: Wikipedia is designed to grow. Having an approval process for new pages would be an unnecessary and damaging bottleneck that would really slow things down. It was tried with portals, and that approval department was eliminated by the community.<br><br>
: Wikipedia is designed to grow. Having an approval process for new pages would be an unnecessary and damaging bottleneck that would really slow things down. It was tried with portals, and that approval department was eliminated by the community.<br><br>
: Generally, if editors want a page or set of pages deleted or moved, the burden is upon them to propose that to the community. So far, Verbal has not done that. Instead, he demands that we achieve consensus for their existence, but Wikipedia isn't designed that way.<br><br>
: Generally, if editors want a page or set of pages deleted or moved, the burden is upon them to propose that to the community. So far, Verbal has not done that. Instead, he demands that we achieve consensus for their existence, but Wikipedia isn't designed that way.<br><br>
: It is somewhat counterintuitive, and in violation of [[WP:POINT]] that editors who do not want pages moved or deleted be the ones to propose that such be done. That is the course of action that Verbal has been pressuring outline supporters into - to write an RfC proposing that outlines be moved. Reminds me of Nazis forcing Jews to dig their own graves. <br><br>
: It is somewhat counterintuitive, and in violation of [[WP:POINT]] that editors who do not want pages moved or deleted be the ones to propose that such be done. That is the course of action that Verbal has been pressuring outline supporters into - to write an RfC proposing that outlines be moved.<br><br>
: But an RfC is a bloody waste of time if you ask me, since consensus is unlikely to be achieved to move them to another namespace - that would have almost the same effect as deleting them, and the community doesn't want them deleted. We've seen their responses enough times at AfD to know this.<br><br>
: But an RfC is a bloody waste of time if you ask me, since consensus is unlikely to be achieved to move them to another namespace - that would have almost the same effect as deleting them, and the community doesn't want them deleted. We've seen their responses enough times at AfD to know this.<br><br>
::I think you would do well to remove the [[Godwin's Law]] proof above. It will only serve to inflame the situation. In doing so, feel free to remove my comment as well. –[[user:xeno|<font face="verdana" color="black">'''xeno'''</font>]][[user talk:xeno|<font color="black"><sup>talk</sup></font>]] 18:54, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
Please contact me concerning anything to do with outlines or the Outline of knowledge WikiProject. Questions, problems, conflicts, AfD's, etc. etc. Thank you.
"Unencyclopedic" is meaningless in an argument, really. Basically it means "anything not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: "Delete, because I want it deleted". This is just repeating yourself. What we want to know are your reasons why you think something shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Simply answer the question, What's wrong with it?
Heya
Hi. I'm glad to see you're back. I was planning to post here in the next few days. Hope you had a good wikibreak (relaxing, aren't they!) :)
Regarding the rfc, I'm having a very slow/steady conversation with Karanacs at User talk:Karanacs#Outline bump. I'm hoping she'll reply to my last lengthy post there soon. I'd really like to disentangle the 2 issues (outlines, navigational pages) before we progress any further with actually drafting the rfc(s). I suggest/counsel patience with that part. (She's busy with arbcom cases currently).
Have a good 'un. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikibreak? What the hell is that? I'm busier than ever! I've switched over to designing software features to support outlines, most of the communications for which is handled via email. It would be nice if outline articles were still here when the program development is completed.
I estimate that the software will increase outline editing productivity by a factor of 5. That is, one editor should be able to easily produce 5 times as much outline output than he or she could do previously in the same amount of time without the software solutions.
I'm not sure if I'll even work on outlines again until the software features are ready to apply upon them. We're looking at 9 months, maybe more (I'm learning programming from scratch), before we have something rudimentary to apply, while a full-blown implementation of the design concept will take years.
I would suggest that you need to include a specific date or diff (probably not both), for GFDL satisfaction. More replies at my talkpage. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:41, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Verbal is not an admin. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia talk:Outlines#Fixing accreditation has an up-to-date list and some workflow advice. It took me 90 minutes to fix A-C the other day. We'd really appreciate it if you could assist with this. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Whilst you're updating country outlines, perhaps you could also help out with fixing their accreditations? List (C-Z still to go) and instructions at Wikipedia talk:Outlines#Fixing accreditation. Thanks! -- Quiddity (talk) 17:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what to do with User:SMcCandlish/Coaching now that I'm actually in a position to do admin duties regularly and thus interested in doing an RfA. My coaching page has you mentioning assignments at a backlink, but not link seems to be there, and all the coaching related stuff seems to be different these days, so I'm not entire sure what the next step is. :-) I have 4+ years under my belt as an editor across all the namespaces, but I figure anyone can still learn from another's tips and tricks. — SMcCandlishTalk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀContribs. 10:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought you'd be interested since it revives
this discussion we had in July at Wikipedia Talk:Content forking. (I don't suggest you spend too much time re-reading the old thread, since I've clarified and re-stated the issues in the meantime.)
Long time no talk ! Anyway I have just been looking at the Cyprus outline and see there are lots of red links and missing bits - without getting too far into debate at this point I wondered if any plans were in your head for going over the article or if I am free to go ahead and edit it - I will of course ref the guidelines etc and would be grateful if there was anything i should know about the article before I go ahead.
Chaosdruid (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's going on? The list was kept at the AfD above, but you seem to be recreating/duplicating it at Outline of geography. (?!!) 8) -- Quiddity (talk) 01:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. It's an outline, not a "basic list". The new article matches the structure used in Outline of cell biology and Outline of Buddhism, and is being designed for the Outline of Knowledge. Better to make a new article than try to convert the list to an OOK outline. The Transhumanist 22:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A few of them are misnamed due the disagreement and pagemovewar, but they're still part of the set of "outlines". Please, please, elucidate/explain what in the heck you're trying to achieve by forking the LOBT/OOK for geography. Is this meant to be another navigational structure, somewhere in between an LOBT/OOK and a glossary? What is wrong with adding these annotations to List of basic geography topics? -- Quiddity (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a distinct article, which differs greatly in scope from the page you mentioned. The List of basic geography topics is limited in scope as its title indicates, and it's current title/scope is being defended by a certain editor, and attacked by another editor on the grounds that the topic isn't notable/verifiable. The outline I'm working on has a much greater scope than "basic", shall go into far more detail, and seeks to be much more comprehensive. It is being designed as an "Outline of" article specifically for the Outline of Knowledge, and contains hierarchical tree structure outline content in Wikipedia annotation style, matching the format used in Outline of cell biology and Outline of Buddhism, as opposed to being a crappy montage of footer templates and tables, which is what the "List of basic geography topics is". Also, "basic topics" is a very problematic inclusion criteria and may have notability requirements as a subject, while the only inclusion criteria of the outline I'm constructing is that a topic fall under the subject of geography, which is the focus of the article - it's not about outlines, but is an outline of the subject's content. The outline is under construction, so please reserve judgment for a week or so, to see how it turns out. Thank you. The Transhumanist 00:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I think I understand. Am happy to watch/wait patiently. :)
I'm not in agreement with your commentary on the "crappy montage of footer templates" though. They help maintain a consistent set of links across multiple articles, as at Outline of the United States and Outline of history and Outline of Asia. Though I recognize that this is debatable. (Also, the in-article templates should probably all be forced to "state=uncollapsed" so that their contents are instantly visible/useful.) -- Quiddity (talk) 20:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A better way to describe the footer templates is "sloppy" or "a poor fit", as they tend to be redundant or overlap the outline's tree content, and the templates don't always fit the context of the sections they are placed in. But more importantly, footer templates of prose article links don't fit the context of outlines as well as outline links do! That's because, in outlines, links to the branches in the subject's topic tree are more appropriate, that is, links to outlines of the subtopics. And in most cases, it doesn't make sense to include a prose article link when an outline link exists for the same subtopic, because subtopic outlines include a link to their corresponding prose article right at the top in the opening sentence of the outline's lead section. By linking outlines together, you improve the browsing experience by extending the tree the user is climbing, thereby extending his or her reach. The Transhumanist 20:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
February 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Outline of geography. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Verbalchat 08:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm constructing a new page, with a construction tag you keep ignoring. You are not practicing good wikiquette. The new page is intended to have a much wider scope and much greater level of detail than the introductory-level page you keep comparing it to, yet you keep ignoring that fact. Your reversion of the page back to a redirect is the same thing as deleting the page I've created. That's not acceptable. You are basically telling me I can't create the page without your approval. But that's not how Wikipedia operates. There is no requirement for seeking approval for a new page, and the page I'm building is not subject to speedy deletion either. Your reversions go against the spirit of Wikipedia's development philosophy. If you don't like the page, take it to AfD, which is the proper venue for discussing the existence of a page.
To develop the page further, I've moved it to project space as a draft. The Transhumanist 22:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Outline of life extension, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Outline of life extension. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Verbalchat 20:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism
Please cease referring to good faith edits as vandalism. Any good faith edit with the intent of improving the encyclopedia is not vandalism - even if that edit is horribly, terribly damaging. It is very, very rare that contributiors with more than a few weeks of experience at Wikipedia is comitting vandalism. Please review WP:NOTVAND. Hipocrite (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you look over Verbal's edits of outlines, you'll see that they are carefully calculated. He's been assaulting outlines in every way he can think of. The Transhumanist 20:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because he thinks that will improve the encyclopedia. That he may or may not be wrong does not make it vandalism. Stop calling it that. Did you inform him about your AN (now ANI) thread? Hipocrite (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not yet. I initially posted the message on his talk page, but he deleted it. I'll post a link for him now. Thanks for the heads up. The Transhumanist 21:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I completely agree with Hipocrite that using the word "vandalism" for these issues is using fighting words, and will not result in positive outcomes. -- Quiddity (talk) 02:48, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Graphic Designer
Hi.
You say here that you're looking for a graphic designer. I'm not totally familiar with what you're looking for but am well qualified technically and looking to learn as much as a can about wikipedia (as a budding transhumanist). My capabilities and portfolio can be found here at the bottom of the section.
Hello, The Transhumanist! Just reminding you that you are listed as a member of the Random Picture of the Day! It would be great if you could add a picture or too! Put the template on your user page with {{User:Presidentman/potd/template}}, and encourage other users to add pictures. You can also put our userbox on your userpage using: {{User:Presidentman/Ubx/RPOTD}}. Hopefully you'll help out! Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:56, 25 March 2010 (UTC) - Talk to you later, Presidentman (talk) Random Picture of the Day 21:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I saw your name on Wikipedia:WikiProject Demographics and thought you may be able to help. I've been taking a class on sociology latley, and that sparked my interest in exploring the demographics of the United States Marine Corps. However, I'm not really sure where to go as a starting point... as in, what is demographically relevant? Gender, race/ethnicity, rank, occupational specialty? What should I avoid? What would be redundant to Demographics of the United States? My main reference will be the Marine Corps Almanac (the final chaper in all but the oldest three volumes)... I don't merely want to parrot statistics, but have to walk a fine line against OR and synth. Any insight you might have would be suprememly helpful. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 18:35, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, very much so. I will have to much more research on the topic, it seems. The distinction is something I'm happy to learn now, as I will be taking a statistics class next semester, so you hit two birds with one stone there! With much appreciation, I will get back with you when I have more to work with. bahamut0013wordsdeeds 00:03, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
help request
Hello,
Who is the best person to talk to regarding "Lists" and the differences compared to "Disambiguation" pages? I am trying to understand what is going on at: List of Carpenter named articles. For example: Why is duplication prohibited or frowned on here? Why are partial listings or linking to "Carpenter" in an article is bad for a "List of" page is bad? Any help is appreciated. Jrcrin001 (talk) 22:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikilove
This template must be substituted, see Template:Smile for instructions
It's been a while since I've spoken to you. Hope you're doing well, TT! Regards, AGK 21:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, people elsewhere have been complaining about it, so you're not alone. It's what firefox uses, but nobody except interface designers would notice that...! -- Quiddity (talk) 17:43, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) You have to press the magnifying glass without putting anything into the box. Bloody stupid system if you ask me but there you have it --Jubilee♫clipman 04:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I noticed you've done some work on building this area Here, I'm trying to build my user page and programming is not one of my strong points. My question is, if I were to use for example this navplate Here, how do I assign the links to the appropriate icon. Do I need to build my own plate ? How is this done ? Thanx for your time and hoping for some help Mlpearcpull my chainTrib's 17:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No programming is necessary. Just some cutting/pasting and some search/replacing. I've done the preliminaries for you to help you get started. Now you can fine tune it. Have fun. The Transhumanist 23:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, what a wonderful surprise. It's like xmas ! Again thank you very much. And of course if I can ever do anything you have my number Mlpearcpull my chainTrib's 23:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked
Thank you for the note on my talkpage. I will look into Verbal's conduct. Given my warning to you, which you reproduced on my talkpage, I can hardly avoid taking action in response to your page moves, which were an escalation of the dispute when you could have chosen to object those moves and seek to have them reverted, rather than do so yourself. I do not think that a blanket reversal of Verbal's moves shows that you "wish the move war to end" - quite the contrary. Accordingly, I have blocked you from editing Wikipedia for 48 hours. Once that block has expired, I encourage you to participate in discussion relating to the "Outlines of.." issue, but strongly suggest that you avoid future page moves (however provoked you may feel). WJBscribe(talk) 22:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Outline of Rights
When you first reverted my redirect of Outline of rights to Rights, I posted a question for you on the talk page there. You never responded, but someone else undid your reversion soon after so I didn't much care; but if you insist on pressing this point I'd appreciate it if you would at least reply on the talk page there. As it stands, that article is little more than a duplicate of an old version of Rights, so if they are both to coexist, we need to determine what the difference between them is so they can each be tailored appropriately and not just have one be a shoddy copy of the other. --Pfhorrest (talk) 23:07, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be working on it. The main differentiation between a hierarchical outline and a prose article is the format. Topic outlines don't have a lot of text between links as prose articles do, and provide a bird's eye view of the subject. They are much easier to read for those who prefer hierarchical outlines. The Transhumanist 23:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please revert your addition (again!) of "of chocolate" and "Chocolate" all over the article. It is redundant and looks silly. It also goes against the community approved Manual of Style. Please undo, as it takes time to manually go through and fix all of those. Please don't point me to any OOK text you've written, as they don't supersede our MOS. It's hard to assume good faith when you keep doing this, but I shall and that is why I'm asking for you to undo. If you want to rearrange sections could you please discuss that on the talk page too. The page, and outlines, are not any one persons.Verbalchat 19:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We've been over this many times. It's that way in over 500 outlines. The set of outlines is well established. You can't systematically remove the formatting distinct to outlines as you have been doing without getting consensus first. Please stop trying to convert outlines to generic list formatting. The Transhumanist 19:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Er, no sorry. You've stated that many times but the consensus is what's in WP:MOS. Also, the level of subsubsubheaders is a bit silly now. Please undo and take it to talk where we can hopefully resolve that problem (to show good faith?) Verbalchat 19:23, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What's with the "Er"? Why are you acting 12 years old? The Transhumanist 19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When someone is trying to discuss something with you in good faith, it's not a good idea to resort to insults. Please don't do it again. Verbalchat 19:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To directly address a your numbers, 500 articles is a tiny percentage of the articles in wikipedia, and the vast majority (well over 500 by orders of magnitude) follow the WP:MOS, and for good reason. Verbalchat 19:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm referring to mass edits, including systematic conversion of articles to one's POV in the face of opposition by other editors, which is what you have been doing. MOS provides an exception clause for cases such as outlines, and that exception has been applied to the entire set of "Outline of" articles for the past few years. You can't unilaterally come by years later and sweepingly change them all without getting the approval of the community. The Transhumanist 19:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It provides no exception for outlines. The MOS has primacy. See Wikipedia:MOS#General_principles for several reasons why your small group of articles shouldn't be excepted. Verbalchat 19:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that. There is a general exception, and it concerns headings. WP:Headings states: "Headings should not explicitly refer to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings, unless doing so is shorter or clearer." It is the "clearer" exception that has been applied to outlines. In outlines, which can be rather hard on the eyes, using the subject in headings make the lists easier to browse through the listings. Also, because outlines are part of an overall outline, it is easy to get lost when browsing that structure, especially when comparing branches of that structure in multiple windows. The clearer headings help the reader know where he or she is in the overall structure. And you don't have the authority to unilaterally disallow an exception that has been applied to a set of pages. You need to get community consensus for that. The Transhumanist 19:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is only clearer on the "Substances found in", which should be reworded anyway. The rest should be reverted following the standard MOS guides, unless you have a good reason? Verbalchat 19:48, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I gave good reasons above. The heading convention used in outlines has been applied by many editors over a period of years. You do not have the authority to change any standard that has been adopted for a special purpose, such as outlines, without getting community consensus first. When doing so, you are in violation of Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. The Transhumanist 19:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please please please get community consensus for your outlines and for your exemption, but until then normal rules apply and you cannot force your will on the community - or your walled garden of articles. You need to follow proper process and the rules that all other editors have to follow. I'm sorry, but you are not a special case. Verbalchat 19:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The outlines have matching custom formatting. You can't mass-change them without getting community consensus. Systematically changing pages in the face of opposition is a no-no. But you already know this. Please reread Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Thank you. The Transhumanist 19:57, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The "outlines" (or lists) are not exempt from the MOS, and they are a very small number of articles with a very small number of supporters. Please bring your rules into line with those of wikipedia, and please stop your special pleading. I'm sorry to repeat myself, but the MOS has primacy and outlines are not exempt. Even common sense suggests that the "Of Chocolate" everywhere is very poor style. You know how to fix this, go do it. Verbalchat 20:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, if I'm butting in, but I watch this page, so I can't help but follow the discussion. Plus, I've made a few edits to the page recently. While I support outlines (clearly unlike Verbal), I'm surprised by how reasonable he has been (more than I remember or expected). But on the MOS Headings, I agree with Verbal. - Highfields (talk, contribs) 20:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Verbal and Highfields. Repeating "[Foo] of chocolate" or "[Foo] of Finland" (for example) in almost every heading, is directly counter to the intent of the MoS (WP:Headings) and the discussions about it. -- Quiddity (talk) 21:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. –xenotalk 19:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
[reply]
He's been told several times to do a proper RfC on it (at ANI and by Admins, etc), but he tried to get that deleted. Verbalchat 18:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you drop your stupid campaign instead, Verbal?Greg Bard 19:56, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Those three supports at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 28#Major rename proposal of certain "lists" to "outlines" really do show consensus... for not going ahead with The Transhumanist's renames. If the community supports the outline project at the proposed RfC then I will work with the project to improve outlines, but I present I see outlines as a problem (not a big one, at only 500 misnamed/duplicate lists, but a problem) that go against our MOS, common sense, and cause duplication of effort. Note that TT is banned from doing any more renames aas he proposed in that section. They are a detriment to furthering the project - as is this argument. Hence I'll stop. Save it for the RfC. Verbalchat 20:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are 37 supporters of the outline project, and then there is you and a few others causing us problems. Seriously, what is your problem? You don't like outlines? Don't read them.Greg Bard 20:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's an increadibly misleading oversimplification. I support outlines, and I'm one of the 37. But I definatly disagree with your statement Gregbard. Verbal has raised good points, to no productive response. That this RfC is DEFINATLY necessary. TT can't act like this. - Highfields (talk, contribs) 15:32, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear OE,
Verbal is trying to flip the article develop process around, to require consensus for creating new pages on Wikipedia. But approval (consensus) is not required to create pages on Wikipedia - never has been. That would be setting a very harmful precedent. Consensus is required to move or delete pages. That's why we have Wikipedia:Articles for deletion and discussion forums (like the Village Pump). With respect to outlines, Verbal avoids AfD like the plague because he knows the community will not delete them - almost every time an outline has been nominated for deletion, the decision was (usually overwhelmingly) to keep the outline.
Wikipedia is designed to grow. Having an approval process for new pages would be an unnecessary and damaging bottleneck that would really slow things down. It was tried with portals, and that approval department was eliminated by the community.
Generally, if editors want a page or set of pages deleted or moved, the burden is upon them to propose that to the community. So far, Verbal has not done that. Instead, he demands that we achieve consensus for their existence, but Wikipedia isn't designed that way.
It is somewhat counterintuitive, and in violation of WP:POINT that editors who do not want pages moved or deleted be the ones to propose that such be done. That is the course of action that Verbal has been pressuring outline supporters into - to write an RfC proposing that outlines be moved.
But an RfC is a bloody waste of time if you ask me, since consensus is unlikely to be achieved to move them to another namespace - that would have almost the same effect as deleting them, and the community doesn't want them deleted. We've seen their responses enough times at AfD to know this.
