User talk:DePiep

		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)

Template:CatSucceeding

DePiep, I went back a couple of versions with Template:CatSucceeding because it was broken at the pages that used it. It seems to be working now, although whether the documentation will catch up after a server lag, or whether that needs more fixing, I don't know. Perhaps you can fix what I've stuck a plaster over? Yours, Shem (talk) 23:03, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Restored old one with bugfix -DePiep (talk) 10:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Tirhuta

If you are interested in adding Unicode encoding proposals to script articles, there's always this. -- Evertype·✆ 10:28, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Great link, thank you. Describing a proposal here on WP is a bit difficult for me, since I'm not familiar with any writing system's backgrounds. First and only thing I did is to remove code points from the infobox (Tirhuta, Khoj), because these code points are not allocated. Full stop. Any proposed allocation could very well be described in the text indeed, but should not be published here as being "almost" in Unicode. So they are well separated in Category:Unicode proposals. Is my opinion, I thought you are with me in this. -DePiep (talk) 10:52, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Armenian dram sign

I replicated the bars on the right and put them on the left side too. See these variations I made:

• Image 1 (PNG)
• Image 2 (PNG)

I failed to open Image 1 and Image 2, is there any other way to see them? Nrahehinak (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Which one of them is the closest to the original sign? – ∃ Aditya 7  ¦  17:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I like the sharp pointed lines, but a stylist might ask for the square. I'll leave it up to you (if you don't want to flip an Armenian coin to decide: follow the {{Indian Rupee}}-example might be good). Then, it is to be used in-line too, as a text character (font emulation). Don't you think thinner lines would render it more readable? Or is it just my screen &tc. See e.g. {{currency signs}}, and Armenian dram sign. Do as you think good, an overwrite is OK, I'm at the end of my knowlegde in this :-) -DePiep (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

up to me slightly thinner lines are preferable Nrahehinak (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Wait, unless you have already proceeded. The Armenian alphabet has a distinctive way of writing, using a sort of calligraphy pen. If the dram sign does not style-copy that (as is now), I suggest you stick with the square variant. (Using sharp pointed bars would break style with the regular alphabet). -DePiep (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

a variety of free designs to comform to various font styles are welcome, the sharp pointed bars remind bars, for instance, of euro sign. Calligraphy is not mandatory: there are already a number of font styles with the dram sign since Granshan'2008 competition.Nrahehinak (talk) 12:00, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Alright, I'll try to make the lines a bit thinner. – ∃ Aditya 7  ¦  08:28, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

I suggest we continu this at Talk:Armenian dram sign#Graphic image. -DePiep (talk) 09:50, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Re: Editprotected

I've replied to you on my talk page and at Template talk:IPAsym, however your request is declined. Editprotected is not used for unprotection requests, we need you to provide us with details of the changes you'd like made. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:38, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you here, currently I am replying at that talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

(Reply to your most recent comment) Um, I'm sorry if I've offended you in some way, but I am trying to be helpful here. Yes, it is a sockpuppeteer, and yes, we have so far been unable to stop them due to a little inconvenience called proxies. As I'm sure you know as an active editor, Wikipedia is continually being worked on, and we would appreciate your help, especially with complicated templates such as this. As I've explained, I am uncomfortable removing the protection at this time, however you are welcome to set up a sandbox for the template, make your changes there, and let me or another administrator know when they are done. We can then copy the changes over, crediting you with the edit summary. I really am trying to be as cooperative as possible here while maintaining the security of the site, as is my responsibility. I do not appreciate the aggressive tone you're taking, as I don't feel that I've deserved it. I've been civil throughout this entire discussion, and I'd appreciate receiving some civility in turn. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:20, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

You are right. My disappointment & not understanding went too far. Thank you for this reply & other actions. -DePiep (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Tables (Length vs readability)

If a table is over 3 or so screens in length it is difficult to follow which column relates to what in the heading of the table having to scroll up and down. And with the numerous additions in the Unicode 6.1 (draft) the scrolling is that much harder.
So I split the table into three parts BMP/SMP/SSP so an user can show/hide he separate parts/planes. I'm having trouble staying connected to the internet & couldn't verify the table's notes were still working ok :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkouklis (talk • contribs) 03:15, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

The Notes are OK. I've readjusted minor stuff, some more needed. -DePiep (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Template:Dynamic list

Hi, The change you made to the Dynamic List template this morning appears to have had an undesired effect and is only showing {{{1}}}. I have reverted this edit for now, but would you be able to have a look at it, as I assume the edit was important? Thanks, Glanis^Talk 07:19, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, noticed. reverted {{inc-lit}} too. Weird templates. -DePiep (talk) 07:20, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

todo

note to myself Voiceless palatal lateral fricative -DePiep (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2011 (UTC) - check soundfile name vowel turned omega -DePiep (talk) 15:10, 15 July 2011 (UTC) More on [[

R with tail]].-DePiep (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Italics

Italics within italics are usually set in normal type. The names should be left as-is to set them off from the italic text, since they're words as words. —Designate (talk) 22:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

They do not show so in the hatnote (using rellink or dablink). -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Check again, they did until you changed them. Designate (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

The name is Name, not Name.

I'll check & revert. -DePiep (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Done. While we're at it, should we change "quotes" into these italics, as in {{Philippine name}}? -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be better. —Designate (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Going -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Gone. -DePiep (talk) 09:30, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Discussing Congo (country) redirect

I posted a comment at Talk:Congo#Many_incoming_links_from_a_country_Congo suggesting a change to the redirect page Congo (country). I can see you had put in some work on this before, I'd like to get your thoughts on my suggestion. Thanks! LarryJeff (talk) 16:36, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Template edit

No, nothing specific; it's simply that I'm not very good with templates, so I wouldn't know if something small had gone wrong. Nyttend (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:ISO 15924

Throw away banned user. -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Change to the template

I made the change to the template, please check the results, as I am not particularly conversant with IPA--SPhilbrickT 11:51, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

It is fine, thank you. -DePiep (talk) 12:09, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

question about capitalization

What is the reason for changing "{{Infobox Writing system" to "{{Infobox writing system" as you did here? —Coroboy (talk) 10:49, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

There is no reason, shouldn't have saved that one. I was in a sweep of cleaning up WLH pages of that template, partly by AWB, preparing for the use of ISO 15924 alpha-4 code. -DePiep (talk) 11:06, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

{{ISO 15924/wp-name}}

Hello. I don't know exactly what you've changed in the template, but it seems to have damaged the userbox's work with some parameters, one demonstrative variant being here. Please, try to fix this soon. I was going to look into the technical details, however I expect you to find the breach faster and don't want to spoil anything else. Thanks. --Microcell (talk) 21:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll take a look into it. -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like this has been solved or you still see anything wrong? --Microcell (talk) 21:49, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Let's say it's OK now (Byzantine it is; I'll dive into it some day). Maybe you'd like to clean that sandbox page, these Categories are working again, too ;-).

No delete request!

I have restored User:DePiep/sandbox9 but look at it man - it is covered with speedy tags. I presume they are being trancluded from another page. Investigate and fix fastish. — [[::User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] (talk · contribs) 11:28, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

To explain

Under the policy of WP:DENY, sockpuppets of banned users have their contributions reverted or deleted on sight, immediately. This is done because when Wikipedia's community bans someone, it bans them properly; to allow them to contribute, directly or indirectly, would completely undermine the entire point of bans in the first place. As such, Wikipedia:CSD#G5 allows for the speedy deletion (note the emphasis) of "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block, and which have no substantial edits by others". Now, it is certainly true that this allows for exceptions where substantial edits are made, but you have not made such edits to these pages, and furthermore admit that you have no evidence or recollection of making substantial contributions. Your edits, varying from template to template, consist of things like "removing whitespaces" and "moving the template code to another page and including that one instead". These are not "substantial" edits.

To address the points you brought up at DRV, you wrote that you are seeking WP:DRV because you did not find my response constructive. This is not a criteria for DRV; DRV is for when you have real grounds to believe that the deletion was improper, under the deletion criteria, which you admitted you did not have. Your reasoning was that I:

1. did not check for usage of the template,
2. did not act to solve that graciously beforehand,
3. may have wrongly claimed there are "no substantial edits" as per db-g5,
4. the declining editor starts wikilawyering without helping to keep or reproduce good templates at all

In order; on your first and second points, there is absolutely no requirement to check for template usage, nor to "graciously" do so before deletion. Speedy deletion is precisely what it says - speedy; after the article has been tagged, the deleting administrator is not required or expected to consult with anyone else until after the fact if people raise a fuss. Your third point is perfectly valid, although I note that you did not actually bring it up when discussing it with me (and indeed, I never directly "claimed" anything). As for your fourth point... WP:WIKILAWYERING, which is an essay, notes that a Wikilawyer is someone who interprets the letter of the rules in violation of the spirit, and that "Wikipedia policies and procedures should be interpreted with common sense to achieve the purpose of the policy". That is precisely what I did - the purpose of the policy was to deny publicity to banned users, and I denied publicity. Accusing me of wikilawyering smacks of either a failure to understand what the term means, or simply a complete disregard for the principle of WP:AGF, a core pillar of Wikipedia. If it is the former, I would urge you to actually read the essay (particularly the line "In any case an accusation of wikilawyering is never a valid argument per se, unless an explanation is given why particular actions may be described as wikilawyering"). If it is the latter, I would ask that you desist from making statements like "the user is wikilawyering" and putting words in my mouth, and instead extend the common courtesy of starting from the presumption that I had good reasons for my actions. Ironholds (talk) 11:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)