User talk:DePiep/Archive 7

Template:Convert/TonCwt to t

Hi,
Please see Template talk:Convert/TonCwt to t#Just curious Peter Horn User talk 20:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Ouch, Peter. This is the most difficult topic I know with converting units. And since I grew up with metrics only, I have no grasp of these subtle differences. (Glad I know the difference between nautical and statute mile). I have been evading this template as much as possible!

My best advice would be to research & describe the units involved. That could include a "cultural" history (places, professions, topics where it is used). Once that is clear, write a request at Template talk:convert and expect Johnuniq to react helpful. Johnuniq may also give advice on naming of the units and their symbols (abbreviations), to prevent confusion and ambiguity. -DePiep (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Notice on requested move for 15 in gauge railways article

Please see: Talk:15 in gauge railways#Requested move 2--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 18:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diadinoxanthin.png

Hi DePiep. Could you please reply there? Thank you. --Leyo 08:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

+Action at Wikipedia_talk:Chemical_infobox#Template:Chembox_to_work_more_useful_for_eponymous_files) -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

About that element module...

After seeing all of the element templates, my ultimate plan seems to be to merge the "q=" parameter into {{ComplexNuclide2}}, and then somehow make all other templates a redirect to that syntax. In other words, I want to use the code in {{ComplexNuclide2}}, merge the "q=" parameter from {{Element}} into it, and then ... I guess ... rename the template to {{Element}}. Do you foresee any issues with this proposition that I'm either not seeing, or not understanding? Steel1943 (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

First, congrats with the move you proposed -- it was done I see. Now about this topic you write: I have no clue! Never met or used the |q=. So in the wiki spirit, I can say: go ahead. (If I ever have a better idea, we'll be in contact).

I see no conflicts. I have not ever worked with these nucleide templates. In such situations, I always go to WT:ELEM and ask Sandbh, Double sharp.

So: "not understanding" is the right answer (OTOH, I am the King of the periodic table presentations. A pity you don't need advice on that ...) ;-) -DePiep (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Since you pinged I continue, stepping up. I like this set of templates, they produce very good inline formats & wikilinks. The sub-element facts (with superscripts and subscripts) show and link very well. As for template technique, indeed it could be brought down from 200 individual templates into a bigger scheme (I do not oversee the requirements now). My own instinct now is to make everything in Lua, but if template wikicode is your thing that's better (since you like it; that overrules technical perfection. We are here for the fun of it).

If you want me talk about the template structures & techniques for this, then ask (I can take a dive into this, but not as unsollicited help!). -DePiep (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Periodic table templates

Template:Periodic table templates has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:cite doi RfC

Because you commented at this discussion, I would appreciate your views at this RfC on the particular issue of DOI templates. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

on the WT:ELEM thread

Sorry for all the posts that were seen as off-topic. That was assuredly not my intention, which was only to attempt to address all the queries from you and Parcly Taxel. I believe you wanted only the scientific arguments from sources: since you are unsatisfied with how the discussion is proceeding, I can write a summary in a subpage of the arguments and nothing else. Double sharp (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for this reply. I best take some 24h off from the thread, then see how it looks. -DePiep (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

I think I shall probably do that too before looking back and writing my summary. Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

One or two nights will be OK for me. (You know, today I actually did not dare to mention a point to you, being afraid that it would multiply topics. That point was: "when talking about extended PT's, do you realise that extensions usually come in threefold: Fricke, Aufbau, and Pykkö". That is a weird experience, the 'not'). -DePiep (talk) 19:04, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

May I have a two-day extension? (I was planning to do it today, but did the merging instead, which required some thought. Sorry for the inconvenience.) Double sharp (talk) 13:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Take as much time as you need, and then a holiday. Didn't read this as a promise by you, I'm not waiting. As you might have noticed, elsewhere I am rebuilding this , keeps me bizzy. (... and expect a 32-column injection soon in one of your current topics). -DePiep (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

I wrote the first one (group 3). Double sharp (talk) 09:51, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Next one will be group 12, I think. Double sharp (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

File:Periodic Table by Quality.PNG

Could you please help me put in the names and symbols for 119 and 120, so that they read "119 / Uue / Ununennium" and "120 / Ubn / Unbinilium" (/ represents a line break)? I tried, but I couldn't get it to look right and work for future recolourings. Double sharp (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Where/how did you make the png (from)? -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

ping @Double sharp: -DePiep (talk) 14:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't make it: I just kept modifying the original image with Microsoft Paint (yes, I know it's not great, but it does the recolouring job). I made the E119 and E120 cells from the Na and Mg cells, copypasting in 9's and 0's from F and Db (I think) and erasing the symbols. Double sharp (talk) 14:45, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(ec) Wow that's like 19th century chemistry. I'll grab a brush then, later on. -DePiep (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

There is also the svg version. Can we ditch it? I see little use, and it is outdated. Keeping it requires regular maintenance. -DePiep (talk) 14:53, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

@Double sharp: I prefer to let this request go (won't do). I'm not that good with paint, and I don't like diving into this. My idea: better would be to use the always hot Template:Periodic table by article quality for this. It might take weeks, but another tailored {{Element cell}} might do the job (=create a page you can male a png picture of, and that looks like the old one). For today: 119 and 120 are not wrong. Can you live with this? -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I'm fine with that. Think the .svg can also go, we don't need more than two versions of this honestly. (Template for easy reference and grabbing data from, and .png for easy resizing and updating and also because that's where all the history is).

For now 119 and 120 are not wrong, and I thought of leaving them like this to symbolize that they are so far undiscovered. Also, once we switch "ununtrium" to "element 113" and so on, a strong case could be made for blanking out all the systematic names on the PTQ image. :-) Double sharp (talk) 02:39, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I tried rearranging the template to stop showing the redirected periods. Not sure how to get the quality legend back where it was before, though, and how to split the block/period/group cells equally. As a temporary cop-out, I stacked them up. Double sharp (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Post FTRC

I'm not exactly sure if you thanking me for my contributions is sarcasm or not. As for the Delegate comment, that's used to delegate-related comments. Mainly due to the fact that I'm one of the two delegates for Featured Topics. GamerPro64 22:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@GamerPro64:. No sarcasm at all. The topic went astray outside of your intention (the proposal). You ran into some WP:ELEMENT editors + their interaction. As I tried to say, the topic can continue elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Understandable. Just don't want this whole thing lead into any major arguments. GamerPro64 22:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well it will AFAIK, but it just should not be on page FTRC ;-). -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Merge of periodic table

I noticed your complaint that we have both a merge discussion and an AfD about the same article. Should an admin close the discussion at Talk:Periodic table#Merger with Periodic table (large version) as Not Merged? This seems technically correct. The merge discussion has run over seven days already and the merge proposal has no support from anyone but the nominator, who has withdrawn. Such a closure wouldn't rule out further discussion in whatever forum is best. EdJohnston (talk) 16:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Neelix states the they can "withdraw" it. I think it better that some clarification is put upon them instead of me, esp. wrt the closing/nonclosing of the merge proposal. Quite importantly, I still do not get what happens with the argumentation. Given this is forumshopping in WP processes (not just talkpage discussion), I may expect a more strong intervention.

For example, if the merge discussion closes as "Keep/not merged", how can an AfD to the same effect be opened? -DePiep (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, this requires admin intervention to restore a sound procedural status from it. (And I expect to read consequences in the AfD). -DePiep (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I did not see any consensus to merge so I have closed the discussion as Not Merged. Maybe you'll have better luck seeking input at a place that gets a wider set of editors than WT:ELEM. Is there a concern that unusual templates will get nominated for deletion? Assuming that the AfD gets closed one way or the other, you might ask for input at Wikipedia talk:AFD in an open-ended way and see if others have any suggestions. Editors who follow that page would know about deletion policy. EdJohnston (talk) 22:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) EdJohnston Let me rephrase my idea. As we know I am involved in the discussions.

1. The merge proposal best be closed by an admin imposing a conclusion. That conclusion could be explicit (instead of a neutral 'no conclusion'), because some contributions and arguments (including mine) will be lost.

2. Then, the AfD can get a strong wording about this conclusion (maybe in my 'procedural note' !vote post. That post, by the same admin as #1, could say stongly a. the merge conclusion and b. something about the process (the twice-OP be named).

3. If some admin can do something like this (in fewer words that I need ;-) ), I'm ready to contribute to the AfD without any reminiscence. I promise. ((ec); I'll read & reply after) -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

re EdJohnston. It would be nice if you could note that merge closure on the AfD page (otherwise, my posts may look silly).

IMO, but I don't have the WP:-page at hand: a template that is not used in article space may be deleted (we're not talking maintenance T: stuff &tc). Years ago this was SOP. Of course, this is why the A(!)fD makes me restless. (I'm a practical template editor, so I fear wikilawyers).

As said earlier, once the process (merge/AfD) is cleared, I can go in with arguments. I assume you did just that cleanup. -DePiep (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I am an admin, and I've done the close of the merge discussion. This may not settle the long-term dispute but it ends the merge discussion. I'd be surprised if the AfD reaches a consensus to delete, but after it is over, the problem of what to do about the over-large template may still need to be faced by someone. It's possible that some chances for reasonable compromise are being missed. EdJohnston (talk) 02:45, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Question

Hi. You decided to revert my edit telling me to read the doc. I suggest simply reading the template which clearly states not to add it until there is a consensus. "...if the proposed edit might be controversial, discuss it on the protected page's talk page before using this template..." So what is your issue here? Rjd0060 (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Rjd0060 As I said: read the documentation. It is you who might have an issue. Strong note: This is about our WP:MP:talkpage. Then invoke quality beforehand, and don't ask me what you are supposed to know. -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

PTQ template and image

Since the redirection of the period articles has been reverted, could you help me bring back the tabs for the PTQ image and template (accessible via WP:ELEM/PTQ)? I tried in preview, but couldn't figure out how to get it back to how it originally was, because you made some improvements in the meantime. Double sharp (talk) 12:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. I am reading the Israel-Gaza reports these days. Over 300 children killed by Israel. (WP is low in Quality on this, by the way).-DePiep (talk) 00:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Main Page discussion

1. Hi, can you provide the diffs for the Main Page discussion being hidden? Unfortunately, all I can find is the edit protected template being removed or marked as answered. As I'm sure you're aware, that was the correct course of action since you were mistaken about your request being uncontroversial, the docs you asked someone to read say so. I don't understand why you marked the template as unanswered or removed the removal, I can only presume you got confused by the hiding of the discussion that you said happened. In any case, there's a lot of confusion in that discussion now since people think you are referring to the edit protected template which of course is just daft.
2. Who gives a damn about the template? I'm sure you'll agree, given the state of discussion, clearly no admin would ever make an edit and there was no need for the template. However this doesn't mean people should have tried to close off the discussion by hiding it as you said happened. Although I don't agree with your POV, I think there was a discussion to be had there and it should have been allowed to progress even if you did screw up big time with the template so I find it rather unfortunate that people tried to close off the discussion just because of some unfortunate errors on your part in handling the editprotected template. Nil Einne (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) re #1: You are wrong. Correct handling would be: use the |answered=. The misunderstanding you show here, as with the other mistaking editors, is the cause of that confusion. Since that set does not tend to get my point, that confusion will remain. (The general smart line is: it you don't know how to handle such a request, don't touch it). I leave it up to you to grab this knowledge & help from me to clear things up over there. -DePiep (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

re #2: (you added later): nothing to reply to. -DePiep (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand what you're saying here. I think we both agree that the template was irrelevant once it became clear it wasn't justified yes? That being said, I don't get why you're so worked up about the template. I don't think anyone finds major fault in you adding the template in the first place, you thought this was an uncontroversial edit and it was justified. Jayron's first reply may not have been the most polite, but I think considering the tone of your comment, it wsd resonable. In any case with the other respondent e.g. HiLo48 etc, I'm sure you quickly became aware there's no way the template should have been added in the first place. It's possible some people screwed up in dealing with the template after it was added. If so that's unfortunate but not a big deal since the template was of course irrelevant.

Remember, the only thing that mattered was the discussion since the sole purpose of the template is to alert an admin (or autoconfirmed in the case of semiprotected pages) that there is an edit that has (or is presumed to have) consensus awaiting attention. Once it becomes clear there's no such consensus, the template is basically irrelevant (although it should be removed to ensure people don't waste their time revisiting the discussion).

I don't agree with you that it's best to leave the template be. Even if mistakes were made in the way the template was handled, it's far more urgent that the template is made inactive so that people don't waste their time to deal with an editprotected request when it's clear there's no justification for such a request.

While this shouldn't happen, remember we're all human so in reality if some admin comes to the discussion due to the template and sees the resulting discussion, what could easily happen is they'll get annoyed and so will not only disable the template (as they should) but will oppose your changes partially because they're annoyed at wasting their time coming to an edit protected request. In other words, it's actually to your benefit that the template is quickly disabled whatever mistakes were made in the way it's disabled.

As I mentioned before, if and when there is justification, the template can easily be readded. And yes, this applies whatever earlier mistakes were made in dealing with it the first time. Heck the one or two times I readded an edit protected request, I don't think I ever reused the old template. Usually by the time consensus has reached, the nature of the request may have changed so it's best to just start afresh.

Either way, I seriously suggest you fix whatever mistakes you feel were made with the template and then move on. Since template is irrelevant and these asides about the template are not helping the discussion which should be about whether your proposed change is justified not whether or not mistakes were made in handling a template which shouldn't have been there in the first place.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

What I'm saying is: the template must be responded to using the |answered= parameter. Also, good editing means that any argument then be added to the talkpage, and not be hidden in the es. Or worse: on a user talkpage. So: you and these other editors should apply the template (-responses) following its documentation. Clear enough?

And this marks the end of my patience in answering. I am not interested in your secondary ideas, coming after you stated that you don't understood me (how can you reply then?). Also, I do not see the usefulness for injecting opinions in a technical discussion (as you do here). -DePiep (talk) 19:45, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick Comment

Sorry but I haven't read any replies you may have left since frankly I've spent enough time on this. (I understand it wasn't your intention, but when I joined this discussion I AGFed there was a serious problem that was being missed. While I appreciate you think the way the template was allegedly mishandled is serious, it just doesn't do it for me since as I've said, the template is a moot point so to me, it doesn't matter what errors were made in dealing with it.)

Anyway someone else already marked the template as answered=yes in accordance with the documents. (I know someone used the tlx once, but I thought this happened at least twice, but I'm lazy to check again.) So the only thing missing was that there wasn't a formal template response. While I think many would disagree that a formal template response is necessary when a personal one was left explaining the reasoning, I've left one now. So you can be happy that the template has been handled in exactly the manner the docs proscribe even if it took a while to get there, and may not have been in the correct order.

One thing I did notice, it seems the template has been moved from the beginning of the discussion. I'm lazy to work out who did so, so sorry I can't help you there. I'm not sure if this is one of the reasons you're so prickly. While I can only speak for myself, I would be fine with you moving the answered template back to the beginning of the discussion. I can understand somewhat why you'd be pissed that this happened. I would be too if someone made it seem I added an editprotected template after the discussion which made it clear there was currently no consensus had already taken place.

So you have my sympathies on that. If you have problems convincing people to let you move the template back the beginning of the discussion where I presume you first added it, feel free to ping me. I'll prefer to leave the discussion completely but I'll rejoin for that as I personally hate it when people move stuff around making me look like an idiot.

Nil Einne (talk) 20:11, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

re Nil Einne Sorry but I haven't read any replies you may have left is your opening. So you are just flushing. (Will you do not bother me again?). -DePiep (talk) 20:58, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

nounderlines

You undid my revision of Template:Unicode chart Mathematical Operators to take out the nounderlines for the entire wikitable. The irony is that my notes to myself about adding nounderlines is from a change you made to List of CJK Unified Ideographs, part 1 of 4 on 8JUL2013. I'm not invested in how we do it so long as it's consistent across the templates.

Another mystery is the underlines themselves. I could swear it came to my attention because I could see the underline on all the characters (not just when I hovered over them). That isn't the case anymore. Did the wikitable change? Anyway, because they don't show up on all characters I'm fine with removing nounderlines from all the templates I've updated and don't know that it's worth the effort to put them on each table row. I just want to make sure that's the way we want to go before I do it. Thanks DRMcCreedy (talk) 00:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

• Yes it was a pain to my eyes all these years. Mathematical symbols with an extra line! Last month I only did one or two tables, to get test the idea. Glad you picked it up.
• First some background. Using nounderlines is a break of form, because the reader expects and is used to the lines, of course. This is no small feature, because it is about reading and glancing a page. If the line is omitted, it looks strange to the reader (while they may not know exactly what it is they see is strange or different). And irregularity in layout/format is bad. It is this that the higher-level page designers at wiki (and any website) have in mind: regularity. (For example, think about how they use whitespace and linewidth/columnwidth). And this is so subtle that we, ordinary readers, do not know their tricks & styles, until it changes or breaks. So that is why I am reluctant to use nounderlines all over: readers expect the underlines. Again, this is subconscious, just about glancing and not actually about reading or checking a text. So in fact I think we'd need to ask 'permission' from the layout-designers to use a nounderlines. I trust their arguments (mostly).

Other places where it is used: IPA symbols always & everywhere(!) and sometimes in currency symbols. Interestingly, a mobile view does not use underlines at all -- consistently! (check any page by clicking at the very last link at their bottom).

• So. I did dare to remove the underlines in the math symbols (in that table). Did I do in CJK tables too? - ok, same reason. I think the improvement is very obvious. But in the regular text (in the headers and footnotes) I kept to the safe side: keep underlines, it is a base wikipage style. It's just Latin script - no confusion there with underlines. Also, when such a table is in an article, all other Latin text links have underlines. So that is consistence over all text.

I think we can have rule 1: keep underlines with Latin text.

Then, rule 2: which symbols & letters do we give nounderlines? IPA: done. Maths: sure. Scripts CJK: probably. But Greek, Arabic, Cyrillic, Hebrew? Currency symbols? I don't know.

Rule 3: If a character (script, symbol set) has nounderlines, it should be done everywhere in content space for consistency. That is: also in running text! This is entering the area of {{lang}}, a long-established often-used template.

• I conclude for now: for math symbols and CJK characters it is convincing to use nounderlines (this can be applied to all their Unicode chart tables, then - per row). For a Latin script text it is a no. For other scripts & symbol sets: don't know, needs wider discussion. Into a MOS maybe.

Would it be an idea to ask these questions at WP:VPT, for starters? -DePiep (talk) 08:24, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I figured out my underline preference setting was why I wasn't seeing underlines. Once I changed that I can see (and be annoyed by) the underlines in the charts without the nounderlines attribute.

I've reversed my nounderlines changes for Latin blocks (specifically Basic Latin, Latin-1 Supplement, Latin Extended Additional, Latin Extended-x) for now.

I'm not sure I agree with having the underlines even for Latin blocks because they render some characters, like U+1E71 LATIN SMALL LETTER T WITH CIRCUMFLEX BELOW, terribly.

Because these are charts of single, exemplar characters I think the underlines are confusing but agree that in the headers and footers they're appropriate.

That brings me around to adding nounderlines on just the contents (by row) like you did on the Ideographic Description Characters chart.

I'm good with that approach if you are. DRMcCreedy (talk) 16:43, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

@Drmccreedy: So you plan to do: all characters in all Unicode chart templates. (and their regular texts stay underlined). I myself don't oppose, these are like "images" after all. But I'd look for support from others (e.g., I often go to at WP:VPT; you want me to ask there?). This page formatting is a sensitive issue (as in: important & with many aspects, not as in emotional ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 16:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

@DePiep: Yes, I want it to be consistent over all the Unicode chart templates. Text in table header and footer rows would retain their underlines. The table data rows (eg. U+005x P Q R ...) would be the only ones with nounderlines.

It would be great if you would ask around to confirm this is an acceptable approach to rendering these exemplar characters without underlines. Thanks. DRMcCreedy (talk) 07:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Drmccreedy As you might have noticed, I have not enough time to start & get involved in such a discussion (at WP:VPT or elsewhere). So for now, IMO the situation is: class=nounderlines is to do without problem in the characters of math symbols, CJK characters, and other symbols like dingbats in their Unicode graph templates. I am not sure about other scripts (like Greek, Arabic, Hebrew, Latin). So if you edit these, one might expect a talk. -DePiep (talk) 11:39, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I can live with that. DRMcCreedy (talk) 21:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Israeli operations/attacks

Hi. I notice that you have been moving articles from Category:Israeli_operations_against_Gaza_strip to Category:Israeli_attacks_against_Gaza_strip. Is there some discussion on this? Kingsindian (talk) 00:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

What moving? -DePiep (talk) 00:32, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Bad category mentioning. Question ignored. Bye. -DePiep (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Restored for clarity Kingsindian. -DePiep (talk) 01:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I thought I'd just quickly say...

...regarding this edit, I believe that {{Convert}} didn't originally have the proper functionality, so I had to use {{Convert/2}}. I just thought I would say, for your information... Thanks for changing it back to normal {{Convert}} since the proper functionality appears to have been added. (I may be making a mistake here, but regardless, I am sure that {{Convert}} didn't originally work.) Dustin (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

All fine. I am just cleaning. I think the {{convert}} should be inviting to be used (not by pointing to "wrong" edits; I won't spend time on that). Interestingly, {{convert/2}} does have a functionality that is not covered yet by {convert}. -DePiep (talk) 15:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for this too, which I saw on ThinkPad X Series. I'm pretty sure Convert with four quantities didn't work at one time, but now that it does I'll be using it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 02:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem. Most of these range-separators indeed are quite recent in {convert}. Did not want to point to editors (so I'll write "using ..." not "use ..." any more, sure that sounded commanding :-( ). -DePiep (talk) 02:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Ancient and historic scripts in Unicode

Template:Ancient and historic scripts in Unicode has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 12:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Periodic table legend html colours

Hi DePiep
Could you please list these here or provide a link? Sandbh (talk) 12:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

They are actually called from this list: {{element color}} (edit)

So that {{element color|lanthanide}} → #ffbfff

Setup:

{{#switch:{{lc:{{{1|}}}}}
| lanthanide | lanthanides | lanthanoid | lanthanoids = #ffbfff
}}

(# produces the # hashtag, required to be late in the parsing & formatting process)

A presentation is at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Elements/Guidelines#Color_standards. Enough? -DePiep (talk) 15:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

fractions

My apologies for bringing this up after you've sped through the element articles, but in cases like the electron configuration table in Extended periodic table this can get very hard to read because there are stacked super- and subscripts and the subscript is itself a fraction. I would much prefer it inline, like 8p⁴
_3/2, to make it easier for the reader.

Also the new slash cuts the numbers on my screen (using Chrome) and can sometimes be hard to identify as a fraction bar, e.g. in 1⁄2. 1/2, while perhaps technically inferior, looks better in this regard. However, this may just be a problem on my end, and if it looks all right to most people the way it is now, I have no objections. Double sharp (talk) 12:29, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

No problem, I was going to look into this myself.

1. When doing the spin numbers like +3/2 into +3⁄2, I started doubting whether that would be a common way of writing in the topic (though they are fractions; the slash is not a listing 'comma' as in old UK money: "11/-" [see shilling]). I stopped my AWB run for this (at "isotopes" in the alphabetic list). Note: this is in plain running text, not sup or sub texts.

2. What you write is a visual effect (not whether a fraction slash is appropriate for math reasons). Of course we should not use {frac} in sup or sub, but maybe plain ⁄ ⁄ (not keyboard slash /). I reverted that single page, later more.

3. At least, the special characters like ½ are gone (after my AWB runs yesterday), which is good anyway. (Mostly from half-life t_½ → t_1⁄2) Y

So I'll take another look into #1 and #2. -DePiep (talk) 12:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Question. Which one looks OK to you?

A. 8p⁴
_3/2 (uses keyboard slash /) Y

B. 8p⁴
_3⁄2 (uses keyboard ⁄ ⁄)

C. 8p⁴
_3⁄2 (uses {frac}) N

-DePiep (talk) 12:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

You already answered. Same for me at Firefox. Probably something in the {{su}} template, because

D. half-life t_1⁄2 is OK, right? (over here it is).

E. or half-life t_1/2 (keyboard slash)?

-DePiep (talk) 13:20, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

E looks better on my screen. Double sharp (talk) 15:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yep. Will sweep the wp:element pages for this.

{{su/doc}} is full of warnings about this (bad browser effects), so I better follow. -DePiep (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 20:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Been wanting to say this for a while

	Schmick work
	A short note to say that the periodic table (large version) at the end of the element articles looks cool and "just so". Sandbh (talk) 05:55, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. This is a nice post. We've come a long way since I met Periodic Table here on enwiki, 2+1⁄2 light years ago. I like the current looks too. Nothing to improve left (... almost). -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Template:Periodic table (period 8)

Hi DePiep. Is Template:Periodic table (period 8) (which is unused) still required? If not, I'll nominate it for deletion (or you can, if you prefer). Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:06, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Done by db-author. As speedy as we can go. (It was a nice baby though). -DePiep (talk) 02:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Cool. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 02:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Metalloid as proposed Today's Featured Article, October 4

G'day DePiep

Metalloid is listed as a potential Today’s Featured Article, for 4 Oct, here. I’ve drafted a blurb in my sandbox. I was thinking about showing the top right periodic table extract from the metalloid article as the image, but am not sure how to do this. Any ideas? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 11:47, 3 September 2014 (UTC).

You want to use a picture of Template:Periodic table (metalloid), in the blob? -DePiep (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC) ping @Sandbh: -DePiep (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes but only the PT extract. I presume I could do this via a screen capture. Sandbh (talk) 10:10, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I have worked in {{Periodic table (metalloid)/sandbox}}: remove links and unwanted texts (for the picture).

Then I did a screenshot (+cropping), and uploaded it to File:Periodic table (metalloids).png.

From here, you can edit the sandbox and overwrite the image as you like. Also, I can do that for you (if you ask for improvements). -DePiep (talk) 10:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

After this picture, I've played with font-size and line-height. I guess it is a bit more clear in when in png. Maybe for live template too? -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I tried working up an image showing all six of the commonly recognised metalloids but that didn't look very good when scaled down to the size of TFA pictures. I then did a screen capture of {{Periodic table (metalloid)/sandbox}} for which thank you, and trimmed it right back. Result is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Today's_featured_article/requests#October_4. It looked OK on my ipad but somewhat blurry on my desktop monitor. It would probably be better in svg format rather than png. How does it look at your end? I'll ask Bencherlite if I can have a bigger picture in exchange for a few less words. Sandbh (talk) 11:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't look good, for various reasons. 1. writing 5×5 element names in a poststamp size won't work. 2. The periodic table structure (the castle) is not present, so it is not apparent what the square is from. It might as well be a plain text table. 3. I don't think the different colors come across as meaningful. 4. The staircase line is invisible.

Point 2 and 4 are part of the original, and do not depend on actual size. All size issues will improve when going svg, but I don't expect they will solve into level 'accceptable'. (btw, did you re-color names blue?).

Cutting out the borders & numbers is good.

All in all, I don't think on main page this will become a catching image.

Suggestion: can we use a mini periodic table, textless, with just the metalloids black (or red)? Or, it that is too far off from the article, simplify the p-block into the colors only + staircase line, stressed (no texts, all scheme)?

-DePiep (talk) 12:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I have asked Bencherlite if the image could be rotated amongst the six elements commonly recognised as metalloids. See here. Sandbh (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Template:Orbits

I agree that this is a better title, but I'd hesitate to mark that edit as minor. Although you didn't change a lot of text, changing the title of a widely-transcluded navbox could be a potentially controversial edit. —Swpb^talk 14:33, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Knowing my reluctancy to use m for even possibly questioned edits, I'm think it was unintended. A sloppyness. -DePiep (talk) 15:41, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

File:Periodic table (polyatomic).svg

Changes have been made. For cleaning up an existing SVG file, I use a text editor (Emacs etc.) more than anything else... AnonMoos (talk) 14:00, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. By text editing, heh. I'll have study that ;-) -DePiep (talk) 14:02, 17 September 2014 (UTC)

Your move of Gaza War (2008) article

Please see Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Requesting_controversial_and_potentially_controversial_moves. It is not permissible to move the page like this. Revert and open a move request. Kingsindian (talk) 22:55, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

element infoboxes

This seems to be Internet Explorer 11's fault (Chrome displays it correctly), but the atomic number subscript at the top of the infobox (the part that reads for example Radium, ₈₈Ra) is appearing so small as to be unreadable on my screen. Double sharp (talk) 13:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Double sharp

Did this start after my edit [1] yesterday (adding the comma)?

Do you think this requires an emergency solution (asap & at all costs)?

Otherwise, I'll take a good look later on. -DePiep (talk) 18:09, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It may have started earlier, but I was on a different computer for a while (and using Chrome, where there were no problems at all), so I'm not sure exactly when it started. No, emergency shouldn't be necessary – the atomic number is given again below, so it should be OK temporarily (but please do take a good look when you feel like it). Double sharp (talk) 06:33, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

West Bank barrier

Please go to the talk page and search for "bollocks". In that paragraph you will find that I investigated the document and its sources and found that it is barely at all about the separation barrier. Zero^talk 00:05, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Israeli West Bank barrier

I reverted your removal of the words "opponents of" from Israeli West Bank barrier, not because I disagree with the change. The sentence no longer flowed without those words, and didn't make sense. If you want to remove those words there is more to the sentence that needs to change than just removing them. - Galatz (talk) 19:38, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Why did not you do so? -DePiep (talk) 19:40, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/SeattliteTungsten. Zero^talk 03:19, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Top Gear controversies

Hi again DePiep. I thought it might be better to discuss your recent behaviour here than in article talk. The material you have been edit-warring into the article is weakly sourced and relies on synthesis and so cannot be used in the article. If it was the sort of stuff we have worked together on like a chemical element then we could discuss it in talk, but as it concerns living people, it becomes an administrative matter. BLP policy demands removal of such material prior to discussion. If you were to continue edit-warring poorly sourced material onto an article on living people, that would indeed rise to an instant block. If you feel that my previous collaboration with you on chemistry articles, or my correction of the spelling of "travelled", makes me WP:INVOLVED then I could raise it at a noticeboard and another admin could block you instead. If you wish to go down this road, that is your choice; obviously I would advise you against this though. If you are not going to do this then the question does not arise. I strongly suggest explaining in talk why the material you wish to add does not contravene WP:SYNTH and WP:BLPSOURCES then that would be ok. I hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 10:25, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting (no sarcasm). Later I'll have time to read & respond carefully. -DePiep (talk) 14:03, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Template:Infobox element

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AInfobox_element&diff=629783228&oldid=629780218

(no need to hide the template)

If, though, an infobox/sidebar/vertical template is shown via e.g. a /doc page rather than by its own page, its documentation can use all that whitespace otherwise left beside it – which often, it seems, pushes most if not all the documentation out of sight. Thoughts..? Sardanaphalus (talk) 10:49, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

PS I only registered recently just how much you've contributed to Infobox element. Thanks for all your work.

You are right (too). I only saw your documentation solution after I removed the tags, so it was not that bad (nice that the documentation is in top). But they always bug me when I edit. For example, I have a bracket-counter (check that brackets are even) and it does not work within that tag. Also a simple preview does not show errors. After you consider all this, I'll leave it to you to reinstall them or not. -DePiep (talk) 10:56, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

• Yes, that's the (main) drawback with the <includeonly>...</includeonly>: remembering to disable the initial tag before any previewing etc and then re-enable it before saving any changes. I'm happy to leave Infobox element as it is, not least because its documentation, wherever it begins, needs more than a page. Best wishes, Sardanaphalus (talk) 21:13, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

OK. -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

AWB

Per #4 in Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser#Rules_of_use please avoid making such edits [2]. Materialscientist (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It's in the flow. -DePiep (talk) 10:42, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Kennedy family tree

Six thumbs up, you not only improved it in many ways, but it's now colorful. Very nice work, and if I were a Kennedy (maybe I am!) I'd come by and thank you. "Ask not what Wikipedia can do for you, ask what you can do for Wikipedia." Randy Kryn 2:25 21 October, 2014 (UTC)

:-) And I also can bring people to the moon and back. -DePiep (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

...and do the other things... Randy Kryn 2:34 21 October, 2014 (UTC)

Indeed it is impressive work! One thing I should note, though, is that Charles Joseph Burke was the husband of Joseph P. Kennedy, Sr.'s sister Margaret Louise Kennedy instead of aunt Mary L. Kennedy, making him the uncle of Burke's children rather than cousin of them. Snuggums (talk / edits) 02:53, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thx. Please copypaste your note on the talkpage Template talk:Kennedy family tree. I'm a bit tired of counting spaces all day ;-) and maybe can't spend enough extra time on this. -DePiep (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Been hard at work in the fields of the Lord adding the family tree to the articles. Swimming in Kennedys. And I was serious above, if I were one of the Kennedys I'd come by here and thank you. Don't know why that doesn't happen more often, not from the Kennedys but from people mentioned or featured in article in general (I edited 'Anne Hathaway' once...). Randy Kryn 11:27 21 October, 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's huge. And there was a mistake in there (before I entered) with the Burkes (be sure to get that talkpage on your watchlist).

A serious question: would you explicitly write an acceptance at the TfD discussion, because I edited your! post which is very bad practice without such confirmation. -DePiep (talk) 11:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Another thanks, both for all of your hard work on the template and for carefully explaining reasons for what you are doing on the template talk page. You are going about it exactly right, imnho, and the amount of time you've put into this is worthy of a barnstar if I was savvy enough to give one. So I'll find something somewhere for that purpose. Nice work. Randy Kryn 20:51 22 October, 2014 (UTC)

Two Lua question.

Hello, DePiep! I noticed you did a lot of Lua works for Wikipedia, thanks for your contributions. And I have some question for you:

• How to catch a string before a certain string. For example in agrs[1], return the string matched "(/d/w)$" after the string ",", if no string was found return nil.
• How to deal with null template parameters and blank parameters? (The first one means a page never appear "| parameter = " and the second means "| parameter = | another parameter = blah blah...".) I don't clear that I should decide them by "if args.parameter == nil then ... end", "if args.parameter == nil then ... end" or both.

Thanks. --D2F0F5 14:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D2F0F5 (talk • contribs)

• Quick & chaotic non-answers first: 1. I guess you mean Regex (\d\w)$? 2. I use regex doc WP:REGEX, nearest overview. 3. In Lua, it's called patterns (it is a reduced Regex). 4. The escape-character is not a backslash \, but the % sign. 5. So you're looking for %,(%d%w)$ in Lua pattern, right. Note: I don't get why you open with "string before a certain string" (before? $ = at end-of-string).

You'll catch "1A" or "1a" from: "Hello world,1A"; "Hello, world,1a"; ",1a". But nothing from "1A"; "Hello, world, 1A", "Hello,1A world,","Hello, world,1A".

Or could you give some examples you expected return?

• Indeed in old wikicode we have the 3-way input you describe.

First advice is to grab the incoming arguments using Module:Arguments (this is your friend). The first code demo there already gives you the arguments (parameters + their values) in variable getArgs, a table: bingo. After that, the documentation may get more complicated & sophisticated (efficient, more options &tc). Later more.

When looping through that getArgs table in pairs, or ipairs (the diff is about numbered/named params), you can find the 3 input situations: |parameterA=China, getArgs[parameterA] had a value, has nil value, does not exist in the getArgs table. Note that nil is not blank space ("" or so), it is Lua-nil. Maybe your module doesn't need a separate check on that nil (like this?: {{{1}}}. I think it's worth building & testing this yourself to know what it does! -DePiep (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply! The first question means if args[1] is "abcdef, qwerty5a", I want to let ret_temp become " qwerty5c"; if args[1] is "abcdefg, qwertyaa" or just "abcdefg", then return ret_temp as nil. I can use Regex itself, but don't know how to use them in Lua environment. (If in a text editor I know I find $1 in ",(.*?\d\w)$", but I don't know how to use Lua string library.)--D2F0F5 00:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D2F0F5 (talk • contribs)

From Regex to Lua pattern:

0. Lua uses patterns, which is regex but with less functions (see Lua referecen)

1. The escape-character is % instead of \. Replace all of them always.

2. There is no | (or) option, ...

3. use like return string.find( 'Hello world', '%swo', 1, false)

4. See module:String for applications such as replace, find substring, ...

-DePiep (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! --D2F0F5 01:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by D2F0F5 (talk • contribs)

I am trying things myself, and I don't know yet how to check the three input situations. Note: page Wikipedia talk:Lua or [Wikipedia:Lua requests]] is where people talk about these things. -DePiep (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Family tree help

You did such a great job on the Kennedy family tree, and here's a long family tree page that I came across, couldn't make heads or tails of, and it could use an expert in diagramming to trim and fix it. May take a couple of days, but you have the coding knowledge to somehow make sense of this one. Thanks (smiling out loud). Randy Kryn 17:22 2 November, 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but what's wrong with the tree? It could move to a template & be used in other article(s), or this article could use text, but as a tree I don't see a problem. Any clarifying budda pages? -DePiep (talk) 17:27, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I was joking, for in comparison with the Kennedy work you did this one has just one entry. Sort of another way to compliment you on your work on the Kennedy tree. Aye. Randy Kryn 17:34 2 November, 2014 (UTC)

lol. I did improve the page! It should be a template! -DePiep (talk) 17:37, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Because you did improve the page I went back and added text and the Gautama Buddha template. Today we have done the work of the Buddha. Now I must go feast. Randy Kryn 17:47 2 November, 2014 (UTC)

Me too? Good guy! Tomorrow, instead of throwing around compliments, you can start with the other presidents navboxes.-DePiep (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

I've added more to the page. Maybe you can code it to be a full family tree (parents, Buddhas aunt who was his adoptive mother, well known cousins) when you have time. Presidential templates? I don't have time, having to go in and argue for probably every one of the items someone removed from the historical American documents template. On those presidential templates let's do one at a time. i.e. Eisenhower first? Well, on to the documents, and to save those and the Syng inkstand (one of my all-time favorite historical items, wish I had it sitting on my whatever I sit things on). Randy Kryn 10:37 3 November, 2014 (UTC)

yes the presidents can wait. I don't want to be too pushing this anyway. It's just, I' m checking whether you see it as improvements too. Doing different things now. -DePiep (talk) 10:44, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Randy Kryn: by the way, did you receive my ping form the Kennedy Family Tree /sandbox? Or did I do soomething wrong? -DePiep (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

No, didn't get that one (just got this one). I'll get back to it, but again, time to feast! (I have seen lots of activity from you on the tree, haven't looked at it yet. Will do so.) Randy Kryn 21:46 4 November, 2014 (UTC)

Hate to do this to you (no I don't, hahahaha huh?), but if you ever are twiddling your thumbs on a rainy day, and feel like putting up master code somewhere, have you ever seen the page Lincoln family tree? I did some work on it quite awhile ago, added many names to the See also section (I like the story of how Lincoln's uncle saved L's father's life - an Indian was about to either do him in or kidnap him and the uncle put a stop to that - and thus, long story longer, preserved the union), and maybe I'll add more birth and death dates at some point which I just noticed were lacking. Just an idea option (I'm glad we don't do each others work assignments, although we try). Randy Kryn 13:14 5 November, 2014 (UTC)

a nice challenge. But first I want to do the Kennedies, their tree has some more steps to do. I might feel like doing it later on. -DePiep (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Category:SI base quantities

Category:SI base quantities, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:SI-Prefixes

With about 700 templates to fix, I am not spending much time on dodgy edits. Especially not from an experienced editor who knows how to do it right. The Banner talk 17:27, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Expect a lot of reversals then, if you keep working this way. You're supposed to improve pages. Esp in dab, as you know, creating a dab is not an error. -DePiep (talk) 17:30, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

As said, I do my best to solve the links. A lot of them are difficult and/or half hidden. And as a way of improving dodgy/sloppy edits, I do use the revert option. Sorry. The Banner talk 18:04, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

You reverted into plain wrong text. Creating a link to dab page trumps correcting wrong texts. (wrong text is wrong, a dab link is not) -DePiep (talk) 18:06, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:RMassist and your signature

Hello DePiep. I saw your comment withdrawing your move request for Gaza beach explosion (2006). You were displeased that a formal move discussion had been opened, with your signature attached, without you having taken the action yourself. Such opening of RMs is done automatically whenever any person clicks on one of the 'Discuss' buttons at WP:RMTR. You might be interested to see the relevant code from Template:RMassist/preload:

{<noinclude/>{subst:Requested move|$1|reason=$2$3 :<small>This is a contested technical request ([[Special:Permalink/$4|permalink]]).}}</small><noinclude> </noinclude>

$3 is most likely the parameter that contains the signature of the RMTR requester. I'm one of the people who requested this functionality, which was originally created by a regular template editor in May 2014. What is an admin to do if they see a technical request that they do not wish to perform? For example, they think it is likely to be contested, or they have an editorial objection themselves. The matter needs to be referred to discussion. WP:RMTR is a bad place for discussion since everything gets removed from the page each time a request is handled. In the past it was usual to open regular move discussions whenever this happened. That move discussion needs to identify the proponent of the original technical request and this led to the copying of the proponent's signature. Would you prefer some more cautious wording in the above template to indicate that the proponent didn't sign the request for a full move discussion themselves?

Instead of changing the wording of the template, another alternative would be to decline all technical requests that might be contentious. This would avoid copying the requester's comment and their signature. But it may be inconvenient for the people who have never opened a regular move discussion and don't know how. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for reading that post into understanding, and for this response.

Most important is that my request-text and my signature was copy-pasted and above an RM-template was added. Thereby changing the absolute context of my original post. There is no excuse for that. (And the admin who did this did not respond when I asked, twice, on their talkpage. Also they did not notify me. But hey, criticizing an admin - how dare I). It made me responsible for a full-blown talkpage RM. And no admin who looked at it (I count four at least, not you), no admin noticed this: I wrote & signed a request to revert vandalism, and this way it was turned secretly into a request to change the page name. There you are, DePiep, now explain that. (I have not looked at the closure of that discussion, for obvious reasons. I predict & expect that I am blamed for something). I do not blame you or the technical link you talk about. The editor who clicks the "save" button is responsible. And sure, an admin who works regularly in the RM pages must know about that. (I use AWB, and twice per AWB-page I am told: you yourself are responsible for every edit you save. You'll recognize this). There is no excuse for abusing my original request and signature.

Another thing. Where did I find this quote? "If you object to a proposal listed in Uncontroversial technical requests, please move it to the Contested technical requests section below". Your url-button breaks this rule. Please consider this reply as a "request" to change that. It saves me from having to address those abusing non-reading admins once more. -DePiep (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Copying of talk comments into a new context does raise questions, and certainly you can object. I wonder if you have any suggestion for how RMTR would work otherwise. Some people might argue that it's de minimis since we are carrying out what the user apparently wants. Would you be happier with a warning at the top of RMTR that tells them their request might be moved to another page if it is declined as a technical move? Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

"we are carrying out what the user apparently wants." - the example at hand clearly proves the opposite. I asked for a vandalism rv, not a page move discussion. No compromise in this.

The obvious thing is that in that "technical, uncontested move request" section, the smart link button does not move text to a talkpage, but moves it to that other section (as the guide says). That is with the statement "I do contest". tbd is if or how the requesting editor should be warned. If this can not be done by a smart url link, then the within-page text move must be done by hand. -DePiep (talk) 18:34, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

It is hard to see a move as being a vandalism revert. If the article was moved to an obscene name, OK. Otherwise it's just a content dispute and needs the usual laborious process. The 'contested move' section of RMTR is a sort of a relic but it does have its uses. The button does not send anything to that section, but the button is one of the options most commonly used by closing administrators. If you want to revamp the entire WP:RM process, go for it, but do you have any other planned activities for the next twenty years? EdJohnston (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I won't go this route. No backdoor reasoning. I don't want to revamp the procedure (why do you even think that?). I want it to be followed. And I described the abuse part of it in my first reply here, I also quoted the rule for that very situation. And I have names of at least four admins (two in the RM talkpage discussion, two in the very related ANI discussion) that did not see a problem with the abuse. -DePiep (talk) 18:50, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I clarify. You are approaching this from the technical point (the link, why it is there and what it does). Then you add arguments as to why it is OK this way (for example, "It is hard to see a move as being a vandalism revert"). Issue talked away, not problem, left - it's all in my head only. It is this approach that I do not want (no offense). I say that the current situation leads to abuse and that it goes against the published rule. These two issues are to be resolved, I say. If you don't agree with this, all fine & still friends, but this talk then can end. -DePiep (talk) 19:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I was intrigued that you complained about the copying of your signature, a thing that had originally bothered me a long time ago, before the present automation was used. But I think I've said enough, and we will have to agree to disagree. If you want to change Wikipedia policy the usual channels are open to you. EdJohnston (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Template:Ctr

Hi.

{{Ctr}} is nominated for deletion and unfortunately, I noticed late. (The TfD started on 29 October.) You see, this template has the potential to join the family of table template to help create simpler tables but this alternative to deletion is rather unexplored. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2014 October 29 § Template:Ctr where my proposal can be discussed.

Best regards,
Codename Lisa (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2014 (UTC).

Name changes

Hello. First, I left a note on the PJK page (didn't see your note there, it's not on my watchlist) that you may not have seen. Secondly and thirdly, can you assist by moving the name of a couple of articles to already existing redirect pages when you have time? I don't know how to do that, and have scratched my head over the "move" page without finding any clear explanation. The two pages have had talk sections about the name changes, and nobody seems to object. They are Federalist Papers to The Federalist Papers with 'The Federalist' in italics (The Federalist Papers). The other is 'Middle Way' capitalized (the page name is now 'Middle way'). Thanks. Randy Kryn 14:00 17 November, 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 28 November

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 Methyl salicylate page, your edit caused an unsupported parameter 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) 00:20, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Table-breakage in AWB run

This edit converted

|+Saturated solubility of C₆₀<br> (S, mg/mL)<ref>

to

| +Saturated solubility of C₆₀<br> (S, mg/mL)<ref>

The subtle change of inserting a space between "|" and "+" broke the whole table layout. Probably some parser doesn't realize that in the case of table-caption syntax, the space is not a no-op legibility option. DMacks (talk) 21:33, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

DMacks yes that is a bad edit.

1. I prevented it in later AWB edits

2. Just checked all my edits in this run for these. Found one more (in ... Buckminsterfullerene) & fixed it. -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick check and fix! DMacks (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

articles lacking both ISO3 and GLOTTO codes

Hi DePiep,

I'm wondering if you would have time to work on a tracking bug in the language info box. Currently, if both ISO3 and GLOTTO are set to 'none' (e.g. at Juk language), the article is categorized as not having an ISO code, but having a glottolog code. I'm going through and setting glotto to 'none' for those langs which lack a glottocode, and this is removing them from the tracking cat they should still be in. Thing is, there may be a glotto code under glotto2 etc. even with 'none' under glotto, due to a partial match. Not sure how that should be tracked. Maybe it would be easiest to have a new tracking cat for when both ISO3 and GLOTTO are set to 'none'? They could then be manually reviewed for all the combos that could result in that.

Hope you've been well. — kwami (talk) 21:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but I can't see when I have time for it. -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I'm in the same boat. Maybe next year. (Another problem is e.g. Ngarluma language, which has several ISO codes and a glottocode, which is counted as having neither as the iso3 parameter is not used.) — kwami (talk) 23:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Let me see it I understand it.

1. {{Infobox language}} (edit talk history links # /subpages /doc /doc edit /sbox /sbox diff /test)
2. There is parameter |ISO 639-3=
3. There are params |glotto=, |glotto2= ... |glotto5= (that's five glotto's).
4. When only a glotto has an input value (not the ISO one), the article must be in Category:Languages without ISO 639-3 code but with Glottolog code
5. Whenever the input value is none, that should be read as "no code" (=like previous point)
6. Parameters, values and categories not mentioned, are not in play.

OK? -DePiep (talk) 13:52, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Can you tell me, what the glotto-number means? Is it:

AND. an addition to the earlier glotto (e.g., glotto and glotto2 = language is in both classes), or is it

OR. And exclusive classification, it can only be in one: glotto or glotto2 or glotto3 (etcetera)?

If it's one of these two options, I can figure a categorisation (noting, glottoX=none always will mean "No input value for this glotto"). -DePiep (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

One more wquestion. Are you asking for a new tracking category [[:Category:Languages without ISO 639-3 code and without Glottolog code? (can do) -DePiep (talk) 14:06, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Seasonal Greets!

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2015!!!

Hello DePiep, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2015. Happy editing, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:01, 25 December 2014 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of {{U|Technical 13}} to all registered users whom have commented on his talk page. To prevent receiving future messages, please follow the opt-out instructions on User:Technical 13/Holiday list

Thanks!! (JFK's Berlin Speech Photo, "Backwards")

Hi, DePiep,

I just posted this on the John F. Kennedy "talk" page, but I wanted to thank you directly, also.

Thanks, Guys!!

Thanks for getting JFK's Berlin Speech photo "flip-flopped," especially so fast!! (His hair part, not to mention his breast-pocket handkerchief.) So, I went to the article's edit section (the West Berlin Speech section) and "flip-flopped" the photo in the article, also. Now, I need to see about his photo "facing in."

Take care, Rob

Thanks again, Rob

BeatlesVox (talk) 00:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

P.S. I meant WEST Berlin, of course.  :-O

BeatlesVox (talk) 01:03, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Pierre Auger Observatory - logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Pierre Auger Observatory - logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 23:32, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Flash point

How should this edit at Disulfoton be fixed? It makes the flash point ">180" which is not a valid number. No reply wanted, I'm just hoping you will fix it. Johnuniq (talk) 02:45, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Chembox noob questions

Hi DePiep! I really appreciate your help with all of the chembox stuff. I have another newbie question - what needs to be cited in the chembox? I'm a bit confused since I see chemboxes with no citations and chemboxes peppered with citations. I'm of course happy to cite everything I put in but would like to know what the general guidelines are before going back and doing all that. Thanks again! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia. Source everything. Browse WP guidelines like [WP:VERIFY]]. Try & discover. Unsourced pages are bad. -DePiep (talk) 19:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Dyslexia

hi, I have a GA nomination for the above article, I however would like someone to take a look at it to see what you might think , im part of the wikiproject med. I would appreciate any opinion. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2015 (UTC) thank you, this is my first GA nomination, your advice is very useful, im in your debt--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Rayofsunshine

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie10aaaa, Thanx for the nice pic. I simply did the edits I am familiar with. Other FA requirements I cannot do (spulling and, grammer!). Just have a nice edit into FA, DePiep (talk) 19:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:43, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:Bone and cartilage navs

My objection is to the use of the deprecated dot templates, which breaks accessibility. I looked at the discussion you pointed to, Template talk:Medicine navs#Level 4 subheadings. I take the point about trying to differentiate the lowest level visually, so I restored the italics this time, while still getting rid of the dot templates.

The only visual difference I can see now is that the enclosing parentheses are not italicised, but I can't see any way round that. On the points raised in the discussion, I think it is better to use the sub-list format instead of the dot templates - it is more logical, is syntactically correct, and doesn't break accessibility. I also think the resulting code is easier to follow, more aesthetically pleasing to the eye, and easier to edit; perhaps some other editors don't share this view.

As far as I understand the discussion, editors – understandably – don't like multiple depths of list nesting, but if we have to have it, as appears to be the case here, then we might as well use the syntactically correct form rather than the dot-template kludge, the visual difference between the two versions being minimal.

--NSH002 (talk)

All that was in there already, plus the lines of thinking. Don't see what accessability idssue you point to. No need to reprocess that here. {{middot}} is not deprecated as far as I can see, nor is an alternative mentioned. Best continue at that rfc page of course. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

I missed the RfC for some reason, but dot templates are explicitly deprecated in the documentation at {{Navbox}}, applying to all forms of said templates and their numerous redirects. There was extensive discussion about it, but it will take me a little while to hunt it down. Regards, NSH002 (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

MOot, because current solution is acceptable, the roman bracketsare not a fail. Would be different if navbox would force a bad format. -DePiep (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Standard section titles

You are so right. Standard is that "by (username)" is at the bottom, to be copied by the next one who comments. Please restore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep. Glad this won't cost us any more energy. (+it's very tricky for me to edit a discussion I am in). Have a nice edit, DePiep (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Chembox problem

A recent change has added several articles to Category:Convert invalid options. I can't see that it is anything in convert, so it must be a recent change to one of the chembox templates? The problem can be seen at Perfluoromethyldecalin where the Hazards include "Autoignition temperature None^{[convert: needs a number]}". Using "{{Chembox Hazards|AutoignitionPt=None}}" is enough to show the problem. I have been staring at it for a few minutes but cannot see why it is doing anything different. Johnuniq (talk) 01:10, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

I had another look and I think the last edit to Template:Chembox Hazards was not needed. Reverting that edit seems to have fixed the problem, although there may be something else that I am unaware of. Johnuniq (talk) 06:25, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: You are right, there should have been a pipe in the #if-clause. You are wrong, |AutoignitionC= must be there because it is a parameter in use, deprecated but not yet removed from articles. Now some 100 articles won't show this correct input (converted). Won't edit this now, looks trivial. -DePiep (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Just edited into my yesterdays intention. Better checked this time. -DePiep (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

_ref vs. _Check

For your info: User_talk:Rifleman_82#AWB_run.3F. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:12, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

replied there (pls cancel request). -DePiep (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Let's prepare for it anyway - if the code of AWB is set up, we can perform the changeover at anytime - Rifleman's bot is allowed to run without supervision. And if it also does the whole set of chembox templates and sandboxes, then those will be compliant as well.

By the way, I implemented your settings.css. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:28, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No (changing parameters while I am develop0ing? Did you read what I wrote there? starting an AWB without tlaking first?) Will you stop this? -DePiep (talk) 11:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

We are not starting .. preparing. But OK. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:38, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

No need to even prepare. Who asked for this change anyway? Beetstra, if you keep interfering this way I'll stop editing chembox and I'll call you an incompetent amateur programmer. -DePiep (talk) 11:40, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, that was you: "Next time, I'll ask you to name them "_check" or so; now we can not use "_ref" for reference ... ;-) " - User_talk:Beetstra#Verification_of_indexed_parameters - though you did not ask to change, you did suggest that _check would have been a more logic choice. I do think that it is a good idea ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:48, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it really was you: User_talk:Beetstra#Ref_parameters. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Or are we confused on a different level? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:51, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

(ec) Yes I asked that, but it did not mature. And now I ask not to. It was not fleshed out anyway. These weeks, I am learning the intricacies of the bot, and I also did cleanup (aligning the {{cascite}} templates; consistent categorisation), reorganising the categories tree (incl. create missing ones), improve other subtemplates wrt long InChIs, long names, temperatures, ATC format, indexing 7 to 9 parameters, edit image presentation, and incidental parameter issues. That is ten issues, and all to be checked against drugbox makes (O)10^2 tests. Then, a trivial param change is not welcome. (Then there is this: when going Lua, the whore circus needs another review. Better save thinking & designing energies for that). -11:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Metalloid request

Any chance you could add a border to the metalloid cells in File:Periodic table (metals–metalloids–nonmetals, 32 columns).png, something along the lines described in User talk:YBG#Give metalloids a border. It seems to me there was also a subpage somewhere that showed this content as a table, but I can't find it now. If you know where to find it, please let me know. Thanks! YBG (talk) 06:46, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

@YBG: yes, with some time. Two questions: 1. so I add borders to all element cells?; 2. I'll produce a template anyway. For the image of that (screenprint picture to upload), can you make that or shall I? -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Add a border to each of the metalloid cells, but not to any of the other cells. And if you could make the pic also, that would be wonderful. Thanks! YBG (talk) 22:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

OK with me, but did not Sandbh already make that? It was his demo, imo. -DePiep (talk) 22:02, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Could be. @Sandbh:, would you chime in here? YBG (talk) 22:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Not a pic, a table: User_talk:YBG#Give_metalloids_a_border. ~What need more? -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that I built the table on my talk page. I thought you must have been talking about something else. YBG (talk) 22:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

So, make a pic from that one? -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Yup, that would work. YBG (talk) 23:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Battery Low

Hi DePiep, I admire that you were self-aware to send me a "battery low" signal a while ago. I think I am getting one for myself now, so I will probably lie low for a while and come back to editing in a few days - week. As always it is a pleasure to discuss things with you two. Cheers, --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

All fine. Take all time. -DePiep (talk) 07:56, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Relisting of TfD for Template:Infobox academic division

DePiep, Template:Infobox academic division has been re-nominated for deletion/merger, following a DRV filed by Andy Mabbett. You participated in the previous TfD discussion, and I thought you would appreciate the opportunity to comment on the newly re-opened/re-listed discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 January 22#Template:Infobox academic division. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 08:56, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

• I don't disagree with your AN comment, DP. It's a shame that the adversarial conduct of the nominator of this TfD and several related nominations has precluded a more cooperative/collegial discussion of how these two templates should interact and what parameters each should include or exclude. Weirdly, the experience of the actual users of these templates is being largely ignored. The larger problem is that "Infobox university" includes multiple parameters that are neither required nor desirable in the context of a university's constituent colleges, schools or other academic subunits, and they are often inappropriately invoked by editors with a limited understanding of the subject. This is a perfect example where a simpler, less complicated template serves better than a longer, more complex, comprehensive, all-in-one template. Keeping them separate serves a very practical and utilitarian purpose. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Don't worry, I still do not support honoring the original nomination. And I will keep an eye on the continued TfD. Also the next closing will be scrutinised. And with you I still despise the non-cooperative discussion conduct.

But what you write here is plain TfD content (sound arguments), and they should be in there (already or added). I should not discuss that here on this talkpage, because this talkpage cannot decide anything. And I don't need to be convinced ;-).

However, the process was conducted properly, formally: complain at the closers talkpage, then DRV, then the DRV closes (into relist). So at least we now know that nominator does know how to conduct a proper discussion (depending oon their goal?)! My point at AN is that I find it hard to see how we could redo that DRV process in a decent way, back in time. It is hopeless to reopen an earlier discussion (the one at closer's talk, or at DRV). So I said let a relisting happen. I support that process, that is not steering towards an other outcome. In the end, an admin will have to look at the TfD arguments anyway. Hope I took away some of your concern. -DePiep (talk) 18:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

TFD for Template:Infobox academic division

Following a DRV closure, this TFD has been relisted. If you are still interested in this discussion, please feel free to contribute at the new listing. — xaosflux ^Talk 04:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Xaosflux, thanks for this action forward with notification. As you can understand, the result did not look too good IMO, so I responded vigorously. My first case was to prevent further process diversion. Nothing personal (at least by my intention). -DePiep (talk) 14:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Availability

Hi DePiep, it's been great working with you through the navboxes and hopefully Wikidata, too. I'm going on vacation and my internet access is going to be limited for about a week, so my replies and availability are going to be sketchy at best. Sorry about that, --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:00, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm deeply into a WikiProjcet called Practice Patience right now. Don't know when it will be finished. (And we don't have any issues open). -DePiep (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Returned. --Tom (LT) (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Photography_workshop#Bromine 25ml.jpg

Just a reminder, that I have completed your request over at the graphics lab. Regards, ///EuroCarGT 02:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

What’s wrong with Selma?

Hi. I’m rather confused about your comments at Talk:Selma (film)#Is this the endtitles?, especially your most recent one. If there is a problem with the lead as compared to other film articles or policy, could you please reply there describing exactly what those problems are? For instance, what dates are inappropriate or missing? Thanks. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Your last edit, the reversion

…was not about any previously discussed subject, and should not have been contentious. It simply (1) combined sections in different parts of the article that were about the same fundamental subject (physical properties), (2) corrected errors made by Alchemist when he introduced prose about his discharge tube, and (3) made touch-up corrections to the MO diagram section.

You reverted these, gutting (destroying) an hour of careful work. The Edit summary indicates a personal attack—that you reverted without consideration of the merit, instead simply did so because it was my (Le Prof's) edit.

I am putting my prose back in. If you wish to change particular parts of items 1-3 above, feel free to revert, but do the reverts one at a time, and explain for each what the WP-acceptable issue is with the edit. It is not acceptable to simply reject an edit because it is from me.

If you do so again, I will take this to administrators.

Le Prof 71.239.87.100 (talk) 13:04, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough (except for the "personal attack" allusion). This does not preclude future improvements in the article. -DePiep (talk) 15:40, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

If you want me to revert my edit, please say so (here). Otherwise, I won't touch the page for days, to prevent mixups and edit conflicts. -DePiep (talk) 18:42, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Wikipedia Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

If you like you can add this userbox to your collection.

This user has been awarded with the 100000 Edits award.

. Buster Seven Talk 17:29, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for for this personal attack right in an ANI report complaining of personal attacks from you. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. However, you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Bishonen | talk 23:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

note to self: harassment, acknowledged trespassing. [3] -DePiep (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC) mm. DrChrissy -DePiep (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

and [4] -DePiep (talk) 16:06, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DePiep (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

First things first: indeed I should not have used the two opening words, and I understand that I'm not supposed to do that in the future. Will strike that on first occasion. Second, about the now remaining part of the diff'ed post. I think the blocking editor did not took this (not too extensive) context into account.

Clearly, it was in a subthread I started (Breeze in a teacup). In that, I noted the introduction of words like "cudgel" and "weapon" (even in the section title). I explained that the "lol fix" editsummary was misread by the OP'er. I noted that a immediately preceding 2-reverts was involved, both in the article as in the ANI post. I noted that the OP'er had removed content (plain arguments) from another editor's (my) talkpage post. This was my first response in this ANI. These errors in the OP misrepresented the situation, put me in a bad light, and already less-investigative editors (admins) had taken it for truth and judged upon it. OP'er responded without any correction to the points made. There was not even a connection made to the errors pointed out, bascically evading responsibility.

Then an other editor came in with a sensible post [5], to which I responded sensibly (well, IMO of course) with some disagreement and with a confession. So far, I thought this would lead to a closable result. (Noteworthy, this reply was not used ever by the OP'er, and not by other editors in the ANI).

Next, OP again adds a contribution [6] evading my points, hammering a hobby horse --as is their habit bolded-- . Introducing gratuit accusations not backed up: "more [sic] wikilawyering distraction" --bold is the new uppercase shouting?--.

It was after this that I rephrased my objections to their misjudgements: the "weapon"-titling I call warmongering, repetitively not connecting/correcting points I write I call illiterate as in 'I did not see that'. I noted that the size of the issue was made disproportional (also but not solely by wrong facts), and that the OP did not take responsibility for their wrong judgements. Since the OP did not correct themselves, I state that they are 'false' (not just mistakes any more), and that this constitutes smearing me by bad associations. Up to this moment of writing, the false accusations are still in there, up for everyone to be abused. I maintain I have a right to defend against this bad portraying.

Unresolved for now must be that once again I have to note that the ANI process is lacking in maintaining a sound discussion quality: anything goes. This is an underlying issue (in other words: I have no option to get false accusations removed form the discussion, nor 'force' judging admins to read carefully. So be it).

Concluding, I maintain that the subthread was me seriously engaging in the ANI issue, and was met with unreasonable and evading responses. I am pushing back against false statements and tentative negative associations. And as the ANI page says (or used to say?): "be prepared to be scrutinised yourself when posting here". DePiep (talk) 09:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The problem isn't just the first two words. PhilKnight (talk) 09:51, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

PhilKnight -- I do not see an answer. What exactly do you mean? -DePiep (talk) 10:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Your unblock request begins with "First things first: indeed I should not have used the two opening words", and the problems run much deeper than the first two words. PhilKnight (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is how I read your response. Then I expected a response to the rest of my reasoning provided. Anyway, I think it should be by new template so I did. -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DePiep (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

PhilKnight's response is not clarifying. Does not address my request. What am I supposed to not do? Does it mean that I am not allowed to push back against wrong statements? DePiep (talk) 10:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you

1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 14:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

"... because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons": useless, unspecific. See Bishonen's block notice above. Again, the question remains: what is missing?

From Wikipedia:Guide_to_appealing_blocks:

1. State your reason for believing your block was incorrect or for requesting reconsideration. Y see "First", "Second"
2. Address the blocking administrator's concerns about your conduct (the reason given for your block). Y
3. Give evidence. Y (not that brief though, I preferred be careful).

Useless. Does not connect to my first unblock request. Am I forbidden to defend against incorrect statements, then? Jpgordon. -DePiep (talk) 14:58, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

In unblock requests? Basically, yeah. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:19, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

re In unblock requests? - No, that is not in the request. The request is about that. Didn't you read it? -DePiep (talk) 15:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

ping Jpgordon -DePiep (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Graphics Lab reply

Hello, DePiep. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made. You may view your reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.

NikNaks _{talk - gallery} 21:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Answer my posts

Please stop answer my post unless you really have to. This edit isnt constructive. Christian75 (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

"stop answer my post" LOL. You are offending that thread repeatedly by writing careless and clueless. I even took the effort to correct & explain that. For the rest, I suggest you read WP:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT first. -DePiep (talk) 08:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals

Hi DePiep. Could you please put a border around the metalloids shown in the mini-periodic table at the top right of the Properties of metals, metalloids and nonmetals article? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 13:26, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

done. image from User_talk:YBG#Give_metalloids_a_border. -DePiep (talk) 13:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Template:Category see also

Hi, on Wikipedia, the "See also" templates are italicized, on Commons, they are not. In this diff: here, it seemed to go from italicized to non-italicized, compared to the previous revision. There is a discussion at Template talk:Category see also to change it back to italicized, could you do that if you agree? Funandtrvl (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 18 April

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 Cycloserine page, your edit caused a redundant parameter 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) 00:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Category:Articles that use a Medicine navs subtemplate

Category:Articles that use a Medicine navs subtemplate, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. DexDor ^(talk) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

NPA

I know you are quite aware of our no personal attacks policy, but I think this remark warrants a final warning. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:18, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure he's not a troll, because he aligns with you. -DePiep (talk) 05:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Isle of Man TT may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 15:44, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

re: icon

When I use Twinkle, which I almost exclusively do, Twinkle adds the icon by default at the same time it makes the edit to lock the page. It looks like two steps but it's really one, and I shall keep the default settings because I like them. :-) KrakatoaKatie 02:39, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

All fine, but isn't that an edit that fills the WP:JQ? -DePiep (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Recent changes list for WP:ANATOMY

Hi DePiep! I hope that you're well! I was wondering if you wouldn't mind updating the list of recent changes for WP:ANATOMY (something I use almost daily!). The list was last updated in October 2014 but since then we've picked up another 2,000 or so additional articles. Many thanks, and as always let me know if there's anything I can do to help you in your wikiwork, --Tom (LT) (talk) 05:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Will do one of these days. -DePiep (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks DePiep. How did you make these lists? If it is easy to do I will save your time and do it myself. --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

• I use WP:AWB. You might ask for Registration. Possibly it works without registration, I asked.

1. In AWB, I create a List of page names (list of pages in Category:xyz; could be 2-deep). Set all to "Subject space" (ie not-talkspace). Possibly order & un-double the list. Save it in some form (as wiki page links) in a txt-file.

2. Then by List menu, set all pages to "Talkspace". Save that list too in a second file.

3. Edit the List page in the WikiProject (the one this RC templateuses): enter the two lists files. Save it

4. Voila, should work.

This is very short. Later on I can write it more extensively. -DePiep (talk) 11:50, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

：Thanks DePiep. I have used AWB before when template editing as it was a lot quicker to strip colours this way. I've updated the list, thanks for your instructions and very helpful documentation (and sorry for the delay!) --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Ionbox

Hi DePiep, Are you happy to have ions using chembox? Earlier someone complained that ions were not chemicals and should not use the chembox. I am happy myself to use chembox. But I notice you changing ionbox. I would be happy to kill off ionbox if we can use chembox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 01:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Template:Ionbox is just a 100% Redirect to {{Chembox}}. It is only behind the screens that we say 'Chembox', nothing in the visual result says "this is a chemical". We might as well have named the infobox "monkeything" - no error for the reader.

And yes I'm replacing that name, to get rid of that Ionbox redirect (some 20 pages still use it). -DePiep (talk) 01:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank-you. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett Come to think of it, would it be useful to categorize those ~40 articles in ~"Category:Chembox articles that are an ion"? For future use & maintenance? -DePiep (talk) 09:04, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, if ion-maintaining editors want/need a specialised parameter, that can be added. -DePiep (talk) 09:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Perhaps the charge on the ion is a useful parameter. But I would not have thought that there would be any use in such a separate category that category:anions and category:cations does not cover. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:36, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Only when an advocate proposes that charge, not this way (by one of us). The charge is in the molecular formula already, 'course (cannot be entered by |H=2|charge=+ though). Those categories are added to the page, which is simply better (not by {{Chembox}}). -DePiep (talk) 12:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Editing tool

How would you change 322 articles from |AU to |au?

If you don't already have the name of a tool in mind, I'll peruse WP:Tools#Browsing and editing.

Thanks.— CpiralCpiral 16:53, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

AWB or AutoWikiBrowser script would probably do the job. — CpiralCpiral 03:25, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes but my AWB is broken. And there is discussion about whether actual replacement is needed. -DePiep (talk) 08:15, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Category:Blocks in the periodic table

Category:Blocks in the periodic table, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Chemical infobox

You are changing the previous comment of the talk page. E.g. you are changing this: "2. When a data page exists that one is linked to OK, but then any regular input for |ExternalSDS=/|ExternalMSDS= is not used & not shown at all. I don't see why that is. I propose to have that input value shown:"

to

"2. When a data page exists that one is linked to OK, but then any regular input for |ExternalSDS=/|ExternalSDS= is not used & not shown at all. I don't see why that is. I propose to have that input value shown:"

Thats not ok. And its not ok that you say "grow up and learn to read"[7] and "Get an editors life instead of tracking and bothering other editors. Create you own edits. And no, no contant changes because it's about par names"[8]. Please apologize. Christian75 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Who's text you're quoting is that anyway? And why should I not point to the "bothering" aspect? -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesnt matter who wrote it, its either WP:TPO or WP:REDACT. Why you shouldnt insult me? - please read WP:TPNO especially "No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks [...]. Please apologize. Christian75 (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Christian75 (talk) 22:48, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Errors in Template:Chembox

I understand you, I am importing all of these Templates. I will try not to repeat it. Sorry. --Jmarchn (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Minor edits

Please review your minor edits, like [9] - beaking the infobox Christian75 (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

again=

• LT910001 still on the list. I propose you:

1. open page WP:AWB
2. Download the current version
3. install it
4. open it (=start it)

OK?

You do not need an AWB permission, because we'll do ReadOnly for those lists. (Every editor can do so).

(However, you might ask for editing permission at WP:AWB. Nice, but irrelevant here)

• Next week's tutorial: "After you've started AWB, how to make a "list of category pages"

-DePiep (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:3166comp

Template:3166comp has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Introducing the new WikiProject Cannabis!

Greetings!

I am happy to introduce you to the new WikiProject Cannabis! The newly designed WikiProject features automatically updated work lists, article quality class predictions, and a feed that tracks discussions on the 559 talk pages tagged by the WikiProject. Our hope is that these new tools will help you as a Wikipedia editor interested in the subject of cannabis.

• Browse the new WikiProject page
• Become a member today! – members have access to an opt-in notification system

Hope to see you join! Harej (talk) 20:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Dichloramine

Do you know why the CAS RN is not shown in chembox? --Leyo 21:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

With me it shows: 3400-09-7, an external link. Is it missing in your screen? -DePiep (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Now it does show. Strange … --Leyo 21:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Populating lists of pages

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals/Lists of pages#Populating lists of pages.

Random request for template (coding) assistance...

Hi DePiep! You're one of the most knowledgeable template editors I know, so I figured I'd run this by you... I'd like to add code to the template {{User MadeArticles}} so that it links to a list of articles created by a user (just in "main/article space", and not including redirects or deleted articles) in the same way that the words "several articles" in the text of the template {{User articles created}} does. I was hoping to change it so that the word "created" in the {{User MadeArticles}} template would link to a search for the user in Sigma's Pages created tool. I worked up a test edit in the template's sandbox, but I have no idea if I did it correctly (as it's basically just a cut-and-paste job from the {{User articles created}} template's code...). Anyway, any help (if any!) you can provide on this will be much appreciated. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 04:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

See my edits in {{User MadeArticles/sandbox}}. I've made it a list tot test:

A = old text (just numbers).

B = {{User articles created}} external link

C = new link using the Sigma tool link

Added: |username= to make it testable in testcases.

Todo:

Set your settings in the Sigma page (namespaces, redirects, etc) as desired. Then test those settings (open the sigma list), and then very carefully add those settings from the true URL into the template. You'll recognise the "noridirect" wordings & spellings.

Adjust the surrounding wording and input numbers used.

Test

Remove the A. and B. texts.

Test again and put it live.

Clear enough? You might want to take a good look at the URL encoding details wrt urlencode:. -11:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Awesome! That's great stuff! I actually like Option "B" the best (that's the closest to what I was thinking of originally), so I've made some adjustments to that, but Option "C" is pretty nifty. Thanks! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 16:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

All fine with me. But isn't option B more like a merge with that other userbox? -DePiep (talk) 16:51, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Not exactly, though if there was an option to chose which "image" to use with the template, the two templates probably could be merged pretty easily I guess... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Phosgene may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• | SolubleOther = soluble in [[ether]], [[benzene]], [[lipids]], [[alcohol]], ][[tetrahydrofuran|THF]]

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Stop your script

You are making really bad edits with you automatic? script, see [10] - you have a lot of theese kind of edits... Christian75 (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, very bad. See also note just above. AWB sometimes mixes up text between pages... Am writing a bug report. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok, good you have seen it. And I can see you have started undoing it... Christian75 (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Go throw your edits. Stop using that script. Materialscientist (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Is what I wrote here. -DePiep (talk) 21:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:DePiep reported by User:Alakzi (Result: ). Thank you. Alakzi (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Template:Infobox gridiron football person revert

Why would you revert this? Alakzi (talk) 18:20, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As I said in the es: your edit was immaterial. -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

So you've reverted an "immaterial" edit (in truth, a minor improvement) for no apparent reason. Alakzi (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I cannot believe

That you think you can delete a persons Talk page entries. If you do this again, I will go immediately to an administrator and asked that you be blocked for a month. Given your history, I believe I will get it. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You did. [11]. -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no clue what this means. If it suggests I accidentally deleted something of yours, I did not do so intentionally. Please put my Talk back and re-add whatever of your is missing. Otherwise, I cannot understand you. I have taken the matter to administrators. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

You deleted it, click the link. End of talk. -DePiep (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Gentleman may I ask what is going on? Looking here [12] we have a bot the archived a bunch of stuff. Then Leprof added 6k of text. Than DePiep reverted both LeProf and the Bot? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:54, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

I reverted this. What is your question? -DePiep (talk) 00:05, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Why did you remove this talk page comments by LeProf? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:22, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Not to even you, Doc James, is allowed to quarrel and divert and spread nuisance on my talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James:, Thank you Doc. As far as I know, I added text on and off this afternoon, so it was in this state: [13] when I finished; scroll to bottom of page. Then I returned to the page later to see if pinged folks had responded, and found an edit summary that says "(undo the pro)", that has added text, but effectively removed all of my edits [ from 22:39, 18 August 2015‎ until 22:42, 18 August 2015‎ ]. Here is that edit result [14], and the diff, [15]. I have no idea what else was accomplished by this (+4,687)‎ edit, but for all practical purposes, he did as he said: undid me (Le Prof). (I have no clue where the material from early June came from that he is adding, or why he is adding it, or what it has to do with me. As I have said to him, if I inadvertently deleted something, it was inadvertent, and it should just be added back. But to my knowledge, all of my edits this afternoon have positive byte counts (no inadvertent deletions).

Note, after a couple of revert and re-reverts by me, to try to figure out what had been done, I reverted, and he returned the massively deleted (Le Prof redacted) version, here, note the two edit summaries: [16]

Note the "you are wrong, so I [revert]." Thank you for helping. Note, English is not your other respondents first language. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:15, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

@Doc James:, can you block all editing on that page until you resolve this? This redaction of my new section and interspersed comments creates a huge mess, esp. if the several pinged European editors arrive soon, and cannot find the proposal I have asked them to discuss. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2015 (UTC).

• Leprof 7272: fuck off. don't ever write on my talkpage again. -DePiep (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Chembox changes breaking infoboxes

Your Chembox changes are breaking infoboxes. Examples: Cacodyl, Thiepine, Hydroperoxyl, Methyl radical, Hydroxyl radical, Cocamidopropyl betaine --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

re Bamyers99. Dammit. (Background: in Cacodyl a closing }} was removed unintended, together with |ExactMass=... [17]. Reinserted now [18]). I'll fix these. Do you have a way to list all of them? -DePiep (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That was all that I found in this list of Template without correct end. --Bamyers99 (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That's it then. Thanks for taking care. -DePiep (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Iodine infobox

Hi. I added the comment that Iodine is sometimes considered a metalloid because the metalloid article indicated this. Also, the comment that Phosphorus is sometimes considered a metalloid on that element's infobox seemed to me to legitimise the adding of the same statement to the one in the Iodine article. If you still consider Iodine's inclusion as a metalloid too rare to justify reference in its infobox, I would be glad to hear where you believe the line should be drawn for the info boxes of other rarely recognised 'metalloids'. Aardwolf A380 (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is mentioned in there. Based on the List of sources I linked to, and by what is stated in metalloid ("very rarely", if at all), I draw the line with the <=5% group. This "rarely, if at all" grade should or can be described in the article text, but does not merit a formalizing in the infobox. We might wan to draw the same line for all <=5% elements. Note: better continue at Talk:metalloid or WT:ELEMENTS, this is not a personal thing. -DePiep (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Accessibility of tables

Hi ! Have you seen my reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility#Complex_tables.2C_accessibility.2C_and_Wikipedia ? Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently erroneous edit

Can you please double-check this edit? It appears that you changed the Propadiene article to be about a different topic altogether (i.e., about Proadifen), which resulted in a confused RM request (see Talk:Propadiene). —BarrelProof (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

ISO 15924 codes updated

Hi, the ISO 15924 codes were updated on 7 July. BabelStone (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Using AWB to handle deprecated parameters

Hi! I was referred to you by an admin at the registration for AWB as someone who knows a good deal about what I'm interested in using AWB for. I'm a first-time user of the program, so at the risk of sounding idiotic, I was hoping to run what I plan to use it for by an editor experienced with the program.

I plan to use AWB to help somewhat with replacing deprecated parameters. I believe you're familiar with the situation with Template:Infobox gridiron football person, as you helped me already with creating a category of the articles needing review (thanks, by the way). In particular, I'm planning to do the following:

If the article does not contain "<br>" OR "<br/>" OR "</br>" OR .... (I'll put in all the spacing possibilities, etc, here):

Find "playing_years" and replace with "playing_year1". Find "playing_teams" and replace with "playing_team1". And a few other simple find and replace commands with no possibility for accidentally replacing the text in the article.

The idea is to automate the simplest of the replacement by isolating the articles in which new parameters do not need to be added, and then doing a simple replacement of the deprecated parameter with the new parameter. I don't plan to touch the more complicated cases where the parameter values must be split into multiple parameters with AWB; it seems like that would be fairly difficult to do with automation. I'm sure it's possible, but I'd likely spend longer figuring it out than I would if I just manually did them.

I plan to turn general fixes off for this. As a major issue with these articles is the use of <br>, I don't want the general fixes that handle that mark-up to interfere with the articles. It likely would do more harm than good.

Does anything from this jump out at you as something likely to cause a problem? Any general pointers that might help a first-time user (beyond reading the manual, which I've taken a good look at and will read again before starting)? I'd appreciate any time/comments you put in towards helping me get this thing running. ~ Rob^Talk 04:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob13, it looks like some bot is doing the edits at this moment. A few hours ago there were 6700 pages in the category, now its 5200 5160 and counting down at a rate of 1/sec!

As for AWB: That can work, but it would help only a small number of articles. My general advise is: learn using WP:REGEX in AWB. But even with REGEX, it might be hard, esp when there are nested templates present (as can be). That said, and it that bot is not finishing it all today ;-),you could embark. AWB has lots of options to try (preview without saving). :Later more. -DePiep (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I've actually been working at it using AWB after reading up a lot on it, and have gone through an incredible amount. An insane amount of these meet the criteria I listed; many more than I thought. I'm going at a rate of around 5-10/minute. I think this should take care of at least 2500 of the original 7000, which is way better than expected.

Thanks for the advice! I'll look into REGEX for future use if I ever do this type of work again. ~ Rob^Talk 16:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Good action! And switching the general's off, now & then check your edits in wikipedia, etc/. So I was off with the number - good too. Further improvements are not easy to explain here. -DePiep (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob13 Let me tip this too. Before you dive into REGEX, it might be worth getting familiar with the more basic AWB options. I had a lot of use for making the right page lists: from categories (with depth maybe), from "outgoing links on a page", what links here, by SpecialPages, transclusions of a template. Also, using the list Filter button, and especially "turn the list into talkpages" (or "...from talkpages" i.e. into subject-pages), saving a list in file: see the List menu. You also have found the 'skip' options etc. I myself never use the 'general standard edits' because they distract from checking my important edits. Success. -DePiep (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for all the advice! I'll definitely follow up on all that before using AWB for anything advanced. ~ Rob^Talk 17:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Nah, don't be tooo careful: just pick a slightly advanced AWB job and learn some extra tricks with it. Is rewarding. Hands on, studying only may be boring. Wiki allows for learning by mistakes greatly :-) . -DePiep (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I was surfing around Wikipedia and noticed this talk. @BU Rob13: if you want to split playing_years into playing_year1, playing_year2 etc. then you could probably contact @Frietjes:. I think she done something like that for cyclists. If not, then sorry - my bad! --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

In working on replacing these deprecated parameters, I've found that many articles with Template:Infobox gridiron football person utilize small text within the infobox, which violates MOS:FONTSIZE. Most of the articles use it in similar ways, so I can address this with AWB easily enough. I just need a category to pull off of. Would it be possible to create a category of all articles using this template that contain any <small> tags? Failing that, a category that just contains all articles using this infobox would at least let me hit the most obvious uses of small text with AWB, although I couldn't ensure that I had removed it all. Is what I'm looking for possible? Thanks! ~ Rob^Talk 02:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob13: I'd check the parameters that usually have <small> text added (or other style settings?) stringing them together). I think checking all params would be a bit big. Do you have such a list? -DePiep (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The most common are teams,years,playing_teams,playing_years,coaching_teams,coaching_years,administrating_teams,administrating_years,other_teams, and other_years. ~ Rob^Talk 15:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if anything is wrong. (btw, these are the deprecated params, so they are in the other cat sure!). Better continue at the template talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —Bagumba (talk) 01:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Wow! A whole seventy-two hours! That's more that I ever got. I thank Johnuniq and YBG for bringing some sense into this, afterwards. Of course I am considering appealing that speedy speedy undeveloped block by Bagumba, but I need a grip (72 hrs says: it's Big, you know). Still, my first and second reading says Bagumba jumped to the conclusion: "DePiep was wrong before, so he must be wrong this time again". On top of this, I note that no discussion evolved at all. No question was asked at all.

To be clear: I note that complainor Alakzi complains about making irrelevant edits, while crying to the mirror. That admin Bagumba falls for this at first sight is not a compliment for the admin corps. I think the best & quick & clean solution is that Bagumba reverts their block. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops, forgot I had it archived: [19]. As you can read, crying accusor Alakzi has a problem with me doing edits, but does not grasp their own edits are just as irrelevant. -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Check me, but isn't this the crying BF accusor saying "It's not about the template", and then diving into template technicalities, self-righteously? Then saying "I'm not going personal, but " your message is holier-than-thou nonsense. Isn't there a single second serious admin following this? -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you'd like to make an unblock request, you will want to reread the block message and apply the appropriate template to ensure a "second serious admin" sees this. ~ Rob^Talk 02:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I know. The point is that I asked the blocking admin to reconsider. -DePiep (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

DePiep (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I request unblocking because it appears that the blocking admin made a wrong or bad-informed conclusion. First of all, it is hard to see how a zero-effect edit can be called "disruption", but alas. More important is that the admin failed to recognise that the initial WP:BRD correct sequence (the D being at my talkpage), was left by the other editor by going back editing. Quite simply, this is the start of an edit war. Also, the reporting editor resorted to personal attacks in the original report: "The editor appears to think that it's OK to revert any edits which hurt his personal sensibilities"[20] (and even after-block), which is plain bad faith and injection. I thought it wise not to take that bait, but the blocking admin did and went along with it: "DePiep appears more intent to defiantly hold on to their code than to explain why it should stay". That is both incorrect (I did explain both in es and talk) and a personal valued judgement about a non-personal text. Finally I note that the blocking admin reasoned to block me because of previous blocks (which, of course, only adds size to the misjudgement without being a new argument). This way, someone might be blocked because he was blocked before: unbeatable logic.
I know I am supposed to write here like "Won't do it again", but as explained I do not see exactly what I'm not supposed to do again. Next time I should take the bait and engage in PAs and BFs at first call? When my opponent leaves the BRD and starts an editwar, I am supposed to do ... what? How do I even prevent a "previous blocks" argument? As advised, I've asked the blocking admin to clarify (see above), to no effect. DePiep (talk) 11:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The timeline (below) clearly shows that you were edit warring. PhilKnight (talk) 21:58, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

• Fore reasons mentioned in the request above, I do not want Alakzi to write on my talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Note to reviewer of unblock request: Extended discussion since the block can also be viewed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:DePiep_reported_by_User:Alakzi_.28Result:_72_hours.29. There is no need to consult me, the blocking admin, with any action decided.—Bagumba (talk)
• "I've asked the blocking admin to clarify (see above), to no effect." @DePiep: I do not see a specific question to me above. You can feel free to ask me, or you may also choose to address it directly with the uninvolved admin that will review your unblock request.—Bagumba (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's an expanded timeline (with edit summaries in parenthesized italics):

• 17:44, 29 July 2015 DePiep added a maintenance category with a link to the talk page discussion in the edit summary
• 17:55, 29 July 2015 (B) Alakzi removed some of DePiep's edit (We don't need pattern matching for that)
• 18:17, 29 July 2015 (R) DePiep restored it (... nor idle edits)
• 18:20, 29 July 2015 (D) Alakzi asked on DePiep's talk page "why would you revert this" (new section)
• 18:25, 29 July 2015 (D) DePiep: As I said in the es: your edit was immaterial ()
• 18:43, 29 July 2015 (D) Alakzi: So you've reverted an "immaterial" edit (in truth, a minor improvement) for no apparent reason. (re)
• 21:08, 29 July 2015 DePiep edited template's talk page, interacting with the editor whose request initiated his edits
• 21:32, 29 July 2015 Alakzi repeated removal (rm unnecessary escape character for the second time)
• 23:49, 30 July 2015 DePiep repeated restoration (rv vapour edit again (the editor knowing its idleness).)
• 23:55, 30 July 2015 Alakzi third removal (Cut the crap.)
• 23:57, 30 July 2015 DePiep third restoration (stop making idle edits.)
• 00:25, 31 July 2015 Alakzi initiated block discussion (new section)
• 00:25, 31 July 2015 Alakzi notified DePiep's talk page re block discussion (new section)
• 01:41, 31 July 2015 Bagumba notified DePiep's talk page re block conclusion (You have been blocked from editing for disruptive editing.)

Here's where I was in this. I saw the BRD discussion on DePiep's talk page (because it was auto-watchlisted when we interacted a long time ago). I looked at the template edits and reversions and realized it was way above my pay grade. I suspect that the next thing I saw was the notice of the discussion and the conclusion -- I don't think I checked my watchlist during the brief 76 minute discussion. I did add a comment after the conclusion was reached.

Rather than ask what someone else could have done differently, I ask "What could I have done differently?"

I wish I had watchlisted the template page. Then I might have seen Alakzi's second removal sometime in the 26 hours before DePiep's second restoration. Then I could have assumed good faith on all parties and asked whether they thought that "the discussion has improved understanding .. [so] ... a new edit ... may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion". If DePiep had answered in the negative, then I myself would have reverted the template change.

I also wish I had gotten more involved by requesting the opinion of others who are knowledgeable about templates.

So that's what I could have done to have improved the collaboration on WP. YBG (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks YBG. The timeline is an excellent reference for others who may have not recreated it already. I'd also add that Diep edited Template talk:Infobox gridiron football person at 21:08, 29 July 2015, and presumably saw the 18:43 on their talk page from Alkazi, but did not respond to the assertion that the "minor improvement" was removed "for no apparent reason". As your timeline shows, Alakzi then reverted at 21:32, with exit summary: "rm unnecessary escape character for the second time"—Bagumba (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I have added that to the time line. As @Bagumba: said in the block discussion, both editors can be accused of edit warring. One has to wonder, was it reasonable for Alkazi to think that discussion on DePiep's talk page had added sufficient understanding? That DePiep's silence indicated that a new edit would be acceptable to all parties? I don't think so, and I think reasonable editors would agree with me. More likely, DePiep's silence is a sign of choosing to ignore the inflamatory response from Alkazi, which had certainly been seen, as Bagumba points out. From this it seems to me that DePiep has learned something from his previous experiences -- though perhaps not as much as others would have liked.

So what was the first disruptive edit to the template? It seems it was either Alkazi's 2nd removal or DePiep's 2nd restoration. I'm inclined to think the 2nd removal was on its face disruptive. So why was DePiep blocked and Alkazi not? It seems there were two reasons (1) Alkazi initiated the discussion on DePiep's talk page and (2) DePiep had a previous history of blocks. I have a few questions:

1. Was Alakzi's contributions to discussion sufficient to gain a pass?
2. Is previous block history a legitimate reason for making a decision about a block? Was it reasonable in this case?

YBG (talk) 00:48, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

re "DePiep's silence", what are you talking about? You mean I am supposed to take the PA/BF bait Alkazi offered? (Bagumba did). I also invite you to note that Alkazi never acknowledged or discussed that their edit was immaterial. Playing dumb. -DePiep (talk) 00:58, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

By silence, I mean that you didn't respond the 18:43, 29 July 2015 edit on your talk. I take this as a good thing, I interpreted that silence as "a sign of choosing to ignore the inflamatory response from Alkazi". Silence was much better than responding in kind (taking the bait in your words). YBG (talk) 01:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Clear now. Bagumba still got it wrong, even here: "[DePiep] but did not respond". Bagumba was pardoned because "their initiating a discussion", and ignoring that the same editor left the discussion to go reverting. He is still a bit self-righteous, while ignoring the points made here (he does find time however to "inform" an editor-in-PA/BF-crime [21] on what they can read themselves). -DePiep (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC).

@DeDiep: If you look back now at your decision to revert on 23:49, 30 July ? 2015, would you still repeat that edit? If not, what would you do differently? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether you saw my question does not matter, it is there with a ping. And even if you missed it, you could have respond to what I wrote in my unblock request, which you did not. From the time line listed here by YBG:

21:32, 29 July 2015 Alakzi repeated removal (rm unnecessary escape character for the second time) This was the point that Alakzi left BRD talk and started repeating edits, as I already noted. I also find it telling that you choose not to respond here to (my unblock request points) the PA/BF issue you copied from Alakzi and the "previous blocks" reasoning. So you have not responded to any of my unblock requests points. Now you even come up with aftertalk question, which of course you should have asked before if you wanted that clarified, instead of the lousy reasoning. -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Bagumba, since you are talking on my talkpage, you could have the decency to at least reply to me on the points I made, not coincidentally about your behaviour. Oh and if you don't want to look like a sloppy uninterested self-righteous admin, start writing my name correct. -DePiep (talk) 06:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I presume by 'start writing my name correct' you are requesting that it be written 'DePiep', not abbreviated as 'DP'. If that is the case, please note that I am the only one who has used that abbreviation. I have taken the liberty of modifying this discussion to use your username unabbreviated. YBG (talk) 10:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

No need to presume anything. The question was aimed named. -DePiep (talk) 20:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding: weird that Bagumba finds "did not respond" (as said, in itself a wrong statement), but in their blocking argument did not respond to the reply I did write. Must have been inconvenient. -DePiep (talk) 07:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• PhilKnight, could you clarify why you did not take any point raised into consideration? I am confronted with crippled reasoning, poor judgements and by now the admins conclusions do not align. Next time, whose admin talk am I to respond to? AFAIK you are supposed to take a wider look. -DePiep (talk) 07:41, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

reping PhilKnight -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

• re YBG: let me explain and clarify. Once a non-admin editor like you and me enters the WP:AN admins pit: "Abandon all hope, ye who enter here". Or, in wiki-encyclopedic terms: all reason & improvement is gone. Bagumba cant 'reason' and concludes nonsense: no fellow admin like PhilKnight of course will ever even challenge a fellow admins thinking or capability. They are all friends. They don't even read what you write. On top of this, in an admin-loves-one-side-in-dispute situation (we must assume that the editor Bagumba addressed can not read by themselves --OK with me--, but still) fellow admins don't care. BTW, next to our elementary thinking, YBG, I have my Grand Poet saying Nel mezzo. See you there. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

DePiep (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

admin PhilKnight did not take the overview, and did not respond to my question. I say someone with more time and care should take a look at this. (btw, blocking admin's responses are useless) DePiep (talk) 23:36, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Procedural accept; block has expired. ceradon (talk • edits) 02:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Hey, admin Bagumba, why don't you reply? Why don'y just read & reply to my points? What are you hiding from? By now, you must know how to spell my name. -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

[22] An admin who can block me but can not spell my name. -DePiep (talk) 00:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

You are unblocked now. The unblock request above is thus moot. —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 02:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course. I cynically thank involved admins Bagumba, PhilKnight and Ceradon for supporting the original PA/BF accusations, while not being able to reply in three days. -DePiep (talk) 08:21, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Found this on CAT:UNBLOCK the other day. Don't really have a horse in the race. --ceradon (talk • edits) 09:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

That's the spirit. -DePiep (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Modify identifiers section of drugbox

A proposal to move the identifiers section of {{infobox drug}} (that contains CAS numbers and links to chemical/drug databases, etc.) from the infobox to the bottom of the article has been made at the above link. Your input is welcome. Boghog (talk) 02:15, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

August 2015

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Suez Canal may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• sailing scheme is operative. There are projected convoy schemes, using the new canal layout.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.suezcanal.gov.eg/sc.aspx?show=13|publisher=Suez Canal Authority||date=|

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:17, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

extIPA

FYI, redid Extensions to the International Phonetic Alphabet. Updated, corrected, got rid of red links, etc. In case it's of interest. Added extIPA to lisp as well, in case you want to double check. — kwami (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Railgauge

Please see Template talk:Track gauge#Bad table sorting and following sandbox. Tabletop (talk) 23:53, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Other nonmetals listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Other nonmetals. Since you had some involvement with the Other nonmetals redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Other nonmetal listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Other nonmetal. Since you had some involvement with the Other nonmetal redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Other symbols listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Other symbols. Since you had some involvement with the Other symbols redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 03:10, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Mytest

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 03:41, 21 August 2015 (UTC)

Other nonmetal...

At Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 August 20 ... I was trying to kill whatever monotony your attitude is bringing to the good-faith editors in this discussion. Is there a particular reason why you are continuously pushing your derogatory comments in this discussion? Steel1943 (talk) 02:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Nice try. What is it you want to say at all? What I see is stroken struck comments. You expect me to re-reason it all again? Not for me. As I said in my first comments: why not leave that R alone. -DePiep (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

OneClickArchiver

I noticed your archive at talk convert resulting in Template talk:Convert/Archive 1. However there is a problem because the bot follows a remarkably clever system so the current archive is actually Template talk:Convert/Archive May 2015. It looks like OneClickArchiver should not be used at that page. Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)