, and I interpreted some of your edits, which supported mine, as being of the same persuasion. I'm trying to reconcile that with your censorial pro-corporate stance on the aspartame pages. Perhaps your account was hijacked? TickleMeister (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That's good to hear. My account hasn't been highjacked, and I would like to work with you on aspartame. For example, at the parent company article (spelling escapes me right now!) you added sources and together we managed to refine it to something better. I'd like to work with you still. You have piqued my interest as to your previous account! I wont go looking though as I respect fresh starts ... although this one could have gone better. I'm willing to start fresh, but you need to realise you have to discuss these edits first and that in this case the science currently doesn't go as far as you'd maybe like (I hope this is coming across right). We need to wait for the FSA to report, for example, and the article can be updated then. As to seizures it could probably be integrated, but it needs massaging on the talk page first. You can email me if you want to talk privately, and I will respect that. Best,Verbal chat 14:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I will email you. I sense you are different to some of the other editors there. BTW, just now found this interesting essay TickleMeister (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you ping me here when you do, I've not received anything yet. Best, Verbal chat 21:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to think carefully about what I want to say to you. In the meantime, I think it's best if I spend my time at sourcewatch.org where I can put the non-industry viewpoint without undue interference from lobbyists. I expect that will take me some time. TickleMeister (talk) 00:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Have you decided against emailing me? Best, Verbal chat 16:36, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

For the moment, yes. When I'm finished at aspartame on SW, we'll see. In the meantime, you may want to try to reconcile your edits on aspartame with the fact that its approval was largely due to the efforts of the GOP and its apparatchiks — this explains some of the connections. The drumbeat against it continues unabated, eg in today's news: TickleMeister (talk) 02:36, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

The wikipedia is written in English

Use different words for what you want to say, don't fucking pretend they mean something they don't.- Wolfkeeper 15:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The hell? If you didn't have 30,000 contribs, Wolfkeeper, I would have reverted this as vandalism. --King Öomie 15:55, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Could both you and Wolfkeeper please cool it over at Homeopathy? There is plenty of talk, and it really does not matter all that much which version is up while we work out a compromise. Preferably one that uses neither formulation, as treat might be ambiguous and claims to treat is clunky, but that is just my opinion. If I recall correctly, exactly this issue has been discussed in the archives - it might be worth seeing what arguments people have made in the past. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:16, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realise I was being heated, if I came across that way I apologise. Of the two, claims to treat is superior and has most support in the discussion. I'm open to alternatives, though not prescribe as that is also a loaded medicalised term. Verbal chat 20:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Which bit about the wikipedia not being an experiment in democracy don't you understand?- Wolfkeeper 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't have any references for this.- Wolfkeeper 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not verifiable.- Wolfkeeper 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not neutral.- Wolfkeeper 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

So far as I am concerned you're simply abusing your editing privileges. Simply having a vote on the talk page doesn't change reality and the policies do not permit you to create wikiality simply by deciding that (say) black = white and rewriting the wiki. I don't give a shit that you 'feel' it is a better phrasing, it is wrong.- Wolfkeeper 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, 'editors' like you make me sick.- Wolfkeeper 13:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you ok? Verbal chat 13:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh wait you fixed it. Oh, never mind, sorry.- Wolfkeeper 13:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Er ok. I think. I hope it's all ok now. Verbal chat 13:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Cheeses Wolf, what the hell was that about? This was way beyond what I've ever seen as normal behaviour from you. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:43, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we add treat to words to avoid, now? I am still catching up on the talkpage, but the article looks like something I hope we can all live with (except maybe some whiches that need to be burned). This set of changes are definitely for the better. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Could we add you make me sick to words to avoid? -- Quiddity (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:09, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

semi-protected

I just semi-protected your talkpage in the hopes that that vandal will get bored and wander off soon. If you would prefer that it not be, please just let me know or request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for page protection. I confess I do not recall at the moment what was your preference last time this came up. My apologies if this is not it. Also, if you happen to file an abuse report with that guy's ISP before I can get around to it, please let me know. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 08:27, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

How odd. Is it just a random revert to a previous version? I couldn't see anything interesting in the action. Is it Caleb again or something I've missed? Verbal chat 11:45, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is CM's style and IP range. I have always assumed that he is reverting back to some random previous version, but I do not think I ever actually checked. I am lifting all my semi-protections from last night manually (WP:BEANS, but he can read protection logs). - 2/0 (cont.) 16:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Deletion review for Storm Front (disambiguation)

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Storm Front (disambiguation). Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Tassedethe (talk) 04:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

• Storm in a teacup I calls it! But you might like to comment at Talk:Stormfront#Indirection. — ] (talk · contribs) 16:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Tags at Mass Killing

This was brought up here The admin involved clearly stated the tags should not be reinserted unless a reason for them was given on the article talk page, none has. Please self revert mark nutley (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No, and that admin is free to join the discussion at the article talk page. The POV tag is valid. Verbal chat 18:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you give a reason why you think it valid? Either here or open a section on the article talk to explain your revert as you should have done. mark nutley (talk) 18:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Due to the discussion on the talk page, the systematic bias of the page, the discussion at the AfDs, etc Verbal chat 18:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i was not clear enough. What part of the article do you think violates NPOV and SYNTH? mark nutley (talk) 18:08, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Which part doesn't? See the AfD's, talk page, etc, which is where this discussion belongs. Bye, Verbal chat 18:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

CRU

If you wanted to help then discussing why you beleived one word should be changed or left alone on the talkpage would have been the way to go at this stage - rather than starting an edit war on a 1RR article. Wealths Wealth changed one word, WMC blind reverted with no edit summary. This isn't a direct quote, it is a manner of interpretation of prose. I encourage you to selfrevert and mention your issue on the talkpage. Weakopedia (talk) 08:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I gave my reasoning. You reverted a good edit. Please discuss on the talk page. Verbal chat 08:58, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Talkback