User talk:DePiep

User:DePiep/wkbounce

		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. — Æµ§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. Van Isaac_WS^contribs 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]

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

Your graph on Uus

Could you do a similar one for me on Uut, taking the Tl and 113 columns instead? It should look like the other one on Uus. Thanks in advance. Double sharp (talk) 12:04, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Any extras to make it more sayfull? (colors, grouping, ...) -DePiep (talk) 10:47, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They probably won't be necessary. Double sharp (talk) 13:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uus graph once again

The current version has a huge mistake I failed to notice any earlier. The energy in the original work is given in au, which corresponds to a unit called "hartree," which in return is equal to 27.211 eV. We need to have it corrected. The easy way out would be simply saying it is in hartrees, but I'd love you to draw new lines to get an electronvolt picture. Say, with two eV being a difference detween the neighboring lines. I'd love simply because it is a more common unit. And we have it in the text. Can this be done?--R8R Gtrs (talk) 19:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we can. File:Valence nsnp atomic energy levels for group 13 and 17 atoms.svg. So, the vertical scale changes into different units (while the element value relative positions are the same). Like miles and kilometers. Now what is the ratio? And what is the exact vertical text (now: Atomic energy (eV))? -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can use hartree. Still, please be specific. -DePiep (talk) 20:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the energy levels should stay where they are, and the lines should move. Just like kilometers and miles, yes. The ratio's 1 hartree = 27.211 electronvolts. The current vertical text can probably be simplified: "Energy (eV)". The word "atomic" seems somewhat redundant to me. I don't want hartrees only because this unit is less common.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:35, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All fine, but if the unit is hartree, we should say so: "hartree (symbol: Eh or Ha)" (source: WP). Now who of us is the scientist ;-) ? -DePiep (talk) 20:43, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't understand this one. If the source says, "15.1 miles away," we are fine to say, "24.3 kilometers away" instead. The two mean exactly the same. "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."--R8R Gtrs (talk) 20:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If the vertical scale numbers are changed from "-1" into "-27.211", the vertical text cannot be Energy (eV). It should be like Energy (Eh). (of course, I'll change the notches to be rounded Eh numbers). When we write Eh units and numbers, the text must be "Eh". -DePiep (talk) 21:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We have the Eh numbers right now (mislabeled). We can therefore either label it Eh (an easy, but not the best way out, given the unit isn't used often) or we (you) can change the values to actual eV values. But since the scale -2.721...-5.422...8.163 would seem a little weird, I ask you to draw the lines those would correspond to -2...-4...-6, etc. (or -2.5...-5...-7.5, it's not the point).--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First (please read this carefully): which unit do you want, and how is it identified?

electronvolt eV
hartree E_h
hartree Ha

-DePiep (talk) 21:32, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Electronvolts, I want them in the end.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. So the unit is, and text will say "eV".

Then the numbers are wrong? "-1" should be "-27.211"? (Again, I will rearrange them, but let's get the fact right)

-DePiep (talk) 21:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 21:56, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Eh, WP is not exploding when I postpone this a day, is it? Or else please warn Florida. -DePiep (talk) 22:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I don't think anyone has even noticed the problem (at least, none has complained). Thanks for your help.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 22:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notified Double sharp. Here above, he asked a similar graphic for Tl and 113. -DePiep (talk) 22:22, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer the Tl/113 one to be consistent with the At/117 one. Double sharp (talk) 02:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -09:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Another thing. Vertical text would be: Energy (eV). But "energy" (quantity) is not expressed in "Volt"s. Please propose the good wording (for eV, here). -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Energy is expressed in many units, incl. electronvolts (while volts are a measure of another quantity, voltage). It's like that time can be expressed in years, while light years are a measure of distance, rather than time.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 08:10, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

All right then. -DePiep (talk) 09:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Continued at Talk:Ununseptium#Drawing. -DePiep (talk) 12:20, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

File:Electron affinity of the elements.svg

Please correct "Astanine" to "Astatine" and "Flourine" to "Fluorine". Also, do you think it would be better to change "H" to "Hydrogen" for consistency? Double sharp (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. My spelling check is something to worry about. -DePiep (talk) 11:46, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think this image would look nicer/less crowded with element symbols rather than full names, thank you DiPiep Sandbh (talk) 22:55, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Will change that. You think the Z numbers are helpful the way I did them? -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think so. Double sharp (talk) 02:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto; clever too. I just noticed that the EA minimums, apart from the first period, actually start with the alkaline earths rather than the alkali metals. I need to check that reference to see if it did in fact refer to the alkali or alkaline earth metals. Sandbh (talk) 11:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see: there is a spike with He-Li-Be, and that returns each period. Let me know if something is to be changed. -DePiep (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you would do an electron affinity in kilojoules, please? I'm interested in using it in an article and in the next edition of my text (with attribution) Geoff Chemist — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geoff Chemist (talk • contribs) 18:17, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean: a different scale on the left-hand side? eV into kilojoules? I can do that. Please note the ratio. DePiep (talk) 22:08, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Chemist (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2012 (UTC)Yes, please, kilojoules per mole would be great! Thank you. Geoff Chemist[reply]

re: about yesterday

Your apology is more than accepted. I also admit I was a little (too) rough with the F bomb. I do not mean the picture I use for my page as an attack on good editors such as yourself IN ANY WAY (which I also saw later that you were a good sincere editor) and my apologies if you construed it as aggression. I use it to deter vandalism on my page (especially with them vandalizing it after I reverted hundreds of their edits in a row with stiki at one time), and it is specifically aimed toward those who do such. I had to have my page protected by Ged UK because of the vandalism it was getting.

Can I buy you a beer? Thebestofall007 (talk) 23:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Expanded Janet Periodic table

I want to compliment you on your effort to correct the presentation of the Janet periodic table in a format that best represents the organization of the succession of accumulation processes that resulted in the creation of the atomic nuclei. You have also helped greatly to better understand the significant differences between it and the IUPAC table. I would also like to call to your attention a feature that can be shown in the Janet table that relates to the nuclear structure in that it further subdivides the element groups into smaller 2 element and 4 element subdivisions in accordance with my contribution on this subject matter in the article Talk:Charles Janet. This noted grouping organization process further indicates the existence of an organized process of nucleon accumulation as being in action during these chaotic atomic building periods. The subdivisions of the groups is also related to structural features of the atomic nuclei.WFPM (talk) 00:08, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. And sorry, I cannot change the Janet PT, I don't know enough. Probably should be agreed upon on a talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 15:29, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the Talk:Charles Janet article. But you improved the situation by getting it into the Periodic Table article, because more people will pay attention to it there. I hope.WFPM (talk) 16:30, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It never ceases to amaze me as to how the substance of the Wikipedia articles gets shaped by the 2 types of contributers, namely 1, interested and opinionated contributers to the subject matter, and 2, relatively disinterested contributers who are interested in the organization of the presentation. I keep thinking about the quoted phrase "out of the mouth of babes comes wisdom!" and I hope that the prediction of the phrase comes true.WFPM (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Panama Canal Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page TEU (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:25, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NavPeriodicTable again

Hello DePiep. Could you try to get the {{NavPeriodicTable}} to use "." for the superactinides that are ripped out of the main table instead of ".."? When changing the periodic table I couldn't figure out how to change it to "." without completely messing up the alignment of the groups. Double sharp (talk) 14:07, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done. (First took out one whole <div ... /> that was the righthand dot, then widen~ed the horizontal padding around the dot to 2px le&ri so the cell is 6px (2+2+2; from 1+2+1+2+0) wide as all others). Pls notify when something does not look good. My browser shows OK. -DePiep (talk) 14:43, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! It looks very good. Double sharp (talk) 07:52, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Fuck off. We both know. You patronise me. -DePiep (talk) 00:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

template:logical symbols

Care to explain? The change in output was negligible, save for a massive cleanup of the main table (which used dead cells for positioning, something that was discouraged in 1997). Did I miss something? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 02:07, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes output was the same, but organisation helped/you rmoved. Templates get messy, and these commnets helped overview. I what I meant. -DePiep (talk) 02:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So you reverted a complete overhaul of the code because I removed some HTML comments? That's not in the least bit productive. This code is a train wreck of old copy-paste and when properly simplified it shouldn't need comments. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:14, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're rigth. I did self rv. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 16:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Coetzee pron

Thanks so much for fixing that! I kept tinkering with it, trying to get it to show the correct stress, and finally gave up, hoping someone else who knew better would come along. I'm relieved it happened! Languagehat (talk) 16:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. So the template documentation was not not helpful (or didn't you see)? Anyway, the page was in a tracking category because illogic capitalisation was detected. -DePiep (talk) 16:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]