A2soup

Hi A2soup, I have amended the population field in the infobox but it's still displaying the old figure. I think it's pulling on centralised data from somewhere, probably using Template:Population Germany. Try posting the question on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Germany; there are some Germany experts there who understand the mechanics of these infoboxes. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's what I found too. I'll see if they can do anything over there. Thanks! A2soup (talk) 17:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Where are you seeing links that point to the wrong place? I tried to go through and update everywhere I could think of, such as the "Revision history statistics" on the page history interface, etc. The 301 is not really an error, we had to move some tools into their own instance for performance reasons. Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much! I did realize that the 301 wasn't really an error, which is why I deleted my original comment. Much appreciate your willingness to help though! A2soup (talk) 15:39, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sure thing, but where did you see the wrong links? Was it anywhere on the wiki or did you just have it bookmarked or something? I ask because we should update all the old links if possible. — MusikAnimal ^talk 15:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just figured that a redirect error must mean the link is outdated, which I now realize is probably not the case here. I was linking through the gadget toolbar. If you are really interested in keeping the XTools gadget up to date, though, I could also note that the page view statistics do not work at all. A2soup (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oh okay, yeah that gadget badly needs updating. The page view stats tool we don't actually have access to, and Hedonil apparently retired from the project. However we're in the process of gaining access to his tools, which required WMF involvement given the security issues. Anyways hopefully all will soon be fixed :) Thanks — MusikAnimal ^talk 17:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Good luck and thanks for your work on the issue! A2soup (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

What are you changing back to "The Blue Marble" image? Check if the Earth article it is. Thank you! Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 07:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're right, I made a mistake using an automated tool for reverting vandalism. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. (ESkog)^(Talk) 12:33, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

No worries-- thanks again for vandal-patrolling! A2soup (talk) 17:21, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

What are you removing the greyscale image? I made clearly greyscale over CW0131775256F Kuiper Crater.png image for Mercury. Discuss the page.

Thanks! Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 04:33, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I reverted the image for two reasons. 1) True color is preferable to greyscale since it is closer what the planet would actually look like, and 2) the color picture is higher resolution and shows more detail when you zoom in. Feel free to add the greyscale image anywhere in the main article where it is appropriate, I don't have any objections to it except that the color one is better. By "discuss the page", do you mean that I should move this discussion to Talk:Mercury (planet)? A2soup (talk) 04:41, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why do someone remove the Celestia image of 2060 Chiron (I used it)? That's not bad, but it is good you know. --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 06:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I didn't remove it, so I can't say. As I recently posted on you talk page, I do think that your edits would probably get reverted less if you used the edit summary to explain why the new image is better. A2soup (talk) 06:54, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The un-linking edits on Earth are maintenance edits, please do not revert them. Thank you, Mlpearc (open channel) 23:50, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Mlpearc: I'm not sure I understand. Your edit summaries say "per WP:Linking", so I assumed that you delinked because you judged the links to not conform to the guidelines about what should be linked. If so, I reverted some of your delinking because I judged those links to conform to the linking guidelines at WP:Linking, but I would be happy to discuss the links on the respective talk pages. Do you mean something else by "maintenance edits"? A2soup (talk) 23:56, 12 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's a user script which un-links common terms which are not necessary. The script (which I'm not the author) leaves "per WP:Linking" as an edit summary, this script's edits also fall under WP:OVERLINKING. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:09, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

As a person, I disagree with some of the script's edits. Some are arguable, but others just don't make much sense. Just off the top of my head, it delinked erosion, earthquake, and alumina at Earth.

Just because the edits were made by a script does not make them less arguable. In fact, I think it makes it more important that a someone review them, since overlinking and underlinking are context-dependent and often subjective. WP:LINKING on what to link: "relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers understand the article more fully . . . This can include people, events, and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, so long as the link is relevant to the article in question." (emphasis mine) Many things are relevant to Earth.

Is it fair to ask that you revert my edits based on your human judgement of each individual link, not simply because they disagree with your script? A2soup (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) I already did, all I can do is provide a link. Mlpearc (open channel) 00:31, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the link! I'm still interested, though, in whether you are okay with the idea that some of my re-linking might be correct, and whether you are willing to revert my linking based on your personal judgement of each link. A2soup (talk) 00:35, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict) Fair ? Look, all I was doing was working (constructively) on a encyclopedia and apparently I stepped into a Badger hole, if you don't like the script take it up with the author, I don't need a full blown debate. Sorry I stumbled into your area. Happy editing, Mlpearc (open channel) 00:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please don't take it the wrong way-- much of the delinking was correct, and all of it was constructive. I just thought that some of the links that were removed should not have been and was wondering if you were open to discussing them. If you are, feel free to revert me again, but please at least do so based on your human judgement of each link, not just so that the script can get its way. A2soup (talk) 00:47, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please STOP reverting my edits. If I were you I'd gain consensus somewhere either about the actually un-linking or on the user script, either way is fine but, don't follow me around undoing my constructive editing. Good day sir/ma'am, Mlpearc (open channel) 01:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please at least read the diffs-- I am not reverting your edits. I am leaving many of the terms delinked and adjusting others instead of just restoring the links. Your automated edits are constructive, and I am refining them with human judgement. Also, I am not following you around-- all of the pages I have edited are on my watchlist. I have not looked at your contributions at all (even though I am tempted ;)) A2soup (talk) 01:23, 13 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I nominate Neptune on the featured picture candidates. You can reply on this section, thank you. :) --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 09:22, 10 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I made FPC nomination.

• Sun
• Mars

Okay, just vote now. :) --Jcpag2012 (a.k.a. John Carlo) from Wikipedia 05:02, 12 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

You made some great edits to the Bacteriocin article. I appreciate your work. It doesn't go unnoticed. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  10:32, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! A2soup (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, A2soup. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Paul Johnson (Broadcaster).
Message added 00:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

-- GB fan 00:08, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Stuff like This doesn't ping people unless you also "re-sign" with 4 tildes. See Wikipedia:Notifications#ping for more info on the technical stuff. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:16, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah well, I was ambivalent about whether to ping him anyways. Thanks for the heads up. A2soup (talk) 02:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Timeline of nuclear fusion page, your edit caused a DOI error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 21 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'd just like to thank you for pointing out a process that I wasn't aware or familiar of. The review is happening Wikipedia:Deletion review - Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs. There has been some kind of placement of a marker for Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs. I'm not sure if it's supposed to look like that or the actual article is to be restored. Anyway .. .. so we'll see how it shapes up. Thanks again. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 11:15, 31 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

No problem! I think that particular case was clearly an example of inappropriate censorship, and I am happy to help you put it right. Let me take this opportunity to offer you one more piece of advice. Your user page shows that you are very passionate and opinionated about some issues. It's fine (even good) for you to improve and create pages related to the things you are passionate about, but be careful to avoid tendentious editing and understand that articles must conform to a neutral point of view. Note that a neutral point of view does not give equal weight to all sides of an issue, but rather distributes emphasis among points of view in a manner roughly proportionate to the support each view has in reliable sources. Good luck in your future editing! A2soup (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. Yes the "C word" is quite descriptive of what takes place here. I'm not sure if Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs is supposed to look like it does here or is it supposed to have content as per the others. It seems that after the whole process for this review is over, it may go from the frying pan into the fire. I see some folk want it sent to AFD. Oh well. As for your advice. I thank you for that. IT's good advice that I will take on board! Definitely will. Thanks again. 10:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr Bill Truth (talk • contribs)

It's up for deletion, just as I knew it would be. As I believe you're someone with integrity, If you have a moment free, I'd like to ask you to observe what takes place and if at some time in the future you see a similar pattern with some particular members, then perhaps that may be something that you could remember. I'm not going to out anyone here but I will say that there is team work and I have had a look at some historical things and have taken note myself. Thanks again. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 13:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for keeping me updated. I would keep in mind that articles are deleted for lack of notability all the time and the standards for doing so are quite well-established. So I'm not sure I would jump to the conclusion that deleting Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs for lack of notability (after discussion at AfD) is an example of the "C word". If you are concerned, it might help to look through the AfD archives to see what kinds of articles are usually deleted and how the discussions usually go, so you can better judge whether anything untoward is going on here. A2soup (talk) 17:04, 6 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Why are you removing the artist's impression of TrES-2b? That is an accurate artist's impression by David Aguilar! Seriously, you're deleting pictures from all over Wikipedia and I don't like the sound of that. I noticed you deleted some other Celestia depictions of extrasolar planets. So can we not do that? Exoplanet Expert (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is a lengthy discussion on this subject at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Should_Artist.27s_Impression_images_that_be_used_on_Article_Pages.3F. There is not clear consensus, but it is clear to me from the arguments for and against artist's impressions that the community is only behind images from reliable sources that have some scientific basis (although maybe not a whole lot). That image looks to me like it is quite inaccurate (too close to star, entirely speculative moons, colors never observed or predicted), but I don't know who David Aguilar is. Is he a reliable source on exoplanets? Also, if you feel strongly about this issue, please offer your opinion (with an argument for it!) at the Wikiproject Astronomy discussion I linked above-- that discussion needs to be revitalized. A2soup (talk) 23:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi A2soup! Just wanted to let you know that User:Legobot removed the RfC tag for the concensus going on WP:AIAO's talk page and didn't close the discussion. Davidbuddy9 (talk) 19:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I just posted at WP:AN/RFC, so let's hope it gets addressed! A2soup (talk) 20:44, 3 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I left a message on the Talk:4 Vesta talk page. Please respond there. Regards, Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 17:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

Since you're involved, reply to my message in Draft talk:List of exoplanets. Cheers, Huritisho 21:48, 9 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

You're probably right that it wasn't sporting of me to nominate that so quickly. But I see that, as I expected, the page creator has already gone on to dig out more deleted/redirected articles from page histories without sources...asking that we hold off before nomming those too. I think there's going to be a lot of these pages before they're done, and a speedy might have helped to head that off by sending the right message that sourcing is required. The way I see it, if the community goes through the trouble of having a delete debate, and the page gets deleted, then it's not helpful to go straight on and recreate the article with the same problem just because some years have passed. Otherwise, we're going to endlessly re-hash every delete decision we've made. And for what purpose? Geogene (talk) 01:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)Reply

I stepped in there only because the AfD was closed without prejudice for recreation with RSs and the creator promised to provide RSs. If the deletion had been closed as an unqualified delete, I wouldn't have done anything. I agree that the RSs really should have been provided at the time of re-creation. I don't really know the full situation with this user and haven't come across any other G4 noms for their articles. If it's looking like persistent problem, I would recommend starting a discussion about it on their talk page rather than hashing it out over individual articles. A2soup (talk) 01:36, 10 October 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) 14:23, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

... but if you haven't, have you considered notifying the admins in your selection box? I know this isn't at AN or ANI, but it might be an idea. I don't want to, in case they all agree with me and I get accused of canvassing... 8-( Peridon (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

@Peridon: I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're referring to? Is this about the discussion at WT:CSD? And what's a selection box? A2soup (talk) 19:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, yes, the A7 conflict - and I was referring to the 'album'. Peridon (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I already had contact with RHaworth last summer, when I sent some of his A7 speedies to DRV (different ones than in the album, and mostly less egregious-- not all of them were clearly improper). The consensus there seemed to be, "Even if some of these these are improper A7s, none of them have a chance of passing AfD, so why would we restore them? Stop wasting our time." People there also generally followed the same A7 interpretation as RHaworth, implicitly appealing to WP:V and whatnot. It got pretty close to me being accused of harassment, so I definitely don't want to go poking that particular hornet's nest again. And regardless, I think the problems with A7 are systemic, not due to individual sysops, and need to be addressed by rewriting the criterion in an unambiguous way. Going after RHaworth and others is counterproductive because even if they did stop making A7 deletions, there would be other sysops that would pick up the slack and likely apply the same misguided standard. And I don't want them to stop making A7 deletions anyways-- many of their deletions are good and important for the maintenance of the pedia.

So I'm currently trying to find an unambiguous standard for A7 that can then be used to curb the excesses of consensus practice. I think that is the best way to fix its problems. I don't know, what do you think of all this? A2soup (talk) 20:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

There'll be never a real bright line. As I've pointed out there, different people find different things credible. (Some even believe politicians...) And I can't see a possibility of a bright line for significance. The whole business that's going on started off over that kid writing about himself. No way has he got an award that's of note - I'm not even sure that he exists. Anyone with something worth writing about wouldn't reference it to 'My butthole'. I don't know American Scouting as well as I do British, but what I saw on their site made me somewhat unsure about his 'star' as well. Adam is somewhat literal minded, it appears - he says on his user page that he has Asperger's and I think he's finding difficulty with WP's normal IAR and varied interpretations. I can see his point about the wording, but I can't see anything worthwhile getting past the vociferous brigade of theorists that are to be found on the CSD talk page, but who never tag or detag that I've seen. This is why I made the suggestion that we should stop deleting A7 for a week or two, and take the lot to AfD instead to see what happens. (I'm not denying their right to have opinions, but I wish they'd be more like the Salvation Army than High Church - actually get their hands dirty. I'm naming no names. I'm not claiming to be a voice of authority, even though removal of rubbish is my main work - it's what I actually signed up to do, and my first edit is there and has never been reverted. I don't write content for three reasons. I edit while doing other things rather than having concentrated times exclusively here. I am a writer offwiki, and that's enough for me. And lastly, I can never think of anything that I know enough about that isn't already here. If you want a challenge, there's some preserved stuff and a started stub linked on my user page that anyone's free to work on. And that's more than I intended to write. It's not getting two (magazine) articles written. Peridon (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

PS I gave Adam what might be his first barnstar for stirring this up, and Melanie seconded it. I hoped he wouldn't think I was being sarky, and I wasn't. Seems to be OK with it. Peridon (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I think we're talking past each other a bit, haha. I didn't know any of that background with Adam, I just follow the CSD talk page since I have a pet interest in A7 reform, and that's all I've seen of this apparently much wider dispute. To respond to the theoretical A7 question you addressed, I can't see why a bright line on significance is any less possible than a bright line on notability. How about this bright line (which I brought up on CSD talk page): "A claim of significance is a statement that, if true, could be legitimately used as part of an argument in favor of a Keep vote at WP:AfD. It does not matter whether a full argument for a Keep vote is possible with the present facts, whether the final decision would be likely to be Keep, or whether the balance of the present facts lean towards Keep, only that the individual statement could legitimately be cited as part of an argument for a Keep vote." This definition achieves "bright line" status by drawing on developed, well-defined notability standards, but remains a distinct and lower standard. Thoughts? A2soup (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I look up at the reference, and in contrary to what you just said, EV Carinae is in the reference, page 22 NR 231.

I know that it does not state the radius, but Lithopsian was experienced in these kinds of topics. In fact, he was the one who put NML Cygni a number of 1,650 despite no reference stating the radius directly. There is a particular formula for determining the radius of a star using temperature, luminosity and spectral type that Lithopsian knows for sure. part If you open the reference, and clicked GET in Get low resolution PDF just below Printing Options, you will view the entire reference, and it states EV Carinae's temperature, spectral type and luminosity, that, when formulated, can determine the radius.

The number 2,880 is what surprises me, since in all honesty there is a limitation for that formula within stars with high metals. It could be an error, in a HUGE margin.

Anyway, you said you are not an expert, so in that case, I would bring it back what you reverted. Lithopsian was the expert, but he didn't respond to me so far, so keep an eye on him. By the way, if you want to talk, visit! SkyFlubbler ^(talk) 13:23, 16 January 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thank you so much for all your diligent edits ! May I ask how come you landed on the page ? --Wuerzele (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Dear A2soup, thank you for your positive feedback - I like the picture too. I think it is a worthwile addition because it provides a lesser known view on the true geometrical shape of Earth. Let me see if I can add a two-hemisphere plot, good suggestion. Kind regards geodesy2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geodesy2000 (talk • contribs) 13:24, 26 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

That was quick! Thanks for getting to it right away. Yes, the moonlets reference needs a bit of effort for a polished account, but I have no problem with what you've done here; if I think of it again soon and have the time, I might try to cobble together a suggested edit for that. 110.23.138.195 (talk) 14:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

No problem! You could also make an account, get autoconfirmed (which is super easy), and do it yourself! See the note I left you on the talk page of what I imagine is a different IP address you were editing from: User talk:175.45.116.61#Edit request at Talk:Saturn. A2soup (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

I did start to make an account some years ago, in a similar situation where I saw something that needed editing, but it seemed to a really complicated process - or at least, more complicated than I have time for then.

Yes, I sent the request from work, then replied from home. I hadn't noticed your comments on the other talk page, so thanks for them now. The mysteries of IP addresses: I'd have thought my work IP address was pretty static, but I had nothing to do with the other posts from that address. 110.23.138.195 (talk) 11:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

On 3 March 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Benoit & Sergio, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Benoit & Sergio describe their sound as "an alloy of copper and silk"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Benoit & Sergio. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello, A2soup. You have new messages at Talk:Planet Nine#Conclusion 2.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Regards, nagualdesign 15:02, 11 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are reverting improvements to policy against the discussion. Stop reverting me. Legacypac (talk) 22:59, 13 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

@Legacypac: Where in what discussion did people agree on your change to WP:NOT? I don't mean to act dense, I really don't know what you are referring to. Can you please direct me to the agreement? A2soup (talk) 01:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Pluto page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 30 August 2016 (UTC)Reply

"Diesel" was upcased in this edit. It seemed odd to me and I asked about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Archive 136#Is "diesel" capitalized?. I prefer it downcased as that seems to be the more common usage. Kendall-K1 (talk) 13:56, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Reply

You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 15:50, 22 December 2016 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello A2soup. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog (around 15,000 pages) down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

They're past the draft stage, but only about half-way through development. The list entries could sure each use an annotation (an en dash followed by a brief description). If you find yourself bored some evening with nothing else to do... :)

In case you are interested,

• the main list of outlines is at Portal:Contents/Outlines.

• latest efforts are reported at Wikipedia:Community portal#Outlines.

• see the outlines in the draft namespace with this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Outline+of+&namespace=118&hideredirects=1 (drag it to your browser toolbar for ease of access)

• if you plan on working much on outlines or would like to collaborate in developing them, consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines.

By the way, I'm looking for a JavaScript programmer who can critique some code. I've built a script to aid in viewing of outlines. It creates a toggle switch to hide and unhide annotations. It's a little buggy, and also has a design flaw with respect to viewport positioning. So if you know JavaScript, and wouldn't mind looking over a newbie's fumblings, please let me know, because I could sure use some feedback.

Thanks, and enjoy the outlines.

Another by the way, my current favorites are: Outline of chess, Outline of Game of Thrones, Outline of Toronto, Outline of ancient history, Outline of Bob Marley, and Draft:Outline of JavaScript. The Transhumanist 03:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Unfortunately I don't have any JavaScript skills - I hope you find someone to help out with that. I'll definitely do what I can on the editing front though! I might not have that much time as a grad student with my own little list of wiki to-dos, but I would love to see these succeed and will for sure take a look at the WikiProject and pitch in what I can. Happy editing! A2soup (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I find that building/developing outlines on the subjects I'm currently involved with helps learn the subject faster. What topics are you currently focusing on in school? The Transhumanist 06:38, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm a PhD student in biology (microbiology in particular), but I am a bit of a space enthusiast on the side. I actually find that I like editing space-related topics more, and I'm not sure why. Maybe because editing is a hobby and I enjoy it partially as a break from the career stuff I do all day. I could definitely help out with biology stuff, though, if that needs more attention. A2soup (talk) 07:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

As a break from your main field sounds most likely. All the outlines need ongoing attention, so don't worry yourself about selection. Just dive in wherever you like.

By the way, keep in mind that the outlines serve as tables of contents and learning tools by students of all ages, from grade school on up. For example, "classification" is a junior high to high school-level word, and many grade schoolers are instructed to study the planets of the solar system too. Choosing words that sound or look "encyclopedic" to a particular age group might be a bit esoteric for younger readers. If we can make it easier for them, maybe we should. Just some food for thought. The Transhumanist 08:10, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Feel free to change the headers back if you want - I won't argue. I guess it just struck me as weird and out-of-style with the rest of Wikipedia, and I feel like outlines looking weird works against them becoming more widely linked and accepted. A2soup (talk) 08:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're right. "Classification of" fits better here. Cleaner. Less wordy. More scientific. Good call. I got so used to seeing the question heading, that anything new looked out of place. After you said it looked "weird", I got it: it's not the type of wording one would expect in a scientific list of planetary features.

By the way, outlines seem to compare in traffic to the other navigation page types (indices, categories, portals), none of which come close to the traffic of regular articles (one percent traffic by comparison is typical, three percent is exceptional). A possible reason is that most of the traffic to navigation pages comes from within Wikipedia rather than from google. Another factor may be that they are facilitator pages, not generally intended as final destinations. As for linkage, they are not suitable for embedded links, and there are only so many reference area locations to place them (see Wikipedia:Outlines#Follow up outline creation with link support). But, once they are included in the corresponding nav footers, they are linked to from as many pages as the nav footers are included. If you know of additional types of places from which outlines may be linked, I'd be very interested. Hatnotes for them were tried on regular articles, but that didn't go over so well. The Transhumanist 00:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

My apologies. I use popups to review most changes on my watchlist, and those aspects of your edit were so small in the popup that I missed them. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 03:18, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

No problem! Sorry if I was a bit snippy in my edit summary, I apparently need to recalibrate my good-faith-o-meter... A2soup (talk) 03:51, 4 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi A2soup, Im a contributor in telescopes articles and I would like your backing, can you back me on this deletion request for the Colossus Telescope page. Thanks. Link: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colossus Telescope Quantanew (talk) 17:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Quantanew, careful with the way you distribute notifications like this to make sure you are not accused of WP:CANVASSING. In particular, you should make sure that your message is neutral (e.g. "your comment on X would be helpful") rather than biased (e.g. "please support me on X"). It is also a good idea to note at the discussion that you are asking other editors to contribute. As for me, I don't often participate at AfD and don't feel like I have the understanding of notability necessary to participate in tricky discussions there. Good luck in your future editing! A2soup (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks anyway for answering and your troubles Quantanew (talk) 19:13, 6 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Mir-2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zvezda. 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) 11:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, not sure if you're aware that my recent edits to this article are direct responses to FAC review comments. Edits in the opposite direction are not necessarily wrong in this context but it would be a great help if such changes could be made very cautiously and in full awareness of the FAC discussion: if need be, by joining it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:30, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

I did join it immediately after making my edits, it just hasn't transcluded over from the subpage yet - I'm not sure how long that usually takes. I replied to Cwmhiraeth within another reviewer's section because I don't want to take on the role of a reviewer here; rather, I want to address the reviewers concerns in a different way. If my comment should have it's own section, feel free to let me know or move it there yourself. I'm not sure of the exact procedures for FAC, never having directly participated before. A2soup (talk) 15:33, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Normally you write your own comments in your own section. However since here you intervened in response to my handling of another editor's FAC comments, putting it in his section seems reasonable, as you two will have to agree on whatever structure the article is to have. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Reviewers are allowed to edit as they please. However, when an edit is contentious it may be best to be careful. On "cuisine" for "food", I'd note that while many coastal people eat octopus because they are hungry, only in certain societies does the animal form a noted dish which might be called cuisine, and the discussion of tonnages of the animal caught for humans to eat must be considered to be about food, not cuisine. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good, change it back if you like. I was just trying to please Sunbird per their comments at FAC. My preferred title is probably "Octopus as food", but I don't mind so much as long as it mentions food somehow and not just fisheries. A2soup (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

 

A clarification to WP:UP/RFC2016 § B4 has been proposed. You participated in that discussion; your input is welcome at Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring/B4 clarification. Thanks, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 16:00, 23 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi A2soup, Per Wikipedia:Gender_identity, "We accept the person's latest identification of their gender" and "MOS:IDENTITY says we must use the person's latest self-identification. Unless the person themselves says they are transitioning or no longer identify with a certain gender identity, it should not be included in the article." Avery has chosen a new name that is universal across all of her current social media and band copy. Avery has stated that she is transitioning. Must wikipedia wait until a major news organization covers it to respect someone's self-identification? Principles of Wikipedia:Basic_dignity indicate that we don't misgender or deadname Avery, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.85.0.116 (talk) 20:39, 24 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Abus gun, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bombard (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 10:15, 13 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sigh indeed... Calliopejen1 (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I added a lighthearted image and caption to User:A2soup/Don't use draftspace which plays on the acronym (i.e. dud) formed by the title of the page. Feel free, of course, to revert it if you don't care for it. Warmest regards, — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 07:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

I like it, thanks! A2soup (talk) 10:26, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

  User:A2soup/Don't use draftspace, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:A2soup/Don't use draftspace and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:A2soup/Don't use draftspace during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 07:57, 23 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

GAB^gab 20:27, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

I'm from Canada, so be careful with this special brownie. Also, it has drugs in it. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:54, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Canada's finest! Thank you, I'm honored. A2soup (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

What did I do wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.80.169.126 (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

Nothing at all, as far as I can tell. You're doing good work and improving the encyclopedia, and I hope you keep doing it! Your edit request for The Game discography was very helpful and I fulfilled it, plus some extra certifications that were missing. The message I left on your talk page afterwards was intended as a friendly welcome, not a notice of any problem. Is there something else you're asking about? A2soup (talk) 16:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

 

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hi A2soup,

I noticed that you reverted an edit I made on the Hilaria Baldwin article and wanted to ask you about it.

I added a comma after Massachusetts and included MOS:GEOCOMMA in the edit comments. Your comment in the reversion was that "MOS:GEOCOMMA does not apply because Massachusetts is not a subdivision of January."

Here's the MOS:GEOCOMMA text that applies here: In geographical references that include multiple levels of subordinate divisions (e.g., city, state/province, country), a comma separates each element and follows the last element unless followed by terminal punctuation or a closing parenthesis. The last element is treated as parenthetical.

In this case, there should be a comma after Massachusetts, so that it is parenthetical, and it has nothing to do with the date. I understand that this is different from purely grammatical conventions, but it's the MOS that matters here.

Please let me know your thoughts on this.

Thanks,

Edward Bednar (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2023 (UTC)Reply