User talk:DePiep

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 8 as User talk:DePiep/Archive 7 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 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]

	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. — 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]

THIS today is edit #50000 by DePiep on en:WP.
-DePiep (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

re Bamyers99. Dammit. (Background: in Cacodyl a closing }} was removed unintended, together with |ExactMass=... [1]. Reinserted now [2]). I'll fix these. Do you have a way to list all of them? -DePiep (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

ISO 15924 codes updated

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

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 " " OR " " OR "" 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 , 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 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)[reply]

BU Rob13: I'd check the parameters that usually have 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Oops, forgot I had it archived: [3]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

(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)[reply]

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

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"[4] (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)[reply]

Decline reason:

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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:

Was Alakzi's contributions to discussion sufficient to gain a pass?
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [5] on what they can read themselves). -DePiep (talk) 06:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Accept reason:

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Railgauge

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

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)[reply]

You did. [7]. -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

Gentleman may I ask what is going on? Looking here [8] 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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

@Doc James:, Thank you Doc. As far as I know, I added text on and off this afternoon, so it was in this state: [9] 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 [10], and the diff, [11]. 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: [12]

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)[reply]

@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).[reply]

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

You understand that you are discussing this in the presence of an Administrator? I advise you self-edit, and delete the last comment. You can delete this one of mine also, if you delete the expletive. I advise it for your own sake. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:41, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]