User talk:DePiep/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, DePiep/Archive 1, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

---

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

• If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
• Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
• You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
• You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
• If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing!

Sorry, this is very late — the above links will probably all be be old hat to you. Welcome anyway! Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. -DePiep 14:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Nonsense song titles

Thanks for starting List of English songs whose title includes nonsense-words. I'd been offhandedly collecting some nonsense song titles against the possibility that such a list would spring into being. — Jeff Q (talk) 17:28, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Great. btw: My experience is that just starting a list is a good place to store any beginning collection. Here it grows wonderfully and wikifully. (I also started: List of songs containing the name of a ship, aircraft or spacecraft. With only three entries).

Now I'm gonna take a look. Bye, -DePiep 14:53, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Geoname Songs

Thank you very much for your hard work with the Dutch songs, you've done it much quicker than it would have taken me. Thryduulf 12:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Edits to List of songs over fifteen minutes in length

Hi. Your improvement attempts are appreciated, but please see its talk page about the big question of possible formats and further use of this page's raw data. For instance, your deleting the author on the first six entries for Klaus Schulze, or the Zappa entries, doesn't work with the proposal, nor most reuses of the list – even if a different line format is eventually choosen, a consistent list with all data (album, date, author) will be easier to automatically reformat to something else using regular expressions, macros, and/or scripts.

(Furthermore, I found out the list's original 'author' (initiator) User:Matharvest seems to have been on vacation all this time, so no real discussion about format has taken place yet.) ←^#6  _{talk 17:44, 26 May 2005 (UTC)}

I'll react on the talk page. Reverting all my edits in the article is OK.-DePiep 17:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

James Dignan

Hi De Piep - you wrote: Eh, someone put two songs by James Dignan -you know- in this list ;-). Could you check for the right links etc? btw, I trust your information on the existence of these songs. In 1996 I bought different music. Bye, -DePiep 17:04, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't me (but I think I can guess who :)! I've removed one (it was an instrumental) and disambiguated the other's location, but I wonder whether it should be there at all - it was released on an album, but wasn't exactly a big-seller. Grutness...wha?

All OK. My background info was scarce, but I'm, eh, proud I found these jewels. btw, the criteria do accept instrumentals, a title can stand by itself. I'm just trying to be correct to the facts & author. And now: shouldn't there be an article about James Dignan ;-)?

Heh. I have a "non-article" as a subpage of my user pages (at User:Grutness/Grutness non-article, which is as close as I feel comfortable with writing about myself in Wikipedia. Maybe someone will someday (This is not a hint! I don't think I'm notable enough yet! :) BTW, if you're putting "Outram no. 1" back on that page, it's about Outram, New Zealand (which is probably just a redlink at the moment). Grutness...wha?

I'll take a read overthere, and first learn something myself about this artist. I understand Outram can be put back, since we were talking a wiki-way. -DePiep 28 June 2005 14:43 (UTC)

User:Thryduulf/Geonamesongs

Thanks for pointing out it was still in the category - I'm suprised nobody (including me!) has spotted this before. I've removed it from the category:Lists of songs and category:Dynamic lists now. Thryduulf 17:39, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Lists of songs

I am writing because you contributed to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs. I have made a policy proposal at User:Wahoofive/Lists of songs and would welcome your comments. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

List of songs with geographical names

Thanks for the heads-up regarding this. Thryduulf 20:20, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

thanks for the tip

Omar's Dance Party

about the geographical song list. i just voted. When I get a smaller version I'll send you my non-sense song poster, sort of as my version of a Star or something. Carptrash 01:24, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I'd done the radio show before discovering the wikipedia "Nonesense" list - but used my play list to add more songs to it. I would never have found it if it had not been for your directing me to the geographical list vote - where I might have phrased my comment a bit . . differently. So thanks again. Carptrash PS know of a list of automobile songs?

Category:Unified Modeling Language

Hi DePiep. I noticed your "-cat UML" edit to Class diagram. Is [[Category:Unified Modeling Language]] going away? The Rod 21:57, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And: no, it's not going away, as for me. The cat:UML (shortened here) is the supercetagory. Then, this category has articles and subcategories Cat:UML Diagrams and Cat:UML tools. I think that an article should appear only once in such a Cat-tree. So I removed the top-cat from the article you mention. I understand it is policy (but I cannot give a rference; It's common practice on our Dutch wikipedia).

So, if you can agree, I could continu. Or else, I'll learn something. (It's just for lack of time that I did not alter all the UML-diagram articles.) -DePiep 19:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. I'm pretty sketchy about how to use categories. The system seems pretty arbitrary, but I am comfortable with your continued pruning. Thanks for the explanation. Peace! The Rod 20:02, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

This internet way of communication is going better and prettier per charchter. I go ahead(this English wikipedia is very fierce indeed, I hope you have another wiki-language too ;-). -DePiep 21:52, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

V-D-E

Is an easy feature. V = view template page, D = view talk page (discuss) and E = edit. This means someone does not have to use the search bar for the template if he uses the template on an article page. I'll put it back if you don't object. Sijo Ripa 22:23, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand (now). Still: only once per template (it was double). Make it nice, please. -DePiep 22:25, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's fixed. :-) What still bothers me is the people's and organization's collumns. In my opinion, they are less important than the conflict and diplomacy collumns. Nevertheless, they are considerable larger. We should either expand the last two collumns and/or decrease the first two because it really looks ugly and disproportional now. Sijo Ripa 22:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanx. Shortening columns? I do not agree. 'looking ugly' is no criterium for deleting/adding to a column. But if there are organisartions missing, in your eyes: go aheadd, for the reason of completeness ;-)

-DePiep 16:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

The point of being ugly is not what I meant. What I meant, is: should all less important actors be added? There are much more and the only thing you get is a link to the country, not an explanation about how they were important. We could do with only the primary actors (Israel, Arab world) The same for people: there are at least a dozen more important people, I think even much more than a dozen. Should they all be added? They don't add much value by themselves - while the last two collums do: you get very clear information about the conflict. Sijo Ripa 12:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

AFD discussion on a list of songs

• List of English songs whose title includes nonsense words (AfD discussion)

You contributed to the discussion when this subject came up at Wikipedia talk:Centralized discussion/Lists of songs. Please contribute to the AFD discussion. Uncle G 15:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Userspace pages

I moved your copies of deleted song-list pages to your userspace (for example, User:DePiep/Stuff). Please don't forget to include User: before creating such a page, or it becomes a page in the main article space. Thanks, NawlinWiki 17:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Think I get it, cannot see the older ones anymore. -DePiep 19:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Norman Finkelstein on From Time Immemorial

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norman Finkelstein on From Time Immemorial, regards, Huldra 18:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for translation

Hi, DePiep. The place to request a translation is Wikipedia:Translation. Just follow the instructions. Hope that helps.

Regards, --Carioca 22:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

UML State Machine Diagram

Hi DePiep. I've started to work through the UML diagram pages adding more detail of the semantics. See Use case diagram which is where I started. The next one I was going to do was State machine, however the inclusion of this inside the more general article, has confused me a bit. I'd really like to have a seperate page for the UML version given the added detail. It would seem right to leave the existing page and create a new one for the detail (cross linking appropreatly) and I'll include the UML templete in it. It would then seem right to remove the template from the existing general page. As you added it what do you think?

regards, FredThwaites 23:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Good plan, to separate the UML-specific article. Enjoy the works. And indeed it should take the template with it. The UML template should, preferrably, only use UML-specific articles (and only be used in these articles). I was surprised that most UML articles were very starting level, they really can be improved. But not by me± I started the template to learn UML basics...

-DePiep 11:27, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Speeches by Martin Luther King

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Speeches by Martin Luther King, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 03:14, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of speeches by Martin Luther King

I have nominated List of speeches by Martin Luther King, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of speeches by Martin Luther King. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:00, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Notice

Deleted. Untruthfull. Sniff the white phosphorus happy. -DePiep (talk) 20:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Please don't edit my user page

Dear DePiep,
I would appreciate it if you would not edit my user page. I do not edit your user page and I expect the same amount of respect from you. If you'd like to make a comment to me, you are more than welcome to use my talk page. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. --GHcool (talk) 06:31, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. You editing has been tendentious and disruptive, you have threatened another editor and stated that he should feel threatened. You have edited his user page (not talkpage) without his permission and as apparent relatiation for his report of your threat at WP:ANI. That behavior is not tolerated on WP. Your edit summaries seem to confirm that you have some strong biases and you should seriously consider whether you can edit in a NPOV way articles that get you so worked up. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

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:

RE You editing has been tendentious and disruptive, you have threatened another editor and stated that he should feel threatened. (A) Misquoted here: the full text says that he should feel threatened because he was losing the argument on the topic. Going off-topic, and misreading intentionally, is untruthfull. E.g. user User:Atlan added a usefull line on WP:ANI, which is unread and unused by the editors. You have edited his user page (not talkpage) without his permission (B) Well, first we do not need permission, the page is not owned. (C) Second: his Userpage is a blog, including and promoting political views, which is WP:UP#NOT. Since it is not a personal introduction, but a POV in Wikipedia-article style, I cannot see why, then, I cannot react to it. (D) Third: apparent relatiation: The content of the change is an argument, not vandalising. Given that my argument is to the point and related to a WP:UP#NOT-violating page, 'apparent' is something that does not belong here. That behavior is not tolerated on WP. As said, I cannot prevent someone from seeing 'apparent' things. Your edit summaries seem to confirm that you have some strong biases and you should seriously consider whether you can edit in a NPOV way articles that get you so worked up. As illustrated and stated here, the reading by the administrator is a bit unfavourable to my writing, and is skipping visible interpretations that would enlighten someones more problematic view. I take the liberty to stop or contiunue the discussion at will. I let the block expire. -DePiep (talk) 05:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Your message was meant to do nothing more inflame and disrupt. These are exactly the reasons you were blocked to begin with. I'm increasing your block to 72 hours. I suggest you look over WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA while you are away. Good day. — Trusilver 07:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

---

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.

RE: To be clear: I reacted seriously and extensively here to the remarks of User:Carlossuarez46, who at least read some of the material. This second block by User:Trusilver does not react to anyones statements anyway. Why talk then?
RE: I have stated on several points (A,B,C,D, added) to argument my statement that I was blocked without serious delibration. THAT is what I wrote and intended to write above. (E)

<\br>Now someone is blocking me for another time, without reacting to any of my my content. For example: no reaction to the WP:UP#NOT thing. So I am still accused of vandalism. I want it out.
RE: Trusilver: Please explain what do you mean by: "Your message was meant to do nothing more inflame and disrupt"? (Do we mis a word somewhere (like it means to say "more to inflame"?), don't worry, could happen to any chief justice). Now lets get serious again:

Maybe mr/mrs Trusilver did not read it carefully, but I want it to be read and reacted to more carefully. M/M Trusilver has not reacted to one single clearly written point. Why then should or how could I react seriously then? I could rephrase the same things, but being clear WILL block me more time.
I should not be reblocked for argumenting my case. Above I wrote an explicit and clear reason why I wrote such and so, and illustrating that the editor or administrator had misread and/or misinterpretated. THAT is what I wrote, above. If you expect me to say nothing to favor my own case - well - please say so (beforehand). If not: I am free to react here more so.

If someone else reads it like it is "you are infalaming" (without clearifying)) - well, I am only making my case. So the reader (Wikipedia-administrator?) may be too sensitive to judge. Then, please, leave it to someone else.
To be sure: if this reaction leads to anothor (unqualified) blocking, I will withdraw anyting I said or wrote in my whole life. I will even deny being born. As I wrote before: I do not seek unblocking, nor extra blocking. I want my contributions to be read and taken saeriously. Even by contestants. -DePiep (talk) 23:25, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

And afterwards I read this: [[1]]. User:Carlossuarez46 is calles Carlos by Trusilver? Are you friends then? Thank you, Carlos. ThuranX and Yes, thank you, Carlos. In the end User talk:GHcool drops by to thank everyone. Nice community. How are you knowing he's Carlos?
. Next question: where do I read be not obnoxious, unapologetic?, when I'm not wrong and only argumenting unblocking? Also, it is incorrect that I should read these friendlinesses (between other persons, excluding me), without knowing about. If all of you want to force me into excuses or someting without proper reading - please leave this site forever. Your behaviour is like a bunch of liars. Mind the word bunch. -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Your unblock request was not a request so much as it was a statement that you intend to go on doing exactly what you have been doing. I most definitely did read all of the posts which led up to your block and beyond. I went back a month or so into your history on an edit by edit basis and quite a bit beyond that into projectspace talk page histories. What I see is a sustained pattern of incivility so bad that I'm frankly amazed that you have never been blocked up to this point. You are consistently unwilling to take responsibility for your own actions even in the most modest sense of the word. 99% of editors on Wikipedia are somehow able to edit peacefully with others without almost daily bouts of personal attacks and insults, I suggest you use the final 24 hours of your block to figure out how you are going to do the same. Failure to do so will result in further blocks. WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA aren't helpful hints that you can feel free to ignore whenever you feel like it. IF you feel that this is something that you can accomplish, then make it known and I will unblock you immediately. Trusilver 06:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you User:Trusilver for answering this carefully. No reply nor now nor here. -DePiep (talk) 23:00, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Editing my comments

You have edited my comments here[2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:46, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

A horrible mistake! Cannot edit well now (mobile only), but pls understand this was a copy/paste error. DePiep (talk) 03:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for finishing that up. The wonderlic is messed up though. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

WikiOriginal-9: Which article is broken? --DePiep (talk) 00:17, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Look at the template documentation at Template:NFL predraft. The note doesn't stretch to the very end where the wonderlic is. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

I've refreshed (purged) that /doc page. Don't see any problem. Do warn me if real articles are broken. -DePiep (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)-DePiep (talk) 00:24, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

See Josh McCown, The wonderlic part has nothing below it. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:30, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Fixed (but hey, that's wrong but not broken really ;-) )-~~