Jump to content

User talk:DePiep

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by TerpeneOtto (talk | contribs) at 23:46, 27 December 2016 (added a thank you). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

    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]

    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. -~~

    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]

    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]

    [1]

    Wow!

    Thanks Sandbh and R8R Gtrs for this great notification! Hurray for Eric Scerri.

    At the moment I am blocked. All in all, I expect our Periodic table science will not be damaged :-) Please Sandbh, keep mr. Scerri informed about our disputes (re group 3 etc). -DePiep (talk) 21:49, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    File:First Ionization Energy.svg

    Hi, could I request a version of this with the "option 10" (polyatomic-diatomic nonmetal) colours? (And could we check and update the ionisation energies against the NIST values, thus going up to element 108 instead of 103?) Double sharp (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, I will do so. Could be in a week or so if that's all right. -DePiep (talk) 08:50, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, no problem! Double sharp (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Halfway now. Checked and adjusted a dozen to the NIST figures you linked (These are OK, right?). -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Welcome back

    Hope all is well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:33, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 4 November 2016

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for fixing them! A while ago I excised all the uncited data about predicted decays when it became clear that they were not actually supported by anything other than calculation of positive energy release. Obviously, I didn't use enough care on this because I was more concerned on getting it back to what was known rather than predicted; so thank you ever so much for cleaning up the mess I seem to have inadvertently made! Double sharp (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for these warm words. Nice to read them. And again read them.
    As I experience, our ELEMENTS home team (you Ds, R8R, Sandbh, YBG, DePiep, some more) is a great, open wikiteam. Discussions take a huge tremendously, enormous, excessively huge amount of time & space, but that is why our enwiki is so great in WP:ELEMENTS (especially in my our periodic table).
    I can compare this with my work in {{Chembox}} (chemicals, 10k articles). OK, that's plain chemistry. But still: talks are more difficult there. And then I mention: {{Infobox drug}} (6k), I also do develop. There the medics show up! Those discussions are less fruitive, I can say.
    I enjoy working with you. It is stimulating. -DePiep (talk)

    The Signpost: 4 November 2016

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    tasmanian railway articles

    most started by self, better to come straight to me rather than leaving questions at talk pages that no one ever goes to.

    which line which era and which gauge issue due you want to clarify ? (it was imperial measurement - ie ft and inches) JarrahTree 12:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    JarrahTree A talkpage reaches all people who have the article on their watchlist. Sure, if I'd have to dig deeper I'd could find your name & go to your talkpage.
    Now the question was about the "912 mm" track gauge. As I described at Talk:Melba Line, I could answer it (that gague not found in source Fenton). If you do know a source for this gauge, please add it. (All this from developing the {{Track gauge}} definitions). -DePiep (talk) 12:54, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I must apologize for that awfully written editsummary! No wonder I created confusion ;-) -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    nah never apologise
    sorry - some tasmanian articles dont get replied for 6 months or so, believe me...

    also sorry, this horrible laptop keys didnt help my reading of your melba line issue... and reverting, I have reverrted myself The Emu bay railway (melba line aka) was always 3' 6" standard tasmanian gauge - nothing else, as it tied in with the Tasmanian lines in Burnie and in Zeehan, it was never another gauge - if there was a predecessor horse hauled, I have no idea of its gauge at this point JarrahTree 13:08, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    All clear & clean now then. -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Lists of pages/Articles

    Hi, you created this very list last year. I find it very useful to track changes to articles belonging to this project, so I was looking into updating it. However, I don't see how you got this humongous list, can you tell me your secret? :-) Thanks! --Randykitty (talk) 12:58, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


    • I'll do it right now.

    This is how:

    1. Category:Academic Journal articles by quality (+subcategories) has all talkpages with template {{WikiProject Academic Journals}}.
    2. I use WP:AWB (wikibrowser on windows; editing with AWB requires access, but iirc everyone can install it for read-only).
    3. AWB reads all those subcategories (=list of talkpages)
    4. delete all non-Talk pages (no templates etc)
    4. undouble and then save that list in wikiformat: [[talk:pagename]]
    5. use list option 'turn all into non-talkpage' (=article)
    6. save this list too
    7. enter both lists in Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Lists of pages/Articles
    Voila.
    Alt method
    (Did not try this myself, but looks simpeler):

    WP:PETSCAN is an in-wiki category lister.

    -DePiep (talk) 13:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I used WP:PETSCAN this time.. much easier. Extra afterwork needed: the list gives talkpages, so had to do find&replace [[Talk: → [[ in textprocessor. Tried to make you a link , but that didn't work today. Maybe later. -DePiep (talk) 14:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Category:Articles that mention a specific track gauge has been nominated for discussion

    Category:Articles that mention a specific track gauge, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. 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. Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikidata

    I am not happy to have the infoboxes pull much from Wikidata. There are simply too many issues. For example the medications it lists for pneumonia are "simvastatin, ticagrelor, aztreonam, cholecalciferol, prednisone, sucralfate, acetylcysteine, sparfloxacin"[3]

    And what makes it worse is that this was added in Apr of 2016 by a bot[4]

    Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree, and the reversal of my edit is OK. I was just testing/discovering Wikidata. -DePiep (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi there, just wanted to send a note that if you'd like to coordinate more directly on the WP/WD interface, we would welcome it! We have a team of 4 or so people where this is at least part of their day job. We have monthly team calls, as well as a real-time hipchat room. If you'd like to be included in either, just let me know. (also an invitation to Doc James or anyone else interested.) Of course, continued interactions through the normal WD/WP channels is just fine as well... Best, Andrew Su (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    How many data ...

    Re your "how many data can the infobox have?", it occurs to me that it might be useful to split the element infobox into one main box that goes at the top of the lede, and other(s) that could go at the top of the appropriate section(s). Just a thought. I'm not sure it would work out, but thought I'd mention it to you, for if anyone had an idea of whether it would work and whether it would be useful, it would the master of WP:ELEMENTS' infoboxes, DePiep! All the best. YBG (talk) 01:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, this is nice reading :-) While building these split boxes sure is an issue, agreeing on the information presentation is higher level. We would need more site-design input. (think wikimedia people). Also, I know it is difficult to convince lots of people... Won't happen in 2016 then. -DePiep (talk) 09:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Help

    Nice awards. Could you paste the code for a negative sign? I don't want to use the hyphen anymore. Thanks. TerpeneOtto (talk) 16:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Thats − → − compare - (hyphen)
    The wiki editbox has "Advanced, Special characters" dropdown box with click-to-insert symbols.
    Of course, no need to be perfect first time, someone might come along afterwards.
    -DePiep (talk) 16:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    A few quick questions, Can I recommend a page for partial protection? the acid-base titration page is exactly what the average reader is looking for. It has really nice graphics and it would be a shame if someone changed it. I still want editors to be able to link more complex pH ideas and calculations to the page though.

    In the future if I wrote a page on the calculations of concentration from a pH titration would you be able to review it? I also want to publish a page on calculating the dipole moment of molecules using the dielectric constant and refractive index (clearly an advanced topic). I'm not sure if your familiar with physical chemistry ideas or not but I would appreciate your help and input.

    Thanks for your time, TerpeneOtto (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    Will reply tomorrow. Now I am working on teh Mag sus in element infoboxes. -DePiep (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    DePiep Thanks so much for your modification to the element boxes for magnetic susceptibility. All the data I have available to me is published in the chem. boxes and the element boxes! Thanks again for your time. TerpeneOtto (talk) 23:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    remarks by CFCF

    You realize you simply reverted what was a moved space, as well as a minor color change in the template? There was no change in functionality whatsoever. That borders on disruptive, and the fact that you introduced multiple controversial changes without discussion bars you from making the argument that every (even extremely minor) change needs to be discussed. Please be advised that such deliberate disruptive action is not allowed per WP:OWN. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    CFCF: this is called WP:BRD. If you are reverted you start a discussion on the talk page. Hopefully then DePiep will explain in more detail which part of the edits they oppose and why. I don't see this "warning" as appropriate. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) MSGJ, you may not be aware of the full extent of DePiep's behaviour when it comes to these edits in various infoboxes. He has increasingly been called out for violating WP:OWN, contesting every edit others make while hardly ever explaining his own edits before (or even after) performing them. On its own this action would not have been cause for warning, but as part of a larger pattern it most assuredly is. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:50, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    If there is a pattern, then perhaps you should start a discussion at WP:AN. Such behaviour would be grounds for removing the template editor user right. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I still find that DePiep does good work, and hold a hope that there are more diplomatic solutions available, which is why I've so far chosen not to file a report (and hope that I do not need to). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • As MSGJ says, BRD. Also you, Carl, are not to escalate this into unfounded personal attacks and aspesions. I stand by my reversal, its editsummary (you were experimenting in mainspace, Carl). And the latest stable version was discussed at length. I ignore the "warning". And I point out that your claim to have made the right edit without allowing critique can be read as OWN. Carl, I may not accept any more rants this way. -DePiep (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • CFCF Carl. Some description of what I did and a serious question.
    First, I disagree with the new grey colors introduced. Sure the existing ones may be improved, but this change just was not it (too light one). And I would not call it a 'minor' color change as you did here. So this is my true objection to your effective edits, my reversing was not trivial. No reason to use the word "disruptive" for this. Quite simple: you could have used the sandbox etc.
    Second, "the fact that you introduced multiple controversial changes without discussion"??? I don't know what or when you are talking about. What kept you from starting a talk for those situations? "... bars you from making the argument", "such deliberate disruptive action". "the full extent of DePiep's behaviour". "increasingly been called out for violating WP:OWN, contesting every edit others make while hardly ever explaining his own edits before (or even after) performing them. On its own this action would not have been cause for warning, but as part of a larger pattern it most assuredly is". Carl, these are unacceptable accusations and wild remarks. I request that you either substantiate them, or withdraw them.
    As you were told, the process is plain BRD. It's just, your remarks here are not an invitation for a talk.
    Last time we met was in this discussion about this very same template. It has 58 posts, in over 5 days. What 'without discussion' do you mean? -DePiep (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    You've introduced edits that were opposed as well as those that were not discussed in addition to the very minor change that was discussed. I have now given a good rational for why black text on a gray background is a horrible idea, and why we either should change the color or at the very least use a much lighter gray. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 04:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    CFCF: You've introduced edits that were opposed as well as those that were not discussed: wrong. All edits were announced and demo'ed by sandbox in the testcases page. And all this was supported correctly. And pls take a look at your own contributions there.
    You are adding more false accusations. -DePiep (talk) 08:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    The Signpost: 22 December 2016

    * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DePiep&oldid=756969123"