User talk:DePiep/Archive 4

Talk evasion by User:Rich Farmbrough

Copied from RF Talk page

Talk or harrass You chose harrass? Meh. Rich Farmbrough, 13:20, 20 October 2010 (UTC). This is no talking, Rich. This is where I wrote on the talk page. Copied from User Talk:Rich Frambrough archive. Unedited. Both sections archived without reply and within hours of last posting. -DePiep (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC) [1] like (edit conflict):::::::Hey, that is external! You are cheating. I am just discovering Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. Anthroponymy. Never met this project. -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC) [2] where you archive several thread unanswered,the post a threat on my page? Except that the threads of yours that I archived were personal attacks, something you are quite noted for reading your talk page archives. Why not be a nice guy? Rich Farmbrough, 08:23, 22 October 2010 (UTC). Rich Farmbrough: sure I have had my wrongs. You could have pointed them earlier, not after wards. Now please look: your reply on this was this. To me an insulting attitude. Could be that is why I took a deeper look. -DePiep (talk) 19:58, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Hm... I am afraid you are a mystery man to me. You say that I don't know what I am doing, and I quote a line from Threepenny Opera. To me you are doing the insulting there, I am merely humming a tune. Rich Farmbrough, 01:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC). So, I asked a question, and for an answer you start humming. Y'honor: noah moah quests. -DePiep (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC) Missing the point - this is not a court of law, it is not a battleground or a playground. It is an encyclopedia. Coming to my talk pages and being repeatedly uncivil, running around me over Wikipedia shows to me that you want it to be a playground or a battleground. That's fine, go and find some like-minded individuals. I am neither playing nor fighting. I am working. please let me get on with it. Rich Farmbrough, 03:24, 24 October 2010 (UTC). Missing the point ... yes you are. Your reply, I linked to, said: "Could that someone... be Mack the Knife?" Which is uncivil, and probably a trigger. By the way, a nice escape you got by not reading this section title as a question. And here you write "Missing the point": again allowing the you-or-me escape. Smart, like. Now if there is no real talk here, I will close this thread and throw it away (yes I know). -DePiep (talk) 00:28, 25 October 2010 (UTC) Reference templates are messed up now I think your edit here may have caused a glitch in the template. It now displays like this on all pages where it is used. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:22, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Yes. The way the template now displays in article space is not the same as it appears on the template page. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:25, 19 October 2010 (UTC) As Rich appears to have logged off I have made an request at ANI as the template is fully protected. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 20:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC) I reverted your edit to the template for purely technical reasons. Feel free to reinsert what you were doing without accidentally breaking the template. :) --Conti|✉ 20:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Thanks all. Rich Farmbrough, 21:55, 19 October 2010 (UTC). Turns out someone broke Findsources, and that there was some previous discussion on this. Rich Farmbrough, 22:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC). {{Findsources}} was last edited some two weeks before you made these edits (Is it still broken then?). To me this implicates you did not take a look at the effects. No sandbox, no testing, no aftercheck in article space. Also, I cannot relate "some previous discussion" to these actions. Did you see that (undisclosed) discussion, and acted according to its outcome? Did you miss that discussion, and does it in hindsight have implications for your intention in this? Whichever way, quite obfuscating explanation here. And since you are at a template-maintenance level that can unprotect-protect templates, could you also maintain the /documentation? -DePiep (talk) 07:24, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Category:All accuracy disputes [3] I've undeleted Category:All accuracy disputes, which you deleted as an "empty category" as it has several hundred entries and is populated by a template - {{Self published}}. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 21:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC) Yes, thanks. It was empty, but someone who didn't know what they were doing tampered. Rich Farmbrough, 21:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC). Could that "someone" be you? How come you saw an empty cat? -DePiep (talk) 09:50, 20 October 2010 (UTC) Could that someone... be Mack the Knife? Rich Farmbrough, 10:33, 20 October 2010 (UTC). Rather attributing blame, could we just please ensure that whatever process caused the cat to be deleted is fixed. —Sladen (talk) 10:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC) I was looking into that, Sladen, but RF's evasiveness was not helpfull. (Also, there is another "someone" Richard introduces, and has moved to Archive quite fast. This someone has not been found yet). This is what happened: 17:52, 14 October 2010 [4], Template:Selfpublished(edit talk links history): RF rm link to Category:All accuracy disputes from code. es:remove "all..." cats, cut down on category clutter. 19:05, 15 October 2010 [5], Category:All accuracy disputes: RF deleted the cat. es:C1: Empty category. Notes: The template was the only template (left?) that created links to Category:All accuracy disputes. CSD:C1 requires four days of empty cat. All edits have been undone by now. There was discussion at the VPP/More maintenance-templates are mentioned. I conclude Richard is the one ("someone who didn't know what they were doing") that emptied the category. -DePiep (talk) 12:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

IPAsym links

Hey DePiep,

I've linked several hundred articles to {{IPAsym}} (thru IPAlink, IPAblink, and new IPAslink [slash-link]), including the consonant and vowel tables, and added symbols to IPAsym as needed to do so. I've also consolidated the talk pages. I've used the 'showsymbol' parameter in about 20 articles, where it would've been ridiculous to add the symbols to the template, but could you maybe think of a more concise way to do that? I was thinking maybe just {{IPAlink|A|B}} could link to 'A' but display 'B'. — kwami (talk) 06:15, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very well possible, using {{IPAlink|A|B}} would use "B" as showsymbol (unnamed parameter). The full "showsymbol=B" where already used could stay. But today is a bit full. -DePiep (talk) 10:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

No rush. I probably won't use it again soon. [I'm still adding it to articles, but for mostly very simple things]

About 320 pages, not counting transclusions of the V & C charts.

The only simple consonants not included in IPAsym are the various clicks, but those are rare enough it's probably best to stick to the IPA letter w 'showsymbol'. — kwami (talk) 10:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Done: all three templates IPAxlink now also take a 2nd unnamed parameter for "showsymbol=". -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

In re: Unicode

Hello, DePiep. You have new messages at Cybercobra's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Proposed deletion of Unicode anomaly

The article Unicode anomaly has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Complete unsourced OR

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 17:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't it just be merged to Unicode? It would seem to be more useful there. — kwami (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Could be, Kwami. First it needs survival. Anyway, I started (!) the Talk there, opposing the tag. -DePiep (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Would you be interested in being an advisor about a documentary on the Panama Canal?

Hello, I noticed that you have more than ten edits on the Panama Canal article. First of all I would like to say thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Secondly, I am writing to ask you if you would consider participating as an advisor to a group producing a documentary about the canal and its history. If this is of interest to you please drop me a note on my talk page. Thank you for your time. Psingleton (talk) 16:07, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Fiona Shackleton

Well the requested move was closed and I originally thought that would have direct bearing on the infobox as well but the examples given suggest this isn't the case, so I can't say I blame you for missing the discussion as I wouldn't have thought it would have been an issue until it was pointed out to me. As I said there requested moves is something I have some experience with whereas I have virtually none with an issue such as this so I'd welcome any other input. Dpmuk (talk) 22:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying more of this. My point is: if the article title has been decided, that is end of discussion. English styles &ct. should not interfere with article titles and so. Just put it in the text. If the article title is clear, then the infobox should not be a talk. (& to be more clear: please stop English style snobbish nothingnesses) -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Snobbishness? Since when do brackets come into the title of an infobox? Kittybrewster ☎ 23:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The title is clear. No reason for prolonged thinning the dough. -DePiep (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

There is a way in which infoboxes are headed as shown on the talk page. Thinning the dough? Kittybrewster ☎ 23:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Thinning the dough?" - yes. Its Fiona Shackleton. How much ever you may want to stretch it. -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Not according to the closing Admin's view; he relied on the examples given. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Only just noticed that comment - should point out I'm not an admin. Requested moves don't have to be closed by an admin, especially when they're not contentious. That's the reason I only closed this one out of several similar requests as this was the only one that was suitably non-contentious. Dpmuk (talk) 21:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Todd Walker and MSU

What do you mean by "quite probably a sourcing vandal?" Please clarify. 173.26.237.244 (talk) 21:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This read like a promotional addition for MSU. This looked like a juvenile addition (not removed btw), and after these the edit you refer to (and which I reverted) looked like a smartly-detailed uberfan addition, although with a source. Also, the edits were made from an IP with a warning-history.

But, after careful rereading now, I understand the IP is reused (and so not tied to a single user), and the edit I reverted is not to be mistrusted. Fair enough, I will reinstall the edit (i.e. undo my rv). -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Trapezoid

I reverted your change to Trapezoid. I cannot see any reason to stop using the other template; there is no mandatory "standard" and Template:other uses6 is not unacceptable in any way. I saw that have essentially orphaned the template using AWB, and I have no idea why. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

I should also note that deprecated means that new uses should generally be avoided; it does not imply that existing uses need to be changed. The way to delete a highly-used template is to take it to TFD first, and only orphan it after the deletion has been approved there. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:00, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

First: my 2nd change was before I saw your revert: I was just sweeping a WLH-list (so it was not intended to be a brutal denying your action). I apologise for this (unintended) bad editing behaviour.

Then: I am trying to get a workable overview of the hatnotes. So far I have found some 70. Until now there was no complete list, and documentation was incomplete or missing. And if you see the list, you will agree that the naming is as wild as Drake Passage. To be clear: until now I have not been able to find (easily or at all) a suitable hatnote when I needed one. One step to gain a workable overview is to remove doubles. Which is what "Other uses6" is: it is covered by two other templates. So I replaced it. Meanwhile, the documentation can improve too. Later on there could be a TfD (which of course would fail if it is still used), no problem with me, although deleting would create red links on user- and talkpages. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Random Smiley Award

For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award.
(Explanation and Disclaimer)

♠TomasBat 20:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

{{tl-nav}}

Hey, thanks for the note about creating tlnav. I was wondering if there is anyway you could leave me a barnstar? I have done lots of work lately on wikipedia and have never gotten any! :) Nasa-verve (talk) 06:09, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:IPAsound

Template:IPAsound has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DePiep. You have new messages at Ronk01's talk page.
Message added 23:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

totally my fault

I must have put your message in the wrong subsection when I restored it after an ec with one of mine. Just a note so you don't think you were crazy. ;) Syrthiss (talk) 19:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Ño problem. Yes I saw some changes in the history, but did not investigate. Could have been my fault, I thought. Anyway, solved it is. -DePiep (talk) 19:32, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		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)

Thx

Thank you.[6] --Kleopatra (talk) 01:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Given your extensive knowledge and work on these templates, I am hoping you can take care of the merger per this discussion. If not, just let me know, and I can drop it in WP:TFD/H. Thanks in advance! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 19:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Plan and further talk is at Template_talk:Hatnote_templates_documentation#Merge_with_Template:Section_template_list. -DePiep (talk) 19:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

I redirected the Section template list, added the tfdend template, and removed the tfm template. Is there anything else? I saw something about housekeeping deletions of doc pages. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 20:43, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No, I wrote "housekeeping" as in "whatever a TfD clearance needs", to cover anything I might not know. I was just explicating the procedure. I consider it done. -DePiep (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hatnote templates

Since you've been nominating hatnote templates at TfD, just wondering if you've seen the ones nominated on the 3rd of February? -- WOSlinker (talk) 21:00, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Clearly hatnotes, so I have put them into Category:Hatnote templates. Good tip, I want to get that category complete. -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added the cateogry to Category:Surname clarification templates as well. -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You may also be interested in {{Othermss}} and {{Distinguish3}} -- WOSlinker (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

How did you find these hatnotes ever? Great! I've been bizzy searching & completing the regulars for weeks... Anyway: follow Category:Hatnote templates and, if you like, Category:Hatnote templates now TfD (you'd like to follow that one!). -DePiep (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Anymore hatnotes you have kept hidden? ;-) -DePiep (talk) 23:42, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I found them with WhatLinksHere on Dablink. Found one more: {{Seesubarticle2}}. -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:48, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hey, that is external! You are cheating. I am just discovering Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthroponymy. Anthroponymy. Never met this project. -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Please do me a favor: if you find a (sort of) hatnote, just put give it Category:Hatnote templates, ok? Usually in the /doc page &tc.-DePiep (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I've added templates to the category today. -- WOSlinker (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I saw them, & right into TfD where needed too. Now that the easy ones are gone (duplicities), it is about the way too suble language, as in Template:Further vs. See also. That is more difficult to convince. -DePiep (talk) 17:08, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

All Caps

It looks like there were no objections, so feel free to make a "bold change" to Template:Documentation/preload (not that you need my permission of course :) ). Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 02:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

It was too much. I keep deleting them everywhere when meeting them. Where they regulasr caps, I could have left the text. -DePiep (talk) 02:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Khan

Yes, I know. It's humbling – and hilarious – when I make the same error that I accuse others of making. Regards, Ericoides (talk) 08:26, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump

Hello, DePiep. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

- Kingpin¹³ (talk) 23:50, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

TfD nomination

Hi,

Just dropping you a line regarding this nomination: please make sure to substitute the {{tfd2}} template, otherwise the edit link on the discussion doesn't work. I've now done this. Cheers! Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 23:58, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for solving this. Maybe I had a hiccup (my PC, that would be), I even had to go to WP:VP/T just now. Indeed, it was not as we expect. -DePiep (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

(Begin 2nd bunch, June 2011 -- May 2012)

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. — 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)

And another thing

Re this little message? What you just said (1) completely undermines the entire purpose of the deletion and (2) is a violation of copyright law. Ironholds (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Infobox IPA/core2

Sorry for my late response. 15em was narrow to me so that playback button for audio file overflowed. 16em is enough. Thanks anyway! --fryed-peach (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I get it. The playback button is a bad beast because it is a browser-thing, not a page-thing. It is like the browser taking over our page, esp when you click it. I tried to cover that overflow somehow, but we can not control all of it from Wikipedia. -DePiep (talk) 17:47, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Response at ANI

FYI, it doesn't look like Dicklyon will be able to respond for at least a week due to a recent unrelated block. Just thought I would let you know in case you were expecting a response. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:40, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Hm. -DePiep (talk) 23:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Vowel chart

Since the two vowel charts were a content fork, I merged them, preserving the history of the older, and then moved them to the original name. The new one didn't display properly: the alignment was off. Now some of the transclusions, such as {{IPA navigation}}, are offset, but at least the transclusions in the vowel articles now align properly. — kwami (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Not only this. You also deleted existing code, did not sandbox nor start a talk, and have created a mess. Both the move/delete and the style each could have been discussed first. -DePiep (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay, merged the page history, so that it's all together on that page and more accessible. — kwami (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

font-size

Hi DePiep. I noticed you make a lot of work with templates, but there is a problem now with the template:IPA vowel chart. The vowels in the chart appear very small and diacritics are hard to see with that tiny font-size. Would you please enlarge them as they were, previously. I think they were 120% or 125%. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 13:51, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

They still were 120%. I increased to 130%. — kwami (talk) 13:57, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Mahmudmasri, someone really messed it up without talking. Al lot more is spoiled. Thank you for noting the now gone effort, still. -DePiep (talk) 14:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Use the old code if you like and can fix it up. The code doesn't matter, the display does. It should have been finished before using it in the template. — kwami (talk) 23:19, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks DePiep and Kwami, now it appears better. --Mahmudmasri (talk) 09:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

International recognition of the State of Palestine

Just a courtesy note to inform you that I've removed the {{or}} tag which you recently added to the article. Due to sourcing concerns, I've removed the colours from Israeli non-recognizers here so I believe that your concerns have been addressed. If not, feel free to re-add the tag. TDL (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Which would be OK, if it was not reverted already. I think for now the quality is lost. There seems to be a WP:OR/N. -DePiep (talk) 13:07, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

thank you

Thank you for turning my amateur template {{ArticlePair}} into the real thing! — Robert Greer (talk) 23:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your help with {{Millennium Park Map}}! Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:59, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Appreciated! -DePiep (talk) 21:00, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Greek diacritics

Hello, I've replied to your comment at Talk:Greek diacritics#Combining character, but thought it worth also posting directly to you. None of those diacritics are in fact "combining characters" (see the Unicode chart here), and if you're not seeing them correctly, I suggest it may be Firefox that is messing them up for you. Can you see if it works OK with a different browser? Vilĉjo (talk) 22:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Yes. Replied there, and linked to a Village Pump section. Main frustration was that I cannot trust my own edits. -DePiep (talk) 23:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

1RR restriction

Hi, regarding your edit at User talk:Israelite1, all articles in the Israel-Palestine area are subject to arbitration enforcement that includes 1RR. See the notice I put there. Regards. Zero^talk 14:57, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Why you tell me? What you tell me? -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

You placed a 3RR notice on User talk:Israelite1 and I wanted to inform you that 3RR is replaced by 1RR on those sites. Zero^talk 08:08, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Qazhyghumar Shabdanuly

The reason I declined the speedy deletion on this article is that there never was an AfD on it. There is no obvious link between it and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qabdesh Jumadilov, which was closed as keep anyway. Also the header inspired by Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Qabdesh_Jumadilov doesn't belong in an article (it is formatted as a section title) and should be removed promptly regardless of the article's status. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 02:47, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Arguments, at last. -DePiep (talk) 02:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Yat

Please take a look on the last edit of your bot and how I fixed it. Probably the same issue may occur somewhere else. -- 69.111.166.5 (talk) 13:27, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I see. I edited Dze, and started a Talk at Talk:Cyrillic because it is not too clear for me. -DePiep (talk) 14:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

AWB added newlines when adding a navbox

Status	New
Description	AWB added newlines when added a navbox
To duplicate:
Site URL:	http://en.wikipedia.org
Operating system	WinXP
.NET FW Version	dunno
AWB version	5.3.1.0
Workaround	correct manually
Fixed in version

Before/after: [7] I'd expect AWB to make the templates be without whitespace nicely. In my AWB sweep yesterday (adding some 100+ templates to articles) I saw more of such actions, and corrected some. Maybe I have missed a new policy= -DePiep (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

How did you add this navbox? Prepend text allows editor to define the number of newlines before the prepended text and/or do sort meta data. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't recall the AWB settings used. Could be with some manual (in AWB) editing too. Guess we might close it then. Next time I'll take notes. -DePiep (talk) 15:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Moved discussion here for simplicity. Most probably you forgot to reduce the number of newlines in the "More..." tab. Please rereport if necessary. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

All right. -DePiep (talk) 15:36, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Your VP post

I don't know how to check easily that this is what happened, but here is my guess: Some users (I think especially Mac users) have an easy way of inserting non-breaking spaces that look just like normal spaces, using ctrl-Space -- and regularly do so because they are used to it from non-Wikipedia applications. Some browsers automatically convert such non-breaking spaces into normal spaces.

I don't think it's related to the database lock at all. As far as I know all diffs are produced right when you ask for them. I.e. the diff is the result of actually comparing the two page versions, and the red passages always represent real changes (unless the diff algorithm mixes up paragraphs, as it often does but clearly not here). In any case, nothing to worry about. Hans Adler 17:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Comprendo. DePiep (talk) 23:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

unichar

I question your adding the HTML parameter to {{unichar}} like this when some of the characters in question have only a numeric character entity reference as opposed to a named one. I don't see what makes a numeric one worth mentioning, especially in an only indirectly related article. HTML & its daughter articles cover how the numeric ones are derived from the codepoint number; I think that treatment is sufficient. --Cybercobra (talk) 23:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Agree, questionable it is. As the template works now (I build it to do so), when html= is invoked (the parameter is used), it shows the HTML numerical entrance and the name whenever that exists (as you knew). I have not thought about only mentioning the name if existing, but not the HTML code. That would need an extra switch, somehow.

But there is another thing. By showing the HTML code this way, we also show the decimal value. That way, I thought then and now, we cover both ways without disturbing the inline text too much. So, I hope (!) that when we show the decimal number in HTML, both basic reader (1M) and specialists (you and me) recognise the right thing. Sure it would be correct to note: decimal value, html-decimal usage, html-hex usage, hell how to enter it in Windows. But that would make the line unclear. I also left out the HTML-hex notation, like © (00A9 is already in the ID U+00A9). Actually, today I removed some "decimal value=" notes in this template, in favour of the "html=" note, to simplify the inline text. I am hoping that a reader recognises the decimal value through the HTML. Especially by using a standard.

It is questionable. What does the Reader know & expect? -DePiep (talk) 00:21, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding: you seem to think that adding html= is only usefull when a character requires escaping in HTML [8]. But the 250 or so named entities in HTML are not existing to "escape" (¥, ♥?). Maybe this is valid for a handful in XML. So, in regular text, there is no reason to "escape" those 250+ characters in HTML. And any such a requirement could be notes inside or outside the template.

Second. So the entity name is not there to signal that it should be escaped. It is there because it is an alternative and useful id for the character. When specifying a character as we do (for example when using {{unichar}}, apart from the main Unicode id U+00A9 (in hexadecimal), we also add differennt id's: the glyph, name, HTML (thereby showing the decimal value), and the entity name when existing. These are all alternative id's, in the description or specification. So I see no reason to leave out, in general, the HTML= code while leaving in the others. I mean, we could do without the Name too? -DePiep (talk) 11:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Summary of Unicode character assignments

Have you got an opinion on Summary of Unicode character assignments ? I'm tempted to put it up for deletion as it is far too much detail, and hard to maintain (already out of date by two versions), and the way it is organized is bordering on WP:OR or at least WP:SYNTH. BabelStone (talk) 23:04, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Busy, will reply in a minute here. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'd support AfD. One of those try-to-catch-all things, which does not help any Unicode overview or insight. I've left updating such ones long ago, for this reason. Left it out of the Nav-template too. Do not update, don't suggest support! Same for {{UCS characters}}. -DePiep (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll list Summary of Unicode character assignments for AfD tomorrow. I also agree with you about the UCS characters template. BabelStone (talk) 01:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

And while we're at it, might as afd Cultural, political, and religious symbols in Unicode as you suggested a few days ago. BabelStone (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Families and trees

I've responded to your month old (!) comment here. SFB 23:56, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Unicode chart templates

How in the name of all that is holy could moving the charts to the template space, where every other Unicode chart is located, possibly be disputable. Realize that the content will still be completely accessible, because the "List of" articles will have a full transclusion of the template. This is literally just switching the direction of the reference, so that the Unicode chart templates are all the same. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 10:36, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

As announced, I expanded at your talk. It is a mess, and recreating an old situation does not improve that mess. -DePiep (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ext F

J63: I was wondering why you undid my edit regarding Ext F on CJK characters. The statement made was non speculative, it is not crystal ball, is is a fact that the IRG has called for preliminary proposals for their next meeting. http://appsrv.cse.cuhk.edu.hk/~irg/irg/irg37/IRGN1810Resolutions.doc . The call itself is a past event. Furthermore this is significant because the last time a call was made for any significant number of glyphs was a decade ago. Johnkn63 (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

DP: What you wrote is that there will be a meeting in the future, for which IRG members are asked for proposals for possible extensions. So what do we have now? Nothing substantial.

J63: This is substantial it means that work on Ext F is starting. Check the IRG Principles and Procedures document. Item 3.1 the step is for the IRG to call for submissions to a Extension.Johnkn63 (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

DP: What substance (say Ext F related nouns or facts for starters) do you get from an agendized meeting? And really what of that should be in WP?

DP: You addition was not sourced. Actually, before deleting I searched for any IRG#38 paper to see what would be in there, but could not find one. The link you provide here (which is #37) mentions #38 as a scheduled meeting, when amongst other things "IRG sets the CJK_E submission (to WG2) date". That is E, not F. So this is all in process at best, but really F is just mentioned to get in process later on. Not a single fact about Extension F is produced yet. F is not near the beginning of the pipeline.

J63: I stated clearly the resolution number 'IRG resolution M37.12', the very first google for this is the correct online word document IRGN1810Resolutions.doc . Doing a find for M37.12 immediately takes one to the correct place. I could I suppose have added in RGN1810Resolutions.doc, but from what you say you found the document but did not read as far as resolution 12 . Johnkn63 (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

DP: Sourcing does not mean "you go look for yourself with some off hints". That I did is was a gesture from me, you cannot claim I did wrong. And then, even today there is no source except for the agenda you point at. Where there usable content for Ext F, I could have find it. I did not find it, because it does not exist.

DP: Over at Unicode [9], Extension F is not mentioned, not even with the biggest reservation.

J63: Look closely the area earmark Extension E is over twice the size of Extension E. Johnkn63 (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

DP: ??? In my Unicode link? There is no reservation for F, nor even a mentioning. And this is the IRG roadmap.

DP: If the process (for E and F) itself is notable in the encyclopedia, it may be described on the Ideographic Rapporteur Group page. After all it is their workings. -DePiep (talk) 09:17, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

J63: There is a large section on the page about Ext E you have left that untouched.

DP: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Is it sourced? Has it substance? Are there facts? Is it in the Unicode pipeline?

J63: An earlier comment about Ext F which was speculative was removed, I then put in a non speculative comment on Ext F. The primary task of the IRG is to prepared the CJK extensions, it is the IRG that does the unification of [CJK Unified Ideographs], processing an extension usually takes them about five years, reporting when these stages are reached is reasonable. Since after being processed by the IRG it goes to WG2 for a year or two and then onto SC2, documenting this process under CJK Unified Ideographs makes sense . It is only once things get to SC2 that they can not be changed. Johnkn63 (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

DP: Less speculative, maybe. For now, all we have is an agenda, no substance and no Unicode mentioning.

DP: As I wrote, this process could be described in IRG. Or maybe on Han unification. Or in page Unicode pipeline. And I repeat that, to me, the pipeline processes can very well be a page or section in WP, especially the Han unifying process pipeline. The process is encyclopedic and interesting, but these current results are not in Unicode. -DePiep (talk) 08:39, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

BabelStone: I agree that Wikipedia should not be describing stuff that has not happened yet. As an encyclopedia we should describe what Unicode is now, not what it may include in the future. Personally I would even remove the CJK-E stuff from the CJK Unified Ideographs page, although I would support adding brief, sourced information about current state of CJK-E and CJK-F to the Ideographic Rapporteur Group page. And really this discussion should be taking place on the article talk page, not on a user talk page. BabelStone (talk) 13:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. user:Johnkn63 might feel disappointed by my revert, but I want to keep them contributing. I am not after Johnkn63, for example I did not check the Ext E edits and my last paragraph says positive ioptions. At the Talk other editors could improve the outcome. -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Continued at Talk:CJK_Unified_Ideographs#CJK_Extension_F. -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Evert van Benthem, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dutch (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) 09:56, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Nice catch. -DePiep (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi DePiep,

I have removed the links that you added (as described above) to Elfstedentocht and added a note explaining the use of the links to readers. I have also re-instated the list of winners in the that article. You had created a template which you then added to the article about the cycling tour. I have corrected that article as well. Martinvl (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not understand this. What are you talking about? Should this be a new section maybe? Anyway, if you want to reply to my talk, answer over there. -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

template:UCS characters

I'm fine with rolling out the replacement if you are. I've indicated my suggested name, but I'll leave the final choice up to you. Just leave me a message once it's done, and I'll replace all the transclusions and send it to WP:CSD. If you want to discuss or develop the replacement template further, I'm still watching the talk page, so feel free to add anything there. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 06:29, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Normal Finkelstein on From Time Immemorial listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Normal Finkelstein on From Time Immemorial. Since you had some involvement with the Normal Finkelstein on From Time Immemorial redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). – hysteria18 (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DePiep. You have new messages at Template talk:Edit protected.
Message added 23:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

mabdul 23:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Template: UCS characters

Are you happy with updating this template with the version in the sandbox or are you still lobbying for deletion? I was going to close this one, but I was wondering what the general feeling was now. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 06:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I will go concluding over there. I myself am not happy, now: not a tight infobox. -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Done [10] at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 February 2 the TfD. -DePiep (talk) 13:04, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Unicode question

Hi, I came over this discussion and I see that you have done a lot of Unicode-work at WP, so perhaps you are the right person to help me out :) I'm planning to work with the arabic diacritics, and introducing the "dotted circle" (U+25CC), since I find it very useful when representing diacritics. However, I have problems getting the arabic diacritics to "fit" on the circle. Correct representations are shown in this document (p. 7-8), but I'm not able to reproduce them...

This looks just horrible:

Fatḥah	Kasrah	Dammah
َ◌	ِ◌	ْ◌

The diacritics are left-aligned, and aligns very badly to the circle in general… Perhaps this is a rtl-ltr problem..? – Danmichaelo (talk) 10:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

First some more details about the first example fatḥah. Just to get a grip.

Fatḥah
row	property	value	note
1	Character	U+064E  َ  ARABIC FATHA
2	General Category	Mark, Nonspacing [Mn]
3	script	Inherited (Zinh)	takes script name of the base character
4	bidi_type	NSM: Non spacing Mark (Neutral)	Direction: just follows base character & neightbouring chars in R-to-L rendering)
5	Canonical_Combining_Class	30	Above: Distinct mark directly above
6	Example	دَا	/daː/ Arab, R-to-L
7	Example in Latin script	noَp	nonsense, just to see L-to-R effect
8	Examples with dotted circle	ا َ◌ا and n َ◌p	To see effect with dotted circle
Dotted circle
11	◌	U+25CC ◌ DOTTED CIRCLE
12	bidi_type	ON Other, Neutral (Neutral)	Direction: just follows neightbouring chars in R-to-L/L-to-R rendering)
13	script	Common (Zyyy)	i.e. used in multiple scripts
Note: Direction is NOT determined by script, NOR by General Category. In Unicode, it is set solely per character in the Bidi_Type value aka Bidi_Class. (read this again). From there: each Bidi_Type is in one group of these: Strong, Neutral, Weak. Neutral and Weak characters depend on the environmental characters to get the right direction (think: numerals, punctuation and diacritics).

Now, although I have spend much space on directionality here, I don't think that is the problem. :-). More on that following.-DePiep (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to note: when َ◌ is isolated (no Arab letters nearby), it takes the L-to-R misform (See first table and row 8). Between R-to-L letters (Arab) it is R-to-L direction in misform, see row 8. The direction is correct, though not the visual outcome: it should be center-above in both situations, indistinguishable between both. Another irrelevant note ;-)-DePiep (talk) 12:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Haha, but that is actually kinda interesting. When editing in TextEdit, I was actually able to get the fatḥah centered above the dotted ring when an arabic character followed or preceeeded it (didn't have to be on both sides), using just a plain font (Arial). But TextEdit is a rich text editor, and I was not able to copy-paste it into here without loosing the centering (it aligned to the right as in your example above)… But that gave me some new hope – there must be some way to get it working here too :) – Danmichaelo (talk) 13:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

So let's forget about the R-to-L angle from now on. Font is the research issue. TextEdit can show different indeed: one reason is that template {{unicode}} adds preferred fonts (which goes wrong in our case), but that hint is not available (not yet send nor seen by the browser) in an edit-window. But the font hints are used in the saved page. -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Towards an answer. So the problem is: some combining marks (diacriticals in Arab script) do not show correctly when combined with U+25CC DOTTED CIRCLE. For example, ARABIC FAHTA: ا َ◌ا. The diacritic should show centered above the circle. It shows correctly when combined with Arab letters. (I see this error too in my browsers both Safari and Firefox on WinXP).

My thoughts: most probably it is caused by the user-side installed font(s). It is the font's job to combine the two visually (graphically), and that is done on the user-side (your font-browser-combination, maybe more involved). My experience over here is, that my fonts are incorrect too (Firefox & Safari atop WinXP). User:eDokter pointed me to this similar problem (about special IPA symbols). eDokter noted: That [ugly visual result] is a known issue for Arial Unicode MS. You are probably one of the very few that actualy have DejaVu, Gentium or any ohter non-windows unicode fonts installed, correct? Those used to be called on, but were removed because the effect on the total userbase was negligable.. This would mean I had to change my installed fonts, but I have not looked into that. (Delete some? Install? A 'non-Windows Unicode font'?).

So, that final step I have not done, and not researched. (I take a little break now). -DePiep (talk) 13:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, seems you are right. I made a little table below with a few fonts. To my surprise, Arial actually works fine here (Safari, Mac)! I hope this is not mac-only, and it would be very interesting to hear if it works on Windows as well. If so, specifying Arial should work for most people :) – Danmichaelo (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Default	Arial	Code2000	Adobe Arabic	Baghdad	Damascus	Kufi Standard GK
و◌َو	و◌َو	و◌َو	و◌َو	و◌َو	و◌َو	و◌َو
	Y	Y (but ugly glyphs)	Y

Furthermore, specifying direction:rtl; unicode-bidi:embed; seems to have an effect when an arabic character is only on one side of the circle:

Arial

Standard	◌َو	Not centered
With direction:rtl; unicode-bidi:embed;	◌َو	Y Centered
With direction:rtl; unicode-bidi:embed;	و◌َ	Y Centered
With direction:rtl; unicode-bidi:embed;	◌َ	Not Centered

Now, perhaps there exists some hidden arabic character that will do the work :) Sorry for filling up your talk page btw., but it has been really helpful to discuss this issue with someone. Feel free to move the discussion to my talk page if you prefer that. – Danmichaelo (talk) 14:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Over here: none of your new examples show correctly centered (so: new and old). The last row says: using forced rtl is not solving (not with you either). I suggest to leave out all rtl (trials) until Directionality is proven to be influential. That is one variable made stable -- enough others left. Looks indeed the answer is in the fonts. -DePiep (talk) 14:18, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Too bad. Here's what it looks like for me. Seems like the handling of Arial is better on Mac than on Windows then (perhaps Windows 7 has improved. I have to check that). Anyway, the situations seems kinda bad… Perhaps the best solution is to prepare some SVGs. – Danmichaelo (talk) 14:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

SVG for this sounds bad to me. Maybe use SPACE or NBSP to combine with, and use a real example (with single Arab letter) right next to it? -DePiep (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Mm... Have to think about it. But first, a wikibreak to get some real work done :) Thanks for taking time to discuss this anyways! At least we located the problem – Danmichaelo (talk) 14:32, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

SVG is outside of the text handling world, many others prefer fonts too. Problem indeed is pointed, but prepare for a solution-not-found since we cannot control user-side issues completely. Esp those with Windows spoil a lot ;-). -DePiep (talk) 14:37, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

template:SC

Why alter {{SC}} {{Sc}}? PBS (talk) 18:39, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I do not know exactly what you mean. This is what I am doing: template {{sc}} will be merged into {{smallcaps}}. That is decided after this discussion. So I changed all {{sc}} pages that are not fit for this merge (I edit the parts that will cause a problem). In the end, every page that uses {{sc}} can use {{smallcaps}} just the same. For you, what page or change is a problem? -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

One potential complication I see: it used to be that when you copied and pasted small caps, you got all caps; now you get lower case. Is that a problem? Sometimes you want all caps. — kwami (talk) 05:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As for edits like this,[11] that's a standard convention to distinguish family from given names. Some of our ref templates even have it built in (at rongorongo, for example). While you may disagree with it, it's not true that it does "nothing".

Similarly here:[12] That claimed it is written with a capital E, which it is not. — kwami (talk) 05:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you're not familiar with how the template worked? I mean, there was a reason people kept using this "idle" template. Whatever occurred before the pipe was full caps, anything after was small caps. But because the input was in caps, you would get the correct capitalization when copying and pasting. Or at least that was the idea. For example, with Lord, you would copy and paste and get "LORD", which was correct; now you get "Lord", which is incorrect. (Many biblical translations use Lord as a euphemism for Jehovah, which is distinct from where the Bible itself uses the word "lord", and people are generally careful to keep the two terms distinct. The distinction is lost if we use the smallcaps template.) — kwami (talk) 06:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I know very well that there has been a different effect of the template, and of course that is why people used it. But that effect was gone at the time of the TfD, and I only have to deal with the current version. If there was a problem with that {{sc}} template change, it should heve been solved before & elsewhere: when & where the controversial edit was made. Also, when I did the merge preparation, I looked right into this issue (earlier intentions of the editor). And even that earlier version did not change capitalisation of param 1 nor 2. -DePiep (talk) 13:56, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand that last statement. But anyway, there are no more transclusions in main, portal, or template space which have pipes or caps, so I merged sc into smallcaps. — kwami (talk) 14:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

All fine (except that I would have liked to finalise the merge myself -- strange interference). What I tried to say is: {{sc}} only changed a param 1 lowercase input, not its uc nor the param 2 input (then and yesterday). So when param 1 had uc, it was unchanged, the editor knew & intended that, so I could use that fact too. Param 2 was not changed at all, also following the earlier editors intention, so I could use that fact too. BTW, the LORD & GOD stuff is special for separate reasons, and it is good that it is in its own template. -DePiep (talk) 14:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that. (I can revert the merge!) — kwami (talk) 14:22, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"I do not know exactly what you mean." E.g. this edit? Secondly when you edited {{SC}} you changed the redirect from {{Sc}} to {{redirect}} was that a mistake?

UNSIGNED BY SOME "PBS" WHO IS USER:Philip Baird Shearer WHO CANNOT WRITE A QUESTION? Please be clear or I will wipe you out. -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

"I do not know exactly what you mean." With this edit you altered {{SC}} to {{Sc}}. Why alter {{SC}} to {{Sc}}? When you edited {{SC}} you changed the redirect from {{Sc}} to {{redirect}} was that a mistake? -- PBS (talk) 22:55, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, I get your Q. Well, the templates {{SC}} (and {{sc}}, and {{sm}}) were due to be merged into {{smallcaps}} because of this TfD: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_6#Template:Sc. This merging process happened last week, I took action. "Merging" means, ideally, "Redirect {{SC}} to {{smallcaps}}", so that both templates do exactly the same. And we could do so (it has happened by now). The process included, mainly: whenever a {{SC}} is used that will not work when it is redirected to {{smallcaps}}: solve it beforehand. (Is what I did: edit the problem out, per problem page, beforehand). With {{SC}} the problem was: they allowed a second parameter ({{SC|one|two}} -> {{{1}}} | {{{2}}}), while {{smallcaps}} does not. So I researched every page that had that second parameter, before turning {tlx|SC}} &tc. into a Redirect. I changed that second parameter, and now they al go by {{smallcaps}}. -DePiep (talk) 23:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I assume from that reply that this edit was a mistake (so my alteration will be OK with you), but your answer does not seem to explain why you made this edit. -- PBS (talk) 00:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

No "assuming", "will be ok", "does not seem to" needed. It is 00:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)~ and there is the WP database. What is your question now? -DePiep (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles for journals

You talked on The Cost of Knowledge about making articles for a journal. I have not done research to put together the article you requested, but I have done this kind of research in the past. I have a terrible time trying to meet WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:N for any information about academic journals. It seems that they are rarely reviewed by third party sources, nor are their histories or policies of much concern to anyone because I presume people just think all journals are the same. If you know how to get sources about journals to meet WP:N I would be interested to hear what you know. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 02:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Are you really talking about me? I was just noting the two Topology journals, at the Talk page. I assume you misaddressed. And also, I am not that deep into scientific & peer publishing. Maybe I can be that much need third party ;-) -DePiep (talk) 02:34, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DePiep. You have new messages at Zad68's talk page.
Message added 03:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zad68 (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DePiep. You have new messages at Zad68's talk page.
Message added 15:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Zad68 (talk) 15:02, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Smallcaps all

Template:Smallcaps all has been nominated for merging with Template:Smallcaps. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 19:31, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Workings Of {{respell}}

Hi, as I understand {{respell}}, is not every syllable supposed to separated by |?

[13]Curb Chain (talk) 05:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Basically yes, but if you want two unstressed syllables following each other, we need to put them together. Main mechanism: {{Respell}} is always altering stressed-unstressed syllable groups. These groups, usually single syllables, are separated by |. So, when I saw you using "nah-mahs" in lowercase, I assumed they should both be unstressed so in the same parameter, followed after a | by the uppercase (stressed) KAH. This is from your input: {{respell|nah|mahs|KAHrah}} → nah-mahs-KAHrah, this after my edit: {{respell|nah-mahs|KAH|rah}} →nah-mahs-KAH-rah. I also split the -rah unstressed one. All this is also described in the (rewritten) documentation. -DePiep (talk) 06:17, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the help! I actually put every syllable in it's own cell, and if there were 2 or more unstressed (or stressed, but I think I did not come across that), I put all those syllables in one cell by separating the syllables by -'s. I am not sure if this is the correct "stressing"/transcription, so I will need to check.Curb Chain (talk) 09:55, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh, Paschimottanasana. That was a mistake:) I woulda replaced the last comma with a pipe if I didn't miss that!:-)Curb Chain (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)"the right way" - you can (pre)view that in the result! And yes that is the right way, as intended, to use the template. In my edit today [14] I had to split "AHS-anna" into two cells, because they have different stresses. After that, no problems left. -DePiep (talk) 10:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Hatnote templates documentation

Category:Hatnote templates documentation, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:47, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Reconsilication

Hey DePiep:

I have a question: Ustrasana

In this diff: a user adds the pronunciation from this source:[15]

Now from what I understand from Wikipedia:Pronunciation respelling key, is "oohs" a permissible syllable? I see:

"oo"=/uː/ as in "food"

and

"oh"=/oʊ/ as in "goat"

Is it possible to use these 2 vowels and diphthong in {{respell}}. Of course it isn't breaking the template, but within the transcriptions rules of the Respell System, is this possible?Curb Chain (talk) 07:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I really don't know! I only can count the syllables. You can ask at Wikipedia talk:Pronunciation respelling key, or User talk:Kwamikagami who is more into this. -DePiep (talk) 09:52, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I tagged that transcription for clarification. "ooh" is not defined. "oo-oh" would be the vowels in duo, but otherwise it's either "oo" (food) or "uu" (foot).

BTW, I suspect that the author was using respelling to try to capture the Sanskrit pronunciation, not the English, which is not acceptable in WP articles. — kwami (talk) 10:53, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

CC posted this at Wikipedia_talk:Pronunciation_respelling_key#Is_This_System_As_Vigorous_As_IPA.3F, but I'll notify them. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

@Kwamikagami: Do you mean in {{respell}}, nonenglish pronunciations are not permissible?Curb Chain (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct. Because they're respelled in English, they can only accommodate English. IMO it's okay to use if we're clear that it's only an approximation (for example, we say that Mandarin Xixiu is pronounced approximately like "she-show"), but we should never give it as the actual pronunciation, or as equivalent to the IPA for the language, because it's not. Respellings of English words will allow the reader to pronounce them correctly, but English respellings of another language will probably sound close to gibberish to a speaker of that language. Think of a Japanese speaker who says beesubooru and is puzzled when an English speaker does not understand "baseball". — kwami (talk) 11:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this User:DepiepUser:DePiep:-)Curb Chain (talk) 11:27, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request

Before I try seeing if I can simplify {{Infobox language}}, mind changing the code of {{Infobox language/family-color}} to the code I put on {{Infobox language/family-color/sandbox}}? Thanks. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 21:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

(1) I cannot say. I do not know or use or understand that color-scheme, so I cannot check a change (in general: just test all options...). Maybe it is a simple one. (2) But why not use this /sandbox in the infobox /sandbox? It is a stacking of logic, but the /testcases page (extended with color examples) will prove your right. (3) Afterthought, more simple: test and try the {{{name}}} thing first in /sandbox and /testcases! Then, when shown correct, it can be in live template. Then, start the sandbox afresh with this color edit added, and test that version. My experience is: more work, safer on the results. (Now I will take a look a that subpage). -DePiep (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Wow, that is some changes. You added "##ifeq:, <includeonly>, <noinclude>, #ifexpr:, a 0/1 extra level, safesubst:"? In this, I like & get the earlier code: a single #switch: with "|language = color". Why would you need all these extra switches? -DePiep (talk) 22:16, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

LikeLakers2, I changed the color coding, as it seems to have no effect on display. Can you explain what it's supposed to accomplish? It links to the sandbox, for example, which I would think is not s.t. we want. — kwami (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Kwami, its to prevent the category for pages without a color code from being put on the templates. But just now I realized it would disable it completely for those two pages. I shall fix it and continue with the possible code simplify tomorrow. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 23:47, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'll revert then. — kwami (talk) 01:06, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

For a Category only added in Article (Main) space? You can try {{main other}}. Like: {{main other|[[Category:Languages with ...]]}}}? See the {{main other}} documentation. -DePiep (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Heh, I forgot about that. Also, if you havent noticed, I've been aligning the code in Template:Infobox language/sandbox, because that just seems to make it much easier (possibly even for new people) to figure out what part of the code goes with what. (also, probably not the best thing I could have done, but I fixed your spelling of "Category" in the template example, as well as put nowiki tags around it to ensure it will not actually use the template on this page. Feel free to change it back if you want, Depiep.) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 16:18, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, quick question: want to try collabediting the template? No real need to, but just wondering if you want to. :) LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 16:22, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Category needs to be silenced. One can add a colon prefix too for that effect. And no, I have no time at hand to dive into that template. -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding, {{main other}} may not exactly be what you needed in this. -DePiep (talk) 13:38, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Proposal (family-color)

I have build a proposal on the color-detail of the template. Please take a look at Template_talk:Infobox_language#Edit_request (family-color). -DePiep (talk) 15:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

RE: en–dash or hyphen-dash?

Hi there,

I noticed you asked a question at WT:LANG about hyphens. Have you read MOS:HYPHEN? That appears to have examples when (–) or (—) should be used. Wesley☀Mouse 20:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this nice reply. To be honest, I could research the MOS for this, and learn the outcome, but as I said I still would need some check (it is not lazyness). Other people have been on this topic many more times, so I thought let's just ask. The outcome really could involve Moves (article name changes), the quilt uses both variants mixed. So I preferred to have it checked. -DePiep (talk) 20:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Category:Templates that add a tracking category

Category:Templates that add a tracking category, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. 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. — User:This, that and the other 00:35, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

You did not ask or talk a single word here on my talk page. Yet you write "seem" and "what is?" in the CfD. I reduced your signature, btw. I don't think you need that space on my Talk page. -DePiep (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

YMMV

Just a heads-up — the "we don't have an article, go to Wiktionary instead" placeholder is just fine. That's called a "soft redirect", and that's how some words are handled. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:45, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

No it is not "just fine". It did not answer my quest. -DePiep (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Several other pages have that exact same template. There are 1,083 such pages in Category:Redirects_to_Wiktionary. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

It did not answer my quest. Now you are arguing proudly that a thousand others do neither? -DePiep (talk) 03:54, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Did you try, I don't know, CLICKING ON THE WIKTIONARY LINK? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:23, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

fail code

I wonder who made the code for data1 like this on Template:Infobox language:

{{#if:{{{pronunciation|}}}
| {{{pronunciation|''will be added''}}
}}

Is that meant to be that way? I've changed it to:

{{#if:{{{pronunciation|}}}
| {{{pronunciation|}}}
| ''will be added''
}}

I could also use just {{{pronunciation|''will be added''}}}, bypassing the if function entirely, but then someone could just use | pronunciation = without a param for it, causing the text to not be displayed.

Also, while I'm here, I have a favor to ask. If you look at data19, you'll see a lot of copies of template usages. Any way this can be shortened, even via a subpage? I can't think of one at the moment. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 18:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. First short replies now: Reply re 1: I don't know that code part, and I don't remember being involved. Reply re 2, data19: I'll have to take a look. I will reply here.-DePiep (talk)

eh, "fail code" you write? What is the fail? -DePiep (talk) 19:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I put "fail code" because, with the way it was originally, if the pronunciation param is defined, the text inside it, ''will be added'', would be erased, and the template code would have to be that as the param for that to show up. I assumed it was meant to be shown if the pronunciation param was NOT defined, so I changed the code to make it do as such. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, might I ask if you think how I made the code of the template in Template:Infobox language/sandbox makes it easier to look through? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Another speedy reply: it looks like the part will be added is an error message text, that should warn the editor (but not the reader!). If so, it should better be like:
{{error|pronounciation to be added}} → . Whatever further edits to the template. -DePiep (talk) 20:14, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

True, but I don't think that the param not being defined warrents an error template, as the normal reader will notice it and either leave it as is or add the pronunciation. Perhaps what could be done is it would add a hidden category, perhaps one like Category:Articles without pronunciation added. Should that be done? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 20:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Another "speedy" reply (i.e.: I won't dive into code nor edit for now). All right, no error-code, just create that "tracking category", great, good, go ahead. Next to this, I will not accept such text in reader space (article page). Be it an "normal reader" or an "abnormal reader" or even a "extraordinary reader": do not give them text for editors. Never. Must say, I think you got that already. -DePiep (talk) 20:35, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Adding this. After you raised this template's issues with me some weeks ago, I edited the template and some subtemplates. So now the sandbox you created and line up is no longer the copy of the live source. Since I think my edits are serious improvements, I must disappoint you (I have disappointed you) about the sandbox. I suggest you start the sandbox again from live code. I know this is frustrating, but I hope you understand that your trials were complicated and did not mature. I compliment you for seeing the right direction, I hope you don't blame me for disturbing you plans. In general I'd say: good ideas, good edits, and start improving singular problems (not complicated ones). But hey, that's me. I owe you more time. -DePiep (talk) 20:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you look, there is a bit of code that is different. I lined it up so it would mainly be easier for me and other people to tell what template tag closes where. Shall I revert, since there are actually a few differences in the code, other than the spacing? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 13:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, if you don't know what I mean, see Template:Infobox language/sandbox/colors and Template:Infobox language/sandbox/colors/ifeq. LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 14:01, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Will respond shortly, I am in the middle of debugging re the template. -DePiep (talk) 14:04, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

While I'm here, if you don't mind me asking, do you ever come on WP:IRC? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 14:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Must say, I don't think the sandboxes are an improvement to existing code. About Template:Infobox language/sandbox/colors: the nesting is too complicated, nesting is unnecessary compared to the current code (which does fine), and your code cannot be used in other places in the main template (note that the family-color subtemplate is used not only to set the color, but also to decide solely whether it is a constructed (black) or sign (silver) language or spoken (other color), without using it as a color setting). And, the word "iseq" is more confusing than clarifying, at least to me (I think that option is in the templates already, by the position). In general, systematic spacing & cmt to clarify templates is OK with me (I recently did that to th{{infobox language}}, see data7!). But here could be another problem: there can be only one sandboxing process at a time, because else it is unclear what is the code to be implemented for live. I have edited the main template a lot these days, so your sandbox subtemplate might not fit completely any more. I am not in WP:IRC. -DePiep (talk) 14:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Ah, ok. Well, if anything, I tried, right? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 12:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes you tried all right! Even I, template editor, encountered difficulties with {{infobox language}}. Because: most people who know about language, don't do template logic. For example User:Kwamikagami (kwami, language knower) had to correct me. btw I'll close this thread, because the title is to negative. -DePiep (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

bot request

Since you're into lang templates, you might be interested in this. I thought it was a trivial bot request, but it's gotten bureaucratic. — kwami (talk) 05:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Smallcaps all (continue)

The TfD is complete – discussion has resumed on the template talk page to implement fixes suggested by the TfD. Your assistance is requested. Thanks. —Telpardec  TALK  16:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I know. Did you see this?. -DePiep (talk) 21:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

lang box

It's annoying to have to type an en dash or &nbsp; in the 2nd date field, so I thought we could use a switch: precede by an en dash if the first character is a 1 or 2 (or, better yet, if the field starts with a number > 1900), change an initial hyphen to a dash, just return the field if it starts with a comma, and precede with a space otherwise. I tried using the switch

{{#switch: {{#sub:{{{date'}}}|0|1}}
 | 1 
 | 2 = –{{{date'}}}
 | - = –{{#sub:{{{date'}}}|1|0}}
 | , 
 | ; = {{{date'}}}
 |  {{{date'}}}
 }}

but everything comes out as the default. I'm probably overlooking s.t. stupid – could you take a look? The sandbox is {{Infobox language2}}. — kwami (talk) 21:22, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Never say stupid about yourself. I'll take a look. -DePiep (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

First glance: is there a special effect you expect through data-apostroph? I mean, to me it is just a textual adding in the template. Until now, I've only been cleaning and separating categories & logic. And my private help page [16] does not even show #sub! -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Second glance: I prefer to postphone talks & changes in this input-easifying. Because I do not get it all right now. Maybe you are right in target, but I do not understand WP:Language that good (e.g. how & when & why does Ling List differ from ISO 639-3?). That is my concern with the template for now, and a thing I just can grab. -DePiep (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

LingList differs from SIL in two regards: for langs extinct before 1950, LingList rather than SIL maintains the ISO file. (Many of these codes begin with q or x.) Therefore the iso3 param is not sufficient, because the SIL link will either say that the file is maintained at Linglist, or will simply say that the code is reserved for local use. In such cases we should place it in the linglist param, though we can have it in both.

The other way it differs is that there is an attempt to supply a code for all varieties attested in the lit. For dialects, the ISO3 code is appended with another 3 letters (abc-def). But when there is no ISO3 code, Linglist creates a substitute, often beginning with a number so that it is obviously not a valid ISO code. They then negotiate with SIL to create legit ISO3 codes, which will then be maintained by LingList. They have submitted dozens of such proposals to SIL, many of them for long-extinct Australian languages.

What I'm asking has nothing to do with that. Rather, it's simply a way to more easily format the dates. Currently, we have to manually enter an en dash or a non-breaking space. It would be more convenient to automate that.

For example, if we enter date=2000 date'=2006, we want the output to be 2000–2006, whereas what we get is 20002006. If we enter date=2000 date'=census, we want 2000 census, but get 2000census.

#sub just returns a string of set length. {{#sub: X |0|3}} starts at the beginning (skips nothing) and returns the first three characters. {{#sub: X |1|0}} skips the first and returns all the rest (0 = no limit). {{#sub: X |-3}} returns the last three. Etc. — kwami (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
(edit conflict):Thank you. I only am improving the big {{infobox language}} now step by step, bravely without sandboxing but one change at a time. When we go splicing the non-ISO3 stuff, I'll be back on this. But believe me, disentangling the big template is a job. For now, I cannot easify the input. -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Never mind. I found a better work-around. Avoids the 2nd date param altogether. Now there's only one, and it's more catholic, though it must start with a 4-digit number: if we want to allow anything in front of that, we'll need a 'predate' param. And now 500 articles to clean up... — kwami (talk) 00:09, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

So input date-apostrophe is not used any more? It looked useful. But it's yours. I've learned: one can always add a tracking template! Even temporally. -DePiep (talk) 00:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It was useful, but it was a pain in the ass, and I was probably the only one who used it. It was totally impractical: for 99.9% of editors, they would enter a range or comment under 'date', generate an error, and give up. Now the only restriction is that it must start with the year. All the date' stuff can now just be entered under date. And if we can find a template that takes off initial non-digits, then we can combine it with {{Str number/trim}} and avoid having any restrictions at all apart from needing a 4-digit year somewhere. — kwami (talk) 00:34, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I just did a bit revert of your recent edits. One of them messed up the sign languages, and couldn't be undone by itself. (The problem was when there was a date, as at Albanian Sign Language: that produced a big, red error until I reverted.) — kwami (talk) 08:41, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, it was a bit much for a single day. Will take a look on how to proceed. -DePiep (talk) 10:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Russian Braille

Dang it, I always screw that up. Thanks for the move. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 22:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The adding itself is better. I was just tweaking. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I found that great Unesco report, and I've just been pounding away. Unfortunately, I'm about to take off for the beach, so I won't be able to do the Sinhala this weekend. Hopefully, I'll hear back from the Tibetan Braille people, so I can get that one off the ground. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 19:41, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

To the beach instead of editing WP? Bad! -DePiep (talk) 19:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

What can I say? We've got three great clam tides this weekend. VanIsaac_WS^contribs 20:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Saw the Unesco report (1990=USSR hey), your link. Still strange I say: languages even countries vs scripts. Now go enjoy the seafood. I have their taste already. -DePiep (talk) 20:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I just came across an earlier Unesco report (1954), and it has Amharic Braille! I'm such a dork to be excited about it... VanIsaac_WS^contribs 09:02, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Header of Village pump

Hi, you reverted my change to template, but the explanation you made doesn't really say much. How does "See also" imply that link to Common.css is part of village pump or even should be there? What is a reason to link to one of hundreds talk pages we have for mediawiki talk space? Thanks Petrb (talk) 13:45, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Read. Appreciated. Will reply later on. -DePiep (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

User talk:AGK

I have read and responded to all of your posts on my talk page. Please stop creating new sections, and please drop your unnecessarily frantic tone. I am protecting some high-risk templates, as I have explained several times, and not engaging in any "bot" behaviour. AGK [•] 20:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

No. You are protecting pages while not a bot. -DePiep (talk) 20:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand the difference between an edit assistance script and a bot? Do you understand what a batch module is? AGK [•] 20:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes I do. Exactly that is what I say: I CAN NOT STOP YOU. Even if you are wrong (you yourself cannot imagine). You are not improving WP (though your fellow admins think so). -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

De Piep, semi-protection of templates with many transclusions is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. See discussion at WP:AN#User:AGK. JohnCD (talk) 21:50, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

You say that is consensus? -DePiep (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

(somehow I don't like you) -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I think you should read Wikipedia:High-risk templates - which AGK linked to in his protection reasons. Evej if the use isn't high enough to justify full protection, semi is an option here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Reverted

You have been around long enough to know better than to do things like this. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

What about the editor? -DePiep (talk) 23:55, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Note the "edit conflict" in the summary: the user had likely been in the process of typing the comment before the discussion was closed and had been cut off by the closure. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:05, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Nonsense. It was not used in the conclusion. As the editor says themselves. -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Right. "As the editor says themselves": edit conflict. You don't need to insert the (edit conflict) template for whenever that happens. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen (talk) 00:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

AN Notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Possible compromised account of DePiep". Thank you.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 00:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Bots

my bot and I both have off buttons :)

The docs for bots are pretty weird, everything about the docs say do not operate a bot without approval, yet everything about the process of approval requires you to operate the bot without permission and without being told that that is what you should be doing. Weird. On Japanese wiki, my bot is working without a flag and it's all part of the process, everyone says I can't do it, and yet, that is part of the process. Penyulap ☏ 03:58, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Language dynamics

I thought you may like a copy of my note as well.

Hello HandThatFeeds and Bwilkins,

I wanted to offer an observation to both of you (crossposting this, please respond if you like on my tp, as I don't watch yours)

I had noticed that there was an unintentional misunderstanding of a phrase which led to some unfortunate friction with DePiep, who as I understand is working with you guys helping with a bot request I think ? I'm not sure, but I think DePiep was asked to assist in an endeavour because he has remarkable skill and focus on categorisation and templates, would that be correct ? Well, it's a bit like a wall street banker requesting assistance in the ghetto, or someone from the ghetto asking for help in court. It doesn't matter which situation it is, the fact that everyone is using plain English doesn't mean their request will me interpreted correctly. You can change their clothes and their look completely, but it is their English language which is going to get them into trouble by itself (literally fatal consequences in both instances). DePiep has an ordered logical categorical thinking, whereas you guys spend all day long trying to empathise with people and give out good advice. So the innocent helpful statement "As I am both an admin, and a bot owner, why do you dispute .." is no problem at all for many people who empathise the same manner that you do. However, and this is a big however, when a person reads the same statement in a logical ordered methodical manner, it appears to be the issue of a decree from on high. If I may be so cheeky as to use some humorous satire to illustrate, and please don't take this as anything other than humour, it can sound like "Behold I am thy Emperor and my decree is law, how dare you doubt me you snivelling peasant" yeah, ok so I am overdoing it a little, however, what you were trying to say to DePiep is that you are familiar and experienced with the subject, however you didn't use those words, you clearly implied that meaning instead. Usually works well. But this reminds me of talking and explaining my ideas to Z, who programmed PALZ for me, I simply cannot explain what I want PALZ to do unless I phrase my language as computer code. It was really funny to both of us. Normally I would say things like I want PALZ to read from a list of languages where he can put his updates, and then read an edit summary to write in his edit and do that for every language on the list. He's like wtf ? And I say, oops, ummm, IF the name of the server EXISTS on the list of languages THEN read the server name and edit summary. DO each edit on that server with the edit summary UNTIL there are no more entries on the list. Then he is like "oh why didn't you just say so ? yeah cool, no problems." For DePiep, the comment is categorised as "I am an authority figure" then "I'm a bot owner" then "why do you doubt me" which creates a logic lockup and exploding CPU because you are not categorised as policy.

It's like the child walking past a building site, he asked one man 'What are you doing ?" and the man said "cutting rocks" and he asked the next man 'What are you doing ?" and the man said "Earning $3 per hour" and he asked the last man 'What are you doing ?" and the man said "building a cathedral". Same job, three views. Now, same worksite, and a different example, the Bishop, the painter and the stonemason all sat down together, then as three highly skilled and trained men, absolute masters of their respective trades, they would have practically nothing whatsoever they could talk about over lunch, and may well come away from each other never wanting to lay eyes on each other again, despite the fact they all work for the same cause, building the church. You three are ALL on the same side, trying to build an encyclopaedia, so let's not forget that. If you'd like my help I would be happy to assist and I highly recommend that the Bishop, artist and stonemason stay away from each other from now on, because it is not easy to talk to each other when everyone is speaking English. I will be happy to translate for you because I happen to speak all three languages and can translate from English to English to English with some limited success (although I am still learning, there are like SO many people who think I talk shit all day long, and they are no doubt correct too). Penyulap ☏ 02:00, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Later on I will have time to read & digest thouroughly. -DePiep (talk) 21:16, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

IPAsym

I reverted your recent edits to {{IPAsym}}, because they broke links from articles. Unfortunately, I couldn't just undo the deletions (in the first edit), so I ended up reverting your improvements too. — kwami (talk) 03:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, but stange. I've added a comment for the double e-tack. -DePiep (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Espeially since "breaking" is not specified. That way it can never be improved. -DePiep (talk) 18:12, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

It wasn't the e. You deleted (twice) a bunch of click symbols I added, and that are linked from articles. Which is why I added them. AFAICT, the e and your later edits were fine. — kwami (talk) 20:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, bad that was. -DePiep (talk) 20:34, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

baby admin talk (Sep 2012)

September 2012 To enforce an arbitration decision, you have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for violation of the 1RR restriction per WP:ARBPIA on the page Death of Asher and Yonatan Palmer. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, please read the guide to appealing arbitration enforcement blocks and follow the instructions there to appeal your block. --Chris (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Notice to administrators: In a March 2010 decision, the Committee held that "Administrators are prohibited from reversing or overturning (explicitly or in substance) any action taken by another administrator pursuant to the terms of an active arbitration remedy, and explicitly noted as being taken to enforce said remedy, except: (a) with the written authorization of the Committee, or (b) following a clear, substantial, and active consensus of uninvolved editors at a community discussion noticeboard (such as WP:AN or WP:ANI). If consensus in such discussions is hard to judge or unclear, the parties should submit a request for clarification on the proper page. Any administrator that overturns an enforcement action outside of these circumstances shall be subject to appropriate sanctions, up to and including desysopping, at the discretion of the Committee." 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: LOL? Is this serious? What triggered the blocker into this? I first time edited the page (in two edits) is [17]. Only after that I reverted an edit -- how is that not a first revert? I do not only want an unblock. I want excuses from User:Chris for their sloppy pavlov admin behaviour. Decline reason: This is more of a procedural decline; as an arbitration enforcement block, this cannot be overturned by individual administrators. Please read the block notice for instructions on how to appeal. At first glance, your edit at 16:01 appears to clearly revert an edit by "Activism1234" a few days earlier (here). The edit at 16:04 is a clear revert and the second one. You'll want to be more specific on why you feel this is not a violation of the 1RR sanction on that page. Insulting the blocking administrator is not helpful; please address the issue that lead to the block. Kuru (talk) 22:37, 6 September 2012 (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. (edit conflict)Oh, and Wikilegally hiding: User:Chris equals User:Crazycomputers. That's why one can't find backgrounds.}} -DePiep (talk) 22:21, 6 September 2012 (UTC) (First, note that I am not User:Chris.) A revert is defined as undoing the edits of another user, in whole or in part. Your first edit was to remove content. That undoes the work of another editor who added the content in the first place, so that meets the definition of a revert. I am not going to decline your appeal as I am the blocking administrator, but I have a very hard time seeing your argument deemed valid by any other administrator. --Chris (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC) First of all: if you are not User:Chris then don't sign "User:Chris". -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Then, you in your second draper: an unblock request is to be reviewed by another editor. -DePiep (talk) 22:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC) I did not sign "User:Chris", I signed "Chris" since that is my name. I have not reviewed your unblock request, I have only provided a comment. When it is reviewed, your unblock request will be replaced with an acceptance or a decline notice instead. Another administrator will do this. --Chris (talk) 22:27, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Can someone educate this person? -DePiep (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2012 (UTC) It looks like a clear violation of the 1RR restriction to me. Also... making personal attacks against the blocking admin is generally not the way to get unblocked. Trusilver 22:37, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Nice try. You do not read or use any argument, clearly (how safe!). For me: the blocking admin used a misleading name. That I point that out, cannot be personal is it? -DePiep (talk) 22:41, 6 September 2012 (UTC) If you really want to make an issue out of my signature, please feel free. When you are unblocked you can open an ANI thread about it. I have used this signature for at least six years and you are the first person who has thought it was misleading. My signature links directly to my user page; if I were trying to hide my account name, I would be doing a poor job of it. I will not respond to any more comments made on this page about my signature, as I have nothing else to say. --Chris (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Will you please stop insulting me and my talkpage? Do you really think your name is the main issue here? This is how it works: whatever I say will be used against me, however immature your blocking arguments were. -DePiep (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2012 (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: Unbelievable. 1. Even the declining admin says: This is more of a procedural decline. What do you mean? Hide behind a procedure? Then just do not decline I'd say. What use is that sentence at all? Covering yourself? 2. I did not insult any admin. Criticise I did. If one cannot differentiate, one should not be an admin. More admins without arguments: [18] 3. The link provided, to an earlier addition of a template, is not convincing. Exactly that template I removed in my second edit, as a consequence. Of course, every text or template was added once in history. Why would my first edit be a reversal? -DePiep (talk) 23:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Decline reason: What he means by "procedural decline" is "you cannot be unblocked this way, and if anyone goes crazy and unblocks you through a standard unblock request they will lose their administrator rights in very short order." If you want to be unblocked, there are two routes: Either you ask someone to open an AN or ANI thread on your behalf (which will generally end up taking longer than 24 hours, meaning you'd be unblocked before it closed anyway), or you contact the WP:Arbitration Committee and ask them to unblock you. No matter how many of these standard unblock requests you file, however, you won't be unblocked through them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 23:13, 6 September 2012 (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. Fluf: if anyone goes crazy and unblocks you is a personal denigrating attack. -DePiep (talk) 23:18, 6 September 2012 (UTC) And, of course: why did the decining admins infer with opinions at all. -DePiep (talk) 23:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC) Some background: 20:50 User:Shrike this talkpage: 1RR note 20:55 User:Shrike at WP:AN3 [19]. I note that this post did not prove a first "revert". 20:55 User:Shrike format notification this page [20] 21:06 User:ChrisCrazycomputers blocks So that is a block within 16 mins from first notification, without any talking. And: no diff or proof of first revert at all. Still ChrisCrazycomputers blocks without challenging. So far, 4 admins involved. Admin-internal correction: zero (I predict it is always the non-admin who is at fault). I claim that User:Shrike was gaming the system. There is not "first revert", and Shrike only formally talked to me (waiting only five minutes). User:ChrisCrazycomputers did not check the basics. -DePiep (talk) 01:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC) No formal notice about ARBPIA is technically necessary at all, since you apparently already knew about the 1RR restriction. Your first edit was indeed a revert; you removed content added by another editor. I don't know how much clearer I can make this. --Chris (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC) Yeah, technically. That is where to hide, ChrisCrazycomputers. -DePiep (talk) 21:33, 7 September 2012 (UTC)