Jump to content

User talk:DePiep: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→I am confused: unread. no need to lecture me, Nel Einne. you can kiss your illiterate admin friends, but that's not "talk"
Line 245: Line 245:


A lot of what you are saying does not have a basis in the facts of the situation. I am happy to take your concerns seriously, but for me to do so you need to make sure you make you concerns more clear to me. If you wish to carry on this discussion I am happy to despite the closure of the discussion at ANI. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:OrangeRed">HighInBC</b>]] 14:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
A lot of what you are saying does not have a basis in the facts of the situation. I am happy to take your concerns seriously, but for me to do so you need to make sure you make you concerns more clear to me. If you wish to carry on this discussion I am happy to despite the closure of the discussion at ANI. [[User talk:HighInBC|<b style="color:OrangeRed">HighInBC</b>]] 14:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
:Have to agree with HighInBC here that your comments are really weird. Firstly, I don't know if this is an English language issue or whatever, but we don't talk about things as being illegal here on wikipedia, except when it comes to actual legal issues (like copyvios). Even then, talking about illegal runs the risk of being perceived as a legal threat so it's far better to use more descriptive terms like copyvio etc. <p>And as has been said a few times, Jytdog reverted their own closure and removed their own comment. For some weird reason, you linked to a diff [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ASudden_infant_death_syndrome&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=716404259&oldid=716391716] encompassing changes by two different editors. One was Jytdog reverting their closure [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=716402118] and removing their comment [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=716402156]. The other was HighInBC [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome&diff=next&oldid=716402156] closing the discussion. This was pointed out to you a while back but you never seemed to acknowledge this in your replies. Instead you kept insisting HighInBC had done something they didn't. <p>I mean using weird diffs, I could ask why you added a bunch of signed comments with a weird edit summary [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome&diff=716391716&oldid=24330317] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Floquenbeam&diff=716547918&oldid=235136097]. Or why you deleted a bunch of signed comments from the future multiple times [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sudden_infant_death_syndrome&diff=716489564&oldid=716593821] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=716442518&oldid=716599072] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Convert&diff=712629803&oldid=716133847]. Or why you keep changing articles in to your user page [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tetrahydrocannabinol&diff=706831043&oldid=697507600] [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tenatoprazole&diff=713249663&oldid=697507600]. But all it actually means it I'm showing weird diffs, not that you actually did any of that. <p>Note also despite the wording of the template, as with [[WP:IAR|everything]] [[WP:NOTBURO|on]] [[Wikipedia:Wikilawyering|wikipedia]] it isn't true, that it's never acceptable to revert someone else's closure. There are some cases when it's acceptable although as is also the case with everything on wikipedia, if you do it when it isn't acceptable you may find action taken against you so it should generally be done with caution. When it's acceptable depends on a lot of things. A particular point is the same templates are used at AN//I where it's hardly uncommon that closures have to be reverted because it looked like something is resolved but wasn't. (Sometimes a new discussion perhaps in a subthread is started, but sometimes the closure is simply reverted.) So talking as if it's never acceptable isn't going to get you very far, even if we turn a blind eye to the fact we're discussing a self-revert here. <p>If you were a new editor, perhaps the confusion could be understood. But you're not and some of this has already been pointed out you so your comments are very perplexing. <p>[[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 17:47, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
{{hab}}
{{hab}}

Revision as of 00:11, 23 April 2016

Per WP:NOBAN, I have the right to deny editors editing my userspace, by notification. Trolls know what I am talking about. -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 10 as User talk:DePiep/Archive 9 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

    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!

    The Cure Award
    In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.
    The Golden Galen barnstar
    You have been awarded the prestigious Golden Galen award for your contributions to anatomy articles on Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions!
    The da Vinci Barnstar
    I notice you expressing weariness at the discussion about drug infoboxes. Just wanted to let you know that I really appreciate the work you do! Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Special Barnstar
    For your thoughtful, poetic contribution about learning chemistry, and the value of informative categories in science. You have my respect. Sandbh (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Technical Barnstar
    Thank you so much for all of your amazing work with the Chembox - and for putting up with all of my OSH data requests. :) You're awesome! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
    For creating the 'recent changes' pane for WPMed. Wonderful! LT910001 (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    periodic table
    The Non-metallic Barnstar for improving the Periodic Table
    You've done a whole damn lot for our project. You've actually made it better. Please keep up.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
    For turning the trivial names of groups table in the periodic table article into a visual feast for the eyes Sandbh (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The Template Barnstar
    For repeated improvements on templates used in phonetics articles. Particularly admirable is the combination of seeking out explicit consensus and dutifully carrying out necessary changes once it is reached. — Ƶ§œš¹ [aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi] 14:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The Guidance Barnstar
    You're the hero of the day on this pickle of a problem. Thanks for the insight. VanIsaacWScontribs 23:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
    For your amazing work with the graph. It appears now better than what I thought of it to be before! With your learning ability, you're all up to be an awesome graphic designer, in addition to your template skills! Thanks, man R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The Socratic Barnstar
    Thank you for all your suggestion and opinion (as here or here) which are really very helpful. Tito Dutta (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    THIS today is edit #50000 by DePiep on en:WP.
    -DePiep (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Changing leads to one paragraph

    In this edit you are changing the leads to one paragraph [1]. They should be left as three paragraphs IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Same here [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Doc James You are right, bad edits in the lede. You c an safely revert my edit (instead of manula repair). Because, that will notify me and it will put the article page back in the maintenance category it was about.
    Interestingly, MOS:PARAGRAPHS says: "Between paragraphs—as between sections—there should be a single blank line". However, what you reinstated (and what most FA's have!) is just a <br/> forced single break at the end of a paragraph (no blank line at all). Strange. -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I manually undid the few I have come across. No worries. Not sure what a "<br/>" is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. "<br/>" (=line break) in wikicode does "enforce newsline here", so the same as the two whitelines do we are talking about. Dmo

    Like this lorem ipsum: blaba end of paragraph.
    next paragraph newline. more blabla. -DePiep (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Would you consider ... YBG (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

    Would you consider moving your Against from the end of the brainstorm list to the newly created support/oppose section? Thanks! YBG (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. I've tried to include your comments into the brainstorm list. I trust I haven't wrenched your ideas out of context. YBG (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, I see no reason to withdraw becasuse I do oppose. You may consider another reason by me, as I explained above (ie before jumping into brainstorm list.
    And let me be clear at the start of this year: you might as well ask Sandbh what his preferred colors are and then skip the process. Sandbh seems to think and press into content that his highschool wall PT is the perfect form and needs no further sources, discussion or improvement. (Strange you did not address this btw). As long as this threat to push looms over Elements, it is useless and misleading to ask for contributions of others. -DePiep (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not asking you to withdraw your objection, just asking you to consider moving it from one section (WT:ELEMENTS § Potential considerations in color selection) to a different section (WT:ELEMENTS § Support for and opposition to this suggested process). I considered inserting the section head ====Support for and opposition to this suggested process==== between the list and your vote, but I thought that would be a significant change of context that was skating too close to violating WP:TPOC. YBG (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Periodic table color in element pages

    I have not been paying much attention to the extensive discussion of periodic table layouts, so please let me know if the following is part of one of them, or where else I should ask, but you seem to be doing a lot of work on these sorts of things. In the article for each element, the periodic table in the infobox, is color-coded according to a set of categories. The colors are defined in {{Periodic table (32 columns, micro)/elementcell}}. My problem is that the color of hydrogen makes its space virtually invisible against the white background on which it is displayed. |category=diatomic nonmetal gives color #e7ff8f, very hard  to  see or click the small space unless you know where to look. At least for the nitrogen and oxygen spaces, their locations are knowable from the surrounding darker colored ones on multiple sides. But hydrogen is fairly alone. I'd welcome any change of color but did not want to change it too WP:BOLDly..I'm not sure what other layouts are being kept in sync. DMacks (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    At enwiki We use a set of 11 colors for what we call "metallicity categories" in the periodic table (PT). See the legend in Periodic table. This set is the same over all PT's, both html tables and images. Could be a 40-50 together. Of course this consistency is very helpful in an already complicated topic. In specialised areas and in other topics (like blocks) a different legend-set is used.
    Now you happened to walk into a new discussion about these colors (you have seen). Main issue with current set is bad contrast (re WP:ACCESS): background too dark. What you describe is an issue too (distinction from bg), and already mentiooned somewhere in there.
    Now picking an other set (or just chaning one color in this case) is a huge process. There are many requirements to take care of , some even contradicting. There also is: contrast with fontcolors, distinction of neighbor colors, stressing main border area metalloids, colorblindness, and more. There is no single algorithm/process/recepy to reach an outcome; cyclic is better and still compromises might be needed. The problems are especially huge because of the number "11 categories": four would be a lot easier!
    We have started the process by first focusing on: the 11 distinguishable background colors (status in User:DePiep/pt-2016). A lot of extreme errors are gone already. More tuning to do. Next step would be the other requirements like good contrast with fonts, and -- relevant for your point -- effects in big/small PTs, and re background. But today these 2nd set of checks is not processed at all. Also, I'd like to research more about such issues in the process (color perception).
    So yes, this is a topic already in discussion, together with 20 other issues. To be a good website, we can not compromise on these access issues (but maybe elsewhere). And it takes loads of time. On my clock, and on the calendar. -DePiep (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Sõ, there is no bold & quick solution b/c the color is embedded. Maybe, while working on this, I'll find a interim improvement. -~~

    Main Page (2015 redesign)

    Hi DePiep

    I left a response to your comments on the 2015 redesign of the Wikipedia Main Page.

    Regards, Ntmamgtw (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 02 March 2016

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 09 March 2016

    The Signpost: 16 March 2016

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 23 March 2016

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 1 April 2016

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    InChI edits

    Hi. In this edit to Atorvastatin it appears that you accidentally over wrote it with material taken from Atomoxetine. I have restored the previous material minus the redundant InChI parameters. If you are using a script for these edits, you might want to check the script. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. Yes this is a bug in AWBscript. I thought it was solved, but appearently not. I'll take some more care. (you can always revert any doubtful edit in this series). -DePiep (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Appreciation of the work you've done

    The Template Barnstar
    Thanks for investing your time in improving infoboxes like the chembox and drugbox. You've added a lot of useful functionality to the drugbox since you started working on it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, appreciated :-) -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 14 April 2016

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Chembox Jmol/format displayed text

    I think "graph" is an incorrect word in standard English here. It's not quite any of the main meanings at Graph for example. It might be a "graphic", or a "diagram", or more precisely for this context a "structure". DMacks (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    @DMacks: Removing graph from this sounds good. Next, I don't think we should use interactive structure, because the structure is not interactive (one can not change that in Jmol). I think "graphic" is OK, possibly 3D model. Will play with it and then change something for sure. -DePiep (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    A barnstar for you!

    The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
    Thanks for fixing articles up via AWB Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Some stroopwafels for you!

    Thanks for cleaning up those infobox parameters! giso6150 (talk) 23:29, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks beaucoup!!! -DePiep (talk) 05:29, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I am confused

    No you are not. You are a BF liar.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

    I am confused, in one sentence you say "Jytdog was overstepping" suggesting that they should not have closed the RFC. In another sentence you say "You cannot edit a closed discussion" which seems to suggest that Jytdog's closure was valid?

    You have also not addressed the fact the Jytdog reverted their own closure. You do know that it is very much allowed for a person to reverse their own closure right?

    You said "you simply state that you support Jytdog just because you know him", but in fact I did not state anything of the sort.

    As for me mentioning involvement it was in response to you saying "Your edit was not in the background, it is part of discussions about that closure." which to me seemed to suggest you though I was involved.

    As for your comment suggesting that admins cover for each other, Jytdog is not an admin, so I don't see how I am protecting my fellow admins. I was simply interpreting a clear consensus of editors in a non-biased way.

    A lot of what you are saying does not have a basis in the facts of the situation. I am happy to take your concerns seriously, but for me to do so you need to make sure you make you concerns more clear to me. If you wish to carry on this discussion I am happy to despite the closure of the discussion at ANI. HighInBC 14:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DePiep&oldid=716654419"