Jump to content

User talk:DePiep/Archive 9

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11→Archive 15

Right part of talk page?

Are you sure this edit is in the right section? It doesn't seem to belong in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elements‎ § ‎Sidebar periodic table. YBG (talk) 23:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Option B periodic table svg

Hi DePiep

Would you be able to provide me with an Option B periodic table svg file that I could put into the lede of my sandbox? Thank you, Sandbh (talk) 11:13, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Time. -DePiep (talk) 21:28, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Drugbox problem?

I noticed a botched category code at top of Panitumumab (and others). Think it might be due to something in Template:Infobox drug but don't have time to track down. Seems you edited recently. Could you have a look? Thanks. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Trying to fix reported duplicate argument in template invocation

Hello DePiep,
I just noticed that, a year ago, you removed the contents of “Template:@u/testcases” because of a reported case of “…(duplicate parameterssed). via CAT:DUPARG”. CAT:DUPARG itself says that ”when checking Preview, any double parameter (and its template) will be listed in top as an error.”, which is great, so I was hoping that I could use that to find the source of the error and fix it. However, when I tried it, no error was reported. Just to double-check and see what the message should look like, I then intentionally added such a duplicate parameter and the error message was produced as expected. So that leaves me without a clue about the original problem and I was wondering if you could give me some hint about where I should look. Thanks! (I’ll watch for answers here.)
— Wlgrin 01:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

No I can't. -DePiep (talk) 02:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
I’m thinking that it’s possible that the tool reported a false positive and that it was fixed since you made the edit. In that case, I’d like to reinstate the test case. Is there any reason why that should not be done?
— Wlgrin 01:33, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
That's a good idea. It might have been a false positive by me (when the error was imported onto the page only), and now may be fixed at elsewhere as well. Anyway, it's nowhere fatal to reinstate the page anyway. And then you can act to what you see (ie, not a bug today, nothing to fix then). I remember it was a very complicated template setup, and the testpage was not updated for years. -DePiep (talk) 08:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
All right, I’ll do just that, then. Thank you very much!
— Wlgrin 00:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Draft:Tlno

Draft:Tlno, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Tlno and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Draft:Tlno during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:29, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 23 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 February

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Bold edits on protected template

You are not allowed to make bold edits like this on "template protected" templates. Please reread Wikipedia:Template editor. Christian75 (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

ANI notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 00:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Cite doi/10.1103.2FPhysRevC.74.044602

A tag has been placed on Template:Cite doi/10.1103.2FPhysRevC.74.044602 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{substituted}}</noinclude>).

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page's talk page, where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

LSD rereversion

Please do not edit war. Read WP:BRD and go to article talk page. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Sfarney Exactly what is the problem you refer to? You obviously do not understand the edits & their es's. -DePiep (talk) 22:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
You have edited and reverted twice on the same page. That alone is incorrect. Read WP:BRD and take your issues to talk page to explain your edits with standard English. I don't understand your non-standard abbreviations/ shorthand. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
No. -DePiep (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

User:MrX, to remember

MrX hi mrx. You don't know what you are talking about. Do not interfere and do not judge, that's best for Wikipedia. And tell your "friends" you act for to learn & read, OK? Now don't ever visit my userspace again. -DePiep (talk) 01:55, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

If you're blocked

it will be for 2 weeks. Stop it now. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:14, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks for several personal attacks in last few weeks (latest after specific warning), edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Floquenbeam (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

moved to top

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Libyan Airlines Flight 114

Hello. I just noted that you reinstated your removal. Can you please tell me where in the article is ″Great Bitter Lake″ mentioned? I don't see the connection to the material that was removed.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

GBL is where the plane was shot (see the coord map). Dimona is as far as Jerusalem or Tel Aviv: not a specific threat. -DePiep (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry to insist, but there's no mention to that location in the article and it also does not mention any coordinates, apart from the ones that appear at the top, which are clearly unsourced.--Jetstreamer Talk 01:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the coord are in top. IF needed, source them. All things cut short: there is no reason that Dimona would be specifically protected in this. It's just the whole of Israel. (Unless you want to claim & sourcve that the plane was shot down because of Dimona, but would be left alone when heading for Tel Aviv?). -DePiep (talk) 02:07, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
No, I have no sources for that. But the coordinates at top are unsourced, so I'm starting a thread about this at WT:AIRLINES. Thanks.--Jetstreamer Talk 02:22, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
To be clear: independent on the correctness & sourcing of the coordinates, you still could give the suggestion a base that it had to do with Dimona (not Isreal as a whole). -DePiep (talk) 12:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Drugbox request

Hi DePiep. If it's not too much to ask, would you mind replacing all drugbox instances of

| chirality = 1 : 1 mixture (racemate)

with

| chirality = [[Racemic mixture]]

The current wording is clearly redundant and a wikilink would be useful (and "1 : 1 mixture" is potentially ambiguous as well). Based on your recent edits, it seems like something you might be able to do more easily via AWB script than what I could do manually. Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:02, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Edgar181 Sure I can do that, using AWB and regex. But I would be working in the blind, because I hardly understand the whole chirality issue (always must click & read those links; see Drugbox talkpage a month ago about this). I'm glad I got it right & simple with |chirality=!
So I will do that, trusting your statement here. Are you sure the average Reader does not need extra text? -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure that "[[Racemic mixture]]" is less redundant and less ambiguous than "1 : 1 mixture (racemate)" and therefore an improvement. I think that for someone not familiar with the term, anything that we could fit into the drugbox field would be an insufficient explanation and therefore the wikilink to the page that explains what a racemic mixture is is the appropriate assistance for the average reader that wants an explanation. -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Will happen. The foremost improvement of internet over Gutenberg's printing (1450) is: the hyperlink. -DePiep (talk) 21:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! -- Ed (Edgar181) 21:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I add: quite often the bad text appears in the image caption parameter, not the chirality parameter. For now, I can not scan that input (that is, I can not check for |caption=1 : 1 mixture (racemate)). -DePiep (talk) 22:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, all those 1 : 1 mixture (racemate)'s were originally added into the image caption and I was happy to see that you had moved them to a more appropriate new parameter. I'll look for any remaining captions and fix them manually. Again, thanks for your help (and for all the other great work you have been doing with the drugbox and articles, too!) -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks :-) And yes, they were image-captions earlier on. -DePiep (talk) 13:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

PT Sidebar

I see you removed {{sidebar periodic table}} from trivial name. Do you think we should remove that page from the sidebar? YBG (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2016 (UTC)n

Since you ask: I don't think it will be missed. From the same reason I removed it there: 'trivial name' is not a 1:1 PT topic. It's just a word used in PT pages as elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 17:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
OK, will do. What about on the navbox? YBG (talk) 05:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I removed it and a couple of others from the sidebar and the sandbox, but I think they're OK in the "see also" section of the navbox. YBG (talk) 06:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Is what I tried to say: 'trivial names' can be removed from the sidebar because it is not specifically a PT topic. -DePiep (talk) 10:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Chlorine

Hi DePiep, can you please write your opinion here too :-) Thanks, --Alchemist-hp (talk) 21:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Template talk:Short pages monitor

You may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Short pages monitor#Need to define and possibly rethink this template. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Template:Chembox Properties/doc/parameter list

Hello. I attempted to add Triple point to your list of properties at Template:Chembox Properties/doc/parameter list. However when I then attempted to add the triple point to the infobox for Carbon dioxide, the line did not appear in the infobox so I must have done something wrong. Since you created this Template and presumably understand it better than me, could you please fix my Template addition if necessary and then add T = −56.6 °C and p = 5.1 atm to the infobox for CO2? These values are now shown as the melting point but that is not really correct because the transition occurs at 5.1 atm and not at 1 atm. Dirac66 (talk) 18:22, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

I see. This is what went wrong: Template:Chembox Properties/doc/parameter list is just a passive reflection (it lists what is programmed in the infobox). Changing that list does not alter the infobox (as you seem to expect).
I will add your suggestion. Unfortunately this might take some days.
All suggestions can be added to Template:Chembox, BTW. -DePiep (talk) 22:19, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I guessed that it might be a passive reflection since my edit had no effect. I will wait for you to add it. Dirac66 (talk) 23:11, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Golden Galen barnstar

Thanks for your many behind the scenes contributions to anatomy articles on Wikipedia this year, it's most appreciated and been a pleasure to continue working with you. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:58, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

Appreciated! Did you notice that now we are removing all the improvements we made one year ago ;-) -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Yep, but one lives and learns :). At least now we have a comprehensive understanding of our templates. I've used this on countless occasions when merging, deleting or proposing changes to templates (eg moves to lists in article space) so it's at least had some benefit! --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Trains Portal and Railways Portal Merger Proposal

I'd like your input on this proposal I made here: Portal talk:Railways#Trains Portal and Railways Portal Merger Proposal. I have contacted User:Aaron-Tripel as well, but it says on his talk page that he has not been active on Wikipedia for over a year, so no guarantees that we'll hear from him. Jackdude101 (Talk) 18:03, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Spinosad

The edits you made earlier today on this article seem to have completely changed the article to one on Sorbitol. Was this intentional (or as I've done in the past a mistake using AWB)? Nthep (talk) 12:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

No not intentional. Reverted. Background: I use AWBscript (is not WP:AWB), and sometimes in a run it copypastes full text from article 1 into the next page article 2! Of course any preview or visual check does not reveal this (it looks like an OK page, but for the topic). I'll have to be suspicious for this. (If I made it look weird again somewhere, you can revert it safely). -DePiep (talk) 12:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Nthep (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Svg files

DiPiep, what software do you use to generate svg files?

I have inkscape on my winXP desktop computer. That is how I learn and produce (trusting that program). Inkscape adds loads of code. I do read svg code to see what I did (eg grouping).
I'm also learning to produce svg code literally: by text editor (like: use "circle"). Takes time!

-DePiep (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

I have that one (on a Win 7 notebook masquerading as a desktop) ) but have never had the time to master it. I do my pics in word then drop them into PowerPoint and convert them into pictures. Sounds clunky but it's faster than having to learn a new app. Thanks for that. Sandbh (talk) 23:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Our issue is that I don't like to spend time on your A, B route. And as for 14xx-graphs, I'd happily make them. I disagree with File:Periodic table (polyatomic).svg because is does not gap. Even to make that gapped PT (my favorite!!), I have no time/energy these days. -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
  • Sandbh I like your pics, they look professional & OK. And yes, Inkscape takes a huge lot of learning time. Even worse: that is to learn the program, not to learn svg! Since svg is open standard, I am looking at internet sites to learn write it myself (by text editor). Nothing produced - yet. -DePiep (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
BTW, why do you spend so much time on 18-col (1946) PTs? Just when I start getting the big picture ;-) ? -DePiep (talk) 21:55, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi DePiep. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, for which you are on the notification list. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are on the notification list for this case. You may opt-out at any time The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

  1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
  2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

Wow!

Have seen quite a few pages that you have worked on and I was impressed enough to drop you a message. Wish I was able to grant Barnstars, as I would diligently search for one that would adequately express my awe and appreciation for your numerous, exceptional contributions. You truly make Wikipedia a better place! :D Thank you SeaBeeDee 18:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC) SeaBeeDee 18:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

NPA

It shouldn't have to be said, but this is out of line. Just take a breather and disengage. clpo13(talk) 21:58, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

No. At least, you could open with a reasoning. -DePiep (talk) 22:08, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
"Comment on content, not contributors", that's my reasoning. When you start calling other editors small-minded, it's time to take a step back. clpo13(talk) 22:14, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Chembox please

Would like to get back working on {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}} again. But they won't let me. -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2016

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for making personal attacks towards other editors. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  —Bagumba (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Bishonen explain please. I criticised an admin yes. Then what? -DePiep (talk) 00:06, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Bagumba explain please. I criticised an admin yes. Then what? -DePiep (talk) 00:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Bagumba@ -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Bagumba: enwiki deaf test -DePiep (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I've not been involved in this up until now, but I may be able to clarify a point you don't seem to understand:
Criticism is common and expected here, and perfectly ok. It generally looks something like this: "Hello <other user>, I noticed that you <did something> and it does not seem correct to me. Could you explain why you thought that was the correct thing to do, or maybe just undo it? thanks." Of course it is not always quite that polite, but as long as the general theme is one of legitimate criticism its ok.
Personal insults on the other hand, may look like this "Make it two years, in your mental universe. The smallest universe known. -DePiep (talk) 21:56, 23 April 2016 (UTC)". That would be an example of personalizing a dispute and belittling another user's intellect. That's not ok. If this were the one and only personalization fo a dispute on your part it would probably be let go, maybe just a warning to stop, but even a cursory examination of your recent contributions shows that this is but one of several. Repeatedly pinging the same person is also considered kind fo rude, and by the way if it is all happening on the same page will only result in one ping anyway so there's no point in redoing it every few minutes.
I hope that has helped clear up things for you. Beeblebrox (talk)
You have ignored multiple warnings from different editors about NPA [1][2]. You have also received multiple warning about being blocked for your disruptive behavior [3](see edit summary) Since you seem undeterred by your previous blocks for personal attacks and disruptive editing dating back since 2009—your last block for NPA and warring in March 2016 was for two weeks—I blocked you for one month with the hope that you can finally respect WP:NPA. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:52, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Last warning

I see you're trying to get blocked? Don't post on Floquenbeam's page again or I will do the deed, if I'm around (going to bed soon). I recommend other admins to take it up if I'm not here. Bishonen | talk 22:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC).

What "last" you are talking about? What 'first' warning is there to not criticise The Frog? -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Help with spiral periodic table

Hi. Do you know maybe why is File:Elementspiral (polyatomic)-sr.svg not displaying properly after clicking on it in its SVG version? It did display similarly as English version before jakearchibald.github.io processing but fonts were not same etc. I refer to version as of 21 May 2016 (10:19 CEST) as I will maybe change it in the next four days to try to fix the problem. You can help on Commons. Thanks. --Obsuser (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I fixed it by Saving as in Inkscape the processed file from jakearchibald.github.io and it is working nicely, no errors detected on W3. Never mind now... --Obsuser (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 11 June

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that some edits performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. They are as follows:

Please check these pages and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:42, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 May 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 05 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Unicode2

Template:Unicode2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ~ RobTalk 16:23, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Category:Narrow gauge railways in the Republic of Macedonia has been nominated for discussion

Category:Narrow gauge railways in the Republic of Macedonia, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:28, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

June 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Panama Canal may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • mean sea level|above sea level]]. The current locks are {{convert|33.5|m|ft|sigfig=2}} wide. A [[Panama Canal expansion project|third, wider lane of was constructed between September 2007 and May
  • date2=1850&proxtext=lexington+ship&y=10&x=16&dateFilterType=yearRange&page=1)</ref>)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:43, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello, DePiep. You have new messages at Talk:List of scientists whose names are used in chemical element names.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Infobox drug

Per WP:Template editor, you need to obtain consensus before you make potentially controversial changes to a template. You made a unilateral decision to change a long standing link in an infobox without waiting to see if there was consensus for this change. I objected to this change hence you have an obligation to seek wider consensus. Per wheel warring, With very few exceptions, once an administrative action has been reverted, it should not be restored without consensus. I reverted your removal of the ASHP link and you restored it. This is wheel warring. Boghog (talk) 21:07, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The talk shows that I did engage, respond, and cooperated with three other editors. If it were 'potentially controversial', it's only because you try to make that natural and constructive talk-&-edit flow into something problematic as an argument. More than a full week later. You first es shows that you did respond the talk had I opened, but not by talking. Today it was me again who went to the talkpage. Instead of this process-picking, why not start talking aabout arguments? -DePiep (talk) 21:26, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Hmm. There was no explicit agreement on the template talk that the change should be made. Also I have made two arguments on the template talk page. Please read them. Boghog (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC) Also please read what Christian75 had to say about bold edits. Boghog (talk) 21:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
No, no contract was signed. But we agree that it showed consensus, then. -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
There was discussion, but no consensus. Boghog (talk) 21:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
More importantly, no one else commented on ASHP. Boghog (talk) 21:56, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

someone is trolling

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:21, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Comments at WP:ANEW

Regarding your comments at WP:ANEW: The page title is "Administrators' Noticeboard/Edit warring". I'm not sure exactly what lesson you want me to learn from that title.

What I do know is that says this in bold and italic print near the top of the page: "This page is for reporting active edit warriors and recent violations of restrictions like the three-revert rule." The reason the violation has to be recent is because there is only one remedy for violating 3RR or 1RR: stop the person who broke the rule from continuing to disrupt. This is done by protecting the page, blocking one or more editors, or (in certain topic areas like this one) issuing a page or topic ban (which is enforced by, guess what, blocking a user). If they've already stopped being disruptive, you don't need an administrator to intervene.

There is only a very small list of things you need an administrator for: to protect a page, delete a page, block someone, edit a protected page, or close a contentious discussion. Almost everything else, like gaining consensus to revert that template, is something you can do yourself by using the appropriate venue. 1RR is not a free pass to have the page reverted when someone breaks the rule. Either you use your own revert for the day to put it back, or you gain a consensus with other editors that the page is better with the edit reverted and someone else does it. Whichever you choose, you don't need an admin to do it. –Darkwind (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

I clicked WP:3RR and another admin comes telling me that I am wrong. Instead of solving the issue. Read this again please: I did not ask for a block. From this you are free to load me with issues I did not look or ask for. And this given the page title: "Wikipedia:Edit warring", i.e. a page to report edit warring. The title does not restrict this (otherwise, is should be: "WP:Block/restrict an edit warring editor"). The rest of your position, as you describe it, is distraction. I did not ask for a block, and please don't blame for not asking so.
Darkwind -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
2nd ping Darkwind -DePiep (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
2nd ping Darkwind -DePiep (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked you for three months in response to the WP:ANI#Trolling by DePiep thread. Fram (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Fram, what's the reply/undo option templates? -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
[4] by now. -DePiep (talk) 22:07, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Actually, Fram, I don't get your action. Now 2 weeks later, I still don't get it. Could you please, seriously, point out how &tc I did 'troll'? Pls use a timeline. -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I can't explain it any better than the posts by Floquenbeam, LindsayH, Begoon, and my statement at the end of that thread. And no, I'm not going to create a timeline for this. Fram (talk) 07:24, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Fram: thanks. This is a serious, and better, base I can use. -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Just noticed DePiep was blocked. Three months is a long time. If they agree not to repeat the issue that occurred could we unblock sooner? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:40, 25 August 2016 (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:

Some independent admin please look into this carefully. This is not an "I'll never do this again" request.

I claim that the block was ill-based.


The ANI post is this, archived. User:Fram blocked me (this way), and only after asking [5] Fram gave references for arguments. Fram noted that the argument was within the ANI post, ie the original post was irrelevant (Fram stated that I was trolling within the ANI post). Fram stated [6], the trolling was against ANI-posts by Floquenbeam, LindsayH, Begoon, and Fram. Per each:

  • re Fram: so the argument for blocking me is "I, Fram, blocked you because Fram said so"
  • re User:Floquenbeam (Floq): I responded to the Floq post [7] adequately [8] (signed late), and way before Fram concluded. Still Fram used the (invalidated) Floq post as an argument.

-DePiep (talk) 22:22, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I read the relevant ANI discussion, and what I saw is that your behavior was really unacceptable. By the way, Fram never said that you were trolling against ANI-posts by Floquenbeam, LindsayH, Begoon, and Fram. They said the your trolling (which you fail to acknowledge) was explained by Floquenbeam, LindsayH, Begoon, and Fram in their posts. You were harassing another user (Andy Dingley) during the ANI discussion, and you don't even address that issue in this request. Vanjagenije (talk) 23:17, 10 October 2016 (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.

engvar=en-GB in element infoboxes

should turn "centered" (e.g. in "face-centered cubic") into "centred", or at least make the latter accepted. (Also "vapourisation" should be "vaporisation", as words with -ise usually follow the original Latin root, which has -or here. Wiktionary has vapourise, but only as a misspelling.) Currently only affects the four en-GB element articles (P, Cs, Th, Fl). Double sharp (talk) 09:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

So, in en-GB articles we'll see: vaporised, vaporisation, centred. -DePiep (talk) 18:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
phosphorus text has vaporized btw. -DePiep (talk) 18:14, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Fixed. Double sharp (talk) 04:24, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I have fixed the infoboxes. Note that Cs and Fl use Oxford spelling.Burzuchius (talk) 14:03, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
In that case, {{infobox fluorine}} should have |engvar=en-OED then. I won't do it because I cannot check that. Must have to do with my cambridgeian dialect. -DePiep (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Fl is not fluorine, it is flerovium. And I have already done. Burzuchius (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
LOL. What do i know about elements. This Fl-thing, is that something new? -DePiep (talk) 19:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Burzuchius ergh, pls check Cs and my Cs infobox edit. -DePiep (talk) 19:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
OK. I have corrected a bug in the module Engvar. Burzuchius (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Nah. Why so negative? I did not use my chance to say that I liked it was so easy to apply my {{engvar}}. -DePiep (talk)
Just to say that before my correction, |engvar=en-OED in templates had given unexpected results. Now the module works well.Burzuchius (talk) 20:40, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I got that. It's just that I enjoy the improvements over bug reports. Bugs in "my" code. -DePiep (talk) 20:44, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 06 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 October 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 September 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:21, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 August 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 21 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 June 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 04 July 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Changing leads to one paragraph

In this edit you are changing the leads to one paragraph [9]. They should be left as three paragraphs IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:57, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Same here [10] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Doc James You are right, bad edits in the lede. You c an safely revert my edit (instead of manula repair). Because, that will notify me and it will put the article page back in the maintenance category it was about.
Interestingly, MOS:PARAGRAPHS says: "Between paragraphs—as between sections—there should be a single blank line". However, what you reinstated (and what most FA's have!) is just a <br/> forced single break at the end of a paragraph (no blank line at all). Strange. -DePiep (talk) 09:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
I manually undid the few I have come across. No worries. Not sure what a "<br/>" is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:01, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Good. "<br/>" (=line break) in wikicode does "enforce newsline here", so the same as the two whitelines do we are talking about. Dmo

Like this lorem ipsum: blaba end of paragraph.
next paragraph newline. more blabla. -DePiep (talk) 18:23, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you consider ... YBG (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Would you consider moving your Against from the end of the brainstorm list to the newly created support/oppose section? Thanks! YBG (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

P.S. I've tried to include your comments into the brainstorm list. I trust I haven't wrenched your ideas out of context. YBG (talk) 01:44, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
So far, I see no reason to withdraw becasuse I do oppose. You may consider another reason by me, as I explained above (ie before jumping into brainstorm list.
And let me be clear at the start of this year: you might as well ask Sandbh what his preferred colors are and then skip the process. Sandbh seems to think and press into content that his highschool wall PT is the perfect form and needs no further sources, discussion or improvement. (Strange you did not address this btw). As long as this threat to push looms over Elements, it is useless and misleading to ask for contributions of others. -DePiep (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to withdraw your objection, just asking you to consider moving it from one section (WT:ELEMENTS § Potential considerations in color selection) to a different section (WT:ELEMENTS § Support for and opposition to this suggested process). I considered inserting the section head ====Support for and opposition to this suggested process==== between the list and your vote, but I thought that would be a significant change of context that was skating too close to violating WP:TPOC. YBG (talk) 06:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Main Page (2015 redesign)

Hi DePiep

I left a response to your comments on the 2015 redesign of the Wikipedia Main Page.

Regards, Ntmamgtw (talk) 02:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

InChI edits

Hi. In this edit to Atorvastatin it appears that you accidentally over wrote it with material taken from Atomoxetine. I have restored the previous material minus the redundant InChI parameters. If you are using a script for these edits, you might want to check the script. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 13:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes this is a bug in AWBscript. I thought it was solved, but appearently not. I'll take some more care. (you can always revert any doubtful edit in this series). -DePiep (talk) 13:42, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Please see

Please see Template talk:Infobox locomotive#One field cancelled out another. Peter Horn User talk 20:37, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

Socks and railway gauge categories

FYI: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_15#Category:2_ft_gauge_railways Andy Dingley (talk) 23:37, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

search words: Andy Dingley SOCK ACCUSATION SPI OCULI FA BF -DePiep (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:IACSmember

Template:IACSmember has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, DePiep. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate parameters in template

Your edits to Template:Periodic table (32 columns, micro) created duplicate parameter errors in the following locations: 

"style" in
{{#ifexpr:>118| style="border:none; width:6px; min-width:6px;" | style="border:none; width:0;" }}

"group" in
{{Periodic table (32 columns, micro)/elementcell|group=-1|category=lanthanide|group=3|number=57|name=Lanthanum|mark=|symbol=La}}

Let me know if you need help fixing this problem. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Jonesey95, fixed the "group" one. Page not in CAT:DUPARG any more.
Could not fix: "style" one.
{{#ifexpr:>118|

not found, always 

{{#ifexpr:{{{number|0}}}>118|

Also, the two |style= params are in an #if-clause (a long time already), and so do not concur/overlap. All OK now? -DePiep (talk) 18:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

The tracking category is gone, so it looks like the template is OK now. Thanks for the quick fix.
I think the "style" one was a false positive from the script that I use. Pinging Frietjes to look at this edge case. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:06, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
if it is functioning properly and not adding pages the duplicate parameters category, then it's probably fine. just use {{!}} if you want to put wikitable markup inside of parser functions or template args. Frietjes (talk) 19:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
(moot for this case:) Sure, but imo does not apply here. Curiosity is that the double |style= is inside an #ifexpr clause, and so should not be listed as cause (false positive, as Jonesey95 said). -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
To clarify: "style" was reported by a script that I use to locate duplicate parameters. That script is not perfect. Only "group" was causing an actual problem that made the hidden tracking category apply. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
OK. -DePiep (talk) 21:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Metals other than the alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide and transition metals listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Metals other than the alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide and transition metals. Since you had some involvement with the Metals other than the alkali, alkaline-earth, lanthanide, actinide and transition metals redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Dustin (talk) 22:21, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Electron shell svg images

Hello DePiep, recently IUPAC accepted new element names for last 4 elements claimed by IUPAC. Because of this there have occurred problems on Commons. What happened: User A changed symbol of all 4 svg images, but he left their name the same. Then user B tried to revert changes, but was stopped and warned of continuing. Could you please look on Electron_shell_113_Ununtrium_-_no_label.svg and other 3, their labelled derivatives and localized ones and help to solve little revert wars and misunderstandings somehow? --Dvorapa (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Dvorapa I did not find any discussion or the warning. I'd say:
1. Symbol change of 113 was OK. The reverse by Susan281 is not needed (to be undone).
2. Change filename: can be proposed. Is independent of content. Argument: name pattern (I've done).
That's all. -DePiep (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. --Dvorapa (talk) 18:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

How many data ...

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

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

Help

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks to you! Those are high quality edits you make, well sourced. Especially at WP:ELEMENTS we want to keep the high standard for articles. -DePiep (talk) 00:26, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Lists of pages/Articles

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


  • I'll do it right now.

This is how:

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

WP:PETSCAN is an in-wiki category lister.

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

tasmanian railway articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

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

The Signpost: 4 November 2016

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

Welcome back

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

The Signpost: 22 December 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

File:Periodic table (metals–metalloids–nonmetals, 32 columns).png

Hi DePiep

I'm working on an update to the periodic table article, to change it from -Lu-Lr to -La-Ac, as per this decision.

For this file are you able to able to move the two boxes for Sc and Y over to left, so that they sit to the right of Ca and Sr?

thank you, Sandbh (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Will do, one of these days. -DePiep (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Infobox at House of Romanov

According to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the purpose of of an infobox is to summarize, rather than repeat - and there's a certain difference. In the case of House of Romanov, we have three infoboxes in the article. The one at the top has quite a few details that are for all intents and purposes copied from the boxes below - and the box itself has done a very poor job at summarizing the article, not to mention being rather unsightly and containing details that are hardly key features of the subject.

The box at the top originally refers to the House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov - but one editor moved the box to the corresponding section of the article. At some point later someone put a new box at the top without referring to the one below. Now we have a funny situation where the parent house of the House of Romanov is...the House of Romanov, and one cadet branch of the House of Romanov is...also the House of Romanov. In addition, the fact that its current head is disputed since 1992 is repeated in the box at the top and the box at the House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov section. Its dissolution during the Russian Revolution is also repeated - and so are the cadet branches of the house. Essentially, what we have here is an infobox that is the sum of two others in the same article (though mostly a poor copy of one of them) - which is not something I've seen often on Wikipedia. And one more thing - the exact style of the head of the House of Romanov is in no way a key fact of the article.

I believe this is a case where an infobox at the top should not be necessary. The two boxes below have already done a decent job at summarizing the history of the house. Morningstar1814 (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I wrote "repeat", for "summarize", essentially the same: infobox data should be in the article body so the e.s. "info is already in the article" was a contradictionary reason. Of course loads of detail info could be removed. If the two lower infoboxes are enough, then there is something seriously wrong with the article structure (main info is not in top). IMO, your description of the confusion (multiple houses), would ask for two or three (very short) infoboxes in top without changing the lower, larger ones. That said, go ahead and edit as you think good. -DePiep (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

request for help (minor)

In Lead#Biological, the fire diamond acts as if it had a left margin which I, however, can't find in the code (in the article or in the template). Could you tell why is that and how to fix it?--R8R (talk) 18:19, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Please excuse me for dropping in. I saw this request and guessed that if the left margin was changed from 0 px to about –12 px, that this would fix it, which appears to be the case. Sandbh (talk) 22:44, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
(ec) R8R Gtrs Sandbh: What is wrong? At this moment, over here, that one looks OK in Firefox (both in desktop and in pseudo-mobile view). Left-margin is 0 by vision. What can I do? {{NFPA 704}}. -DePiep (talk) 22:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Sandbh set left-margin equal to -12px to achieve this "normal" look. That in a way solves the problem, but still, is there a solution that would not involve such an irregular value of left-margin?--R8R (talk) 23:04, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
On my iPad, using Chrome, the fire diamond had a blank left margin of about 15 px or so. De Piep, are you saying that in Firefox, before I changed the left margin, the image has a blank left margin? Sandbh (talk) 23:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
(ec)So he did, not just suggest (here). Way too crude. I consider this 'solved', but maybe later on I better solve this. -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Sandbh, cross-editing/checking this way is useless. We will always be comparing different versions etc etc. Maybe I'll look tomorrow. -DePiep (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Actually, I'd expect a post saying like 'Could you ...'. -DePiep (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Re: your question at VPT

Have you seen {{Infobox person ii}}? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:09, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Nikkimaria Brilliant! Thanks. -DePiep (talk) 08:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Infobox at House of Romanov

According to WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE, the purpose of of an infobox is to summarize, rather than repeat - and there's a certain difference. In the case of House of Romanov, we have three infoboxes in the article. The one at the top has quite a few details that are for all intents and purposes copied from the boxes below - and the box itself has done a very poor job at summarizing the article, not to mention being rather unsightly and containing details that are hardly key features of the subject.

The box at the top originally refers to the House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov - but one editor moved the box to the corresponding section of the article. At some point later someone put a new box at the top without referring to the one below. Now we have a funny situation where the parent house of the House of Romanov is...the House of Romanov, and one cadet branch of the House of Romanov is...also the House of Romanov. In addition, the fact that its current head is disputed since 1992 is repeated in the box at the top and the box at the House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov section. Its dissolution during the Russian Revolution is also repeated - and so are the cadet branches of the house. Essentially, what we have here is an infobox that is the sum of two others in the same article (though mostly a poor copy of one of them) - which is not something I've seen often on Wikipedia. And one more thing - the exact style of the head of the House of Romanov is in no way a key fact of the article.

I believe this is a case where an infobox at the top should not be necessary. The two boxes below have already done a decent job at summarizing the history of the house. Morningstar1814 (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I wrote "repeat", for "summarize", essentially the same: infobox data should be in the article body so the e.s. "info is already in the article" was a contradictionary reason. Of course loads of detail info could be removed. If the two lower infoboxes are enough, then there is something seriously wrong with the article structure (main info is not in top). IMO, your description of the confusion (multiple houses), would ask for two or three (very short) infoboxes in top without changing the lower, larger ones. That said, go ahead and edit as you think good. -DePiep (talk) 18:19, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Morningstar1814 replied. -DePiep (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
@DePiep: Thank you for your reply. The issue was not so much "info already in article" as "info already in another infobox...and another one". The article is already structually messy and infobox redundancies only adds to that. I think the best course of action - which I have boldly taken - would be to remove the two boxes below, only keeping key facts for the infobox at the top. Now the box covers both the original House of Romanov and its direct continuation, the House of Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov. The Romanovs' history as an unofficialized "dynasty" before 1613 and the end of the original Romanovs in 1762 might be difficult to put into the infobox and of secondary importance - I'll leave it to the lede to explain those nuances. Morningstar1814 (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I see. Maybe now the baby is out with the bathwater...? Probably those two long infoboxes were OK in the article (full of details, in their section). IMO that was and still is OK. The only question would be: how to summarize? With two two houses rightfully in there, two very smaal top-boxes could be OK (two weapons, and even shorter than the single one is now). But, as said, I won't edit. -DePiep (talk) 08:16, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

File:First Ionization Energy.svg

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

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

Wow!

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

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

The Signpost: 17 January 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Template:Chembox Jmol/format displayed text

I think "graph" is an incorrect word in standard English here. It's not quite any of the main meanings at Graph for example. It might be a "graphic", or a "diagram", or more precisely for this context a "structure". DMacks (talk) 02:55, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

@DMacks: Removing graph from this sounds good. Next, I don't think we should use interactive structure, because the structure is not interactive (one can not change that in Jmol). I think "graphic" is OK, possibly 3D model. Will play with it and then change something for sure. -DePiep (talk) 06:11, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

No personal attacks

This is completely uncalled for. Stop it. Boghog (talk) 22:24, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 March 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:25, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 April 2016

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Isotopes of oganesson - discrepancy noted.

The half life of oganesson-294 is variously listed as 0.7 ms and 7 ms in both the article on oganesson and the isotopes of oganesson article.

However, the source paper from 2006 states 0.89 ms is the half-life.

Which value is it? Is there a new source for the half-life of this isotope that is something different than 0.89 ms? And if so, is it 7 ms or 0.7 ms? It makes an order of magnitude of difference.

8.40.151.110 (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

@8.40.151.110: Copied to and see Talk:Oganesson. -DePiep (talk) 23:27, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Iron(II) sulfate

Imagename1 already existed. Your addition duplicated a parameter.Naraht (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Your input

I know this is way outside our normal area of collaboration, but I would appreciate your feedback on a set of tables I'm working on in my sandbox. The two tables are intended to replace the ones located at Living Presidents of the United States §§ Living presidents​ and Living vice presidents. It is my use of colors that first made me think of you, but I'd also appreciate your expertise on table layout and formatting. You could respond here or contribute to the discussion at Talk:Living Presidents of the United States § Colorized list with events. Any input would be appreciated, even a quick Thumbs up iconThumbs down icon reaction. Thanks! YBG (talk) 04:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

  • YBG See your sandbox (in case you missed it...). A good playground and useful for our PT category colors. Lot's of code changes, so ping if something is unclear/not working. -DePiep (talk) 11:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Discussed somewhere?

Hi DePiep, Has there been some discussion somewhere that would justify your rapid, bot-like series of AWB edits such as this? The style of initials that you are changing away from has been widely accepted under wp:MOSMED. LeadSongDog come howl! 18:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

It's called 'use consistent style within one article'. For example, e.g. don't use initial styling like 'SR' and 'A. B.' and 'P.Q.' mixed. Don't know of any discussion, its a very old habit/guideline/MOS; same for dates and using say British English. I did not see this mentioned in your MOSMED link, did I miss it? (But I would not expect it there tbh). -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
WP:CITESTYLE -DePiep (talk) 18:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Vancouver style is what is generally used in medicine. It is defined/endorsed in the ICMJE recommendations and in Citing Medicine. As such most of our tools that harvest data from PubMed generate it. When you switched a few cites away from that, you created a mixed style, rather than unifying on the established one. Please don't do this on medicine articles without getting agreement first. LeadSongDog come howl! 20:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Now I see: MED here uses Vancouver, which includes writing "Author AB" initials. And example aspirin was (& is again) noty mixing up these styles (Vancouver all over). Thanks for pointing this out. I'll try to take a look at the damage (but my AWB just broke down...; anyway I touched only a few dozen at max from PHARMA FA/GA/A articles IIRC). -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I undid the affected WPMED articles. It may eventually all become automated anyhow, if we ever get a working Wikicite. Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:31, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for all (won't swarm your messagelist with 15 of those ;-) ). Nice to see the 'gf' in there. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 15:40, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Sc-Y-La-Ac

I just realised that File:Periodic_table_blocks_spdf_(32_column).svg needs to change to a Sc-Y-La-Ac format, like Periodic table. Could you do it? ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 11:53, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Sure. that would be:
1. number "3" right next to "2" for group number,
2. two blue cells moved to the left (Sc, Y),
3. any change in redgreen (f-block) cells? -DePiep (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
The green (f-block cells) have to shift one cell to the right; right now they are La–Yb and Ac–No, but they should be Ce–Lu and Th–Lr. Double sharp (talk) 05:51, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
Into this: File:Periodic_table,_blocks_when_group_3_is_Sc-Y-La-Ac_(32-col).svg talkpage image? La and Ac are d-block then? (I will fix the details later). Better I do not make assumptions about f-block. Double sharp -DePiep (talk) 21:05, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
I'll reply on DS's behalf if you don't mind. You got the idea right but it's best we show group 3 a part of the d block just identical to the, say, group 4, except for location. So continuations of the d arrows should also be found on elements of the group, these squares should have borders like all squares do, and perhaps a small "d" under the group should also be good to match all those "s-block" etc. but there's clearly not enough room to write "d-block," and this is just one offspring group anyway, we have "d-block" later.--R8R (talk) 21:19, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Sure I don't mind. Arrows and text is what I call "details, later". Are the colors right? Are their locations right? -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes, colors and locations are right.--R8R (talk) 21:26, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
OK. Will be published. -DePiep (talk) 21:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done -DePiep (talk) 17:23, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Double sharp (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The {{archives}} template you added in this edit does not link to the correct discussion archive pages. --superioridad (discusión) 11:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

WP:ERRORS

Hi. I saw your exchange on The Rambling Man's talk page. Just a note to say that what happened at ERRORS in this diff is completely normal for that page. Take a look at the page history. In fact, it's specifically mentioned in the page's rubric: "Once an error has been fixed, or has rotated off the Main Page, or has been acknowledged as not an error, the error report will be removed from this page; please check the page's history for discussion and action taken." Cheers --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes I saw that. Weird for a talkpage (icw suggestive contributions). Anyway, thx for the note. -DePiep (talk) 16:22, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
That's OK. It does make sense, given how the page is used, it's just not how Wikipedians are used to things working. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Chinese periodic table

I wonder if you could update the image with our standard colours? ^_^

Also, the four new elements have (at last) gotten their Chinese names: 113Nh , 115Mc 镆, 117Ts , 118Og , so I would also request that the new names be added in. (Annoyingly, three of the four are not in Unicode.) Double sharp (talk) 03:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

(P.S. The most amusing case: nebulium is not a real element, but it was thought to be one for long enough that it got a Chinese character , which unsurprisingly has still not made it to Unicode.) Double sharp (talk) 04:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Sure. I'll use the images. Which group 3 do you want? (Generally safe: if changing group 3, create a new filename i.e., fork it). Pro tip to have these new characters in Unicode within one week: say they are emojis [12] -DePiep (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
For the one used on enwiki, surely it should be Sc-Y-La-Ac now. I suppose other language versions might prefer to have a version that is unchanged in all but the names of Nh, Mc, Ts, and Og.
The profusion of emoji for almost everything conceivable is getting vaguely absurd and hilarious. Nobody seems to care about anything else that goes into Unicode anymore. Myself, I'll stick with reusing characters for things they were not meant to do. *･゜ﾟ･*:.｡..｡.:*･゜(n‘∀‘)ηﾟ･*:.｡. .｡.:*･゜ﾟ･* Double sharp (talk) 07:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
P.S. You do raise a very good point though. I can see on my computer the traditional characters for Rf–Cn and Fl–Lv (all in Unicode; for Mc they repurposed an old character which used to mean "sword", which today is called 剑; a moscovium sword might be interesting in a comically lethal way, but I would not be too keen on seeing that), but not the simplified characters (except Mc, again). Also annoyingly, Se and Sn are homophones in Chinese. It's an impressive tour de force that they managed to get through 118 elements with only one collision, at least. Double sharp (talk) 07:49, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
I guess you know about Unicode character proposal pipeline [13] (last update 2017-Jan-27). A speedy introduction of these four would become visible there I expect (new main Unicode version release each June). This is a simple google hit from 2012, introducing Fl and Lv. I notes the use of PUA (at first), and their noticing of reused/new characters in Unicode (Unicode is very tough on: "reuse existing character/create new character" properly). I wWill see the changes in the article. -DePiep (talk) 09:26, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Found
U+9268 鉨 CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPH-9268 Nh
U+9546 镆 CJK UNIFIED IDEOGRAPH-9546 Mc


113Nh , 115Mc 镆, 117Ts , 118Og ,
A.
File:Nihonium zh-hans.svg, simplified (first one you mentioned here)
B. 鉨, traditional (by U+9268 in font mentioned later as background not to be used)
At this size I see the difference. Will change to the top one (simplified, from imagefile). Hope you can manage the complaints for a day. -DePiep (talk) 05:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Also, todo some time: larger images of these in the image. I already went from 12px to 14 px (in the same box), but there is still more space to be created for this. -DePiep (talk) 05:14, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! BTW, regarding the colours: 84Po should be grey (post-transition metal), not brown (metalloid). Double sharp (talk) 09:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

The criteria for choosing Chinese characters for the elements

I hope you don't mind if I put this on your talk page, since this discussion seems the most relevant to it; I should translate it for our page on chemical elements in East Asian languages. The criteria of the China National Committee for Terms in Sciences and Technologies are (with my translation, which tries valiantly to be natural-sounding in English:

  1. 根据尽量少造新字的原则，在元素定名需要造字时，尽量选用已有的古字。
    • When coining names for chemical elements, try to use already existing characters if possible; avoid coining new ones. (Although apparently they made an exception to avoid obviously referring to Japan in nihonium; the Chinese name of Japan is 日本, so I would have thought that 鈤 would have worked fine for nihonium. But no, they made up a new one, making it much less obvious. Why am I not surprised? ^_^)
  2. 选用或新造汉字应符合国家汉字规范。
    • Selection or construction of new Chinese characters should be consistent with the national standard. (Yes, there is such a thing.)
  3. 符合以形声字为主体的汉字书写特点，以体现元素的性质，发音靠近国际命名。
    • The sound and written form of the character should reflect a property of the element and approximate its international name (presumably the English one).
  4. 避免与以前的元素名称同音，避免用多音字。
    • Avoid homophony with already named elements, and avoid creating polysyllabic characters. (The latter exist, but almost no one believes it.)
  5. 使用简化字，避免用怪异字，选用笔画少的字。
    • Prefer simpler characters with fewer strokes.
  6. 为了避免歧义，选字应尽量避开生活常用字和已经用做其他行业专用字的汉字。
    • To avoid ambiguity, avoid commonly used words in everyday life and other fields. (Resurrecting archaic characters is an option per criterion 1, and is in fact a commonly used one.)
  7. 尽量采用繁简无差别的字，以利于海峡两岸和汉语圈科技术语的统一。
    • Try to use characters which are the same in traditional and simplified forms (since the "metal" radical is different between the two, I suppose it means the phonetic component on the right), to promote cross-strait unity in Chinese scientific terminology.

Double sharp (talk) 08:07, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Into DYK

Double sharp I've added new section Chemical_elements_in_East_Asian_languages#Recently discovered elements. Pls take a look (and edit to take credits some way).

I think this is nice to nominate as a WP:DYK fact. To meet the DYK requirements, we should look at:

Propose within seven days of the addition (after my edit); check foreign language translation ("by nominator"); get rid of the 2010 "single source" tag; we cannot DYK the Japan-character issue (not neutral); it should have a picture of course! -DePiep (talk) 08:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Must be free images; existing Mc image/fontcharacter is not interesting. Ping Yinweichen who made the files. -DePiep (talk) 08:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, of course the Japan-character thing is not neutral (I can point that out to you, but not in the mainspace ^_^). I would of course add a statement of the criteria.
For me to be really happy with this article, though, I would want to have a fuller account of the history. Who were the Qing-Dynasty intellectuals who came up with the first batch of new names? (They were definitely not all the same as the current ones, as can be seen from looking at Chinese periodic tables from that period. 钍 is now thorium, but it originally meant aluminium.) And the old ones, what are their etymologies? (Phosphorus 磷 I know is related to 粦 "will-o'-the-wisp".) What are the pronunciations of all of those characters? (Should not be difficult to add as ruby glosses.) What did the introduction of computers change? (And where can I find the announcements for the names of Fl and Lv a few years ago, and the d-block transactinides more years back?) There are also a few things for other languages – the 2014 anglicisation of the Korean chemical names was certainly not undertaken without a firestorm of protest. And how does the rest of chemical nomenclature work? (My favourite: hydrogen is 氢 qīng, oxygen is 氧 yǎng, so hydroxyl is 羟 qiǎng as a portmanteau.) All of this is probably much easier for me to find than for you, of course, but it will still create a massive expansion. Then again, since DYK needs a fivefold expansion, it seems to be a good approach! Double sharp (talk) 08:57, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I misunderstood the rules (thought adding a nice new fact would be enough). So this DYK won't fly. I was going to point to better references/furtherreading/externallinks for first improvement, but that's not that urgent any more. The upgrading you are talking about I cannot contribute much (at my own initiative, or maybe picking Fv and Lv characters). -DePiep (talk) 09:13, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

2ft 7in Gauge

Hello again.

I've found another!

Two internal quarry lines less than 2km apart near Dyserth in North Wales are documented in Goodall, Stephen P. (2003). The Prestatyn and Dyserth Branch Line. Headington: Oakwood Press. ISBN 978-0-85361-313-8. LP 160. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help) as being of 2' 7" gauge. One of the lines survived until 1973 and appears in photographs, though none shows it as being anything other than plainly narrow gauge. A second source for this line repeats 2' 7", but it may simply be parroting Goodall without attribution. Nevertheless this later author is reputable and his work was published. I am writing Dyserth branch line as we speak.

I don't have anything more than this I'm afraid, is this enough for you to add it?

Kind regards

Dave DavidAHull (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Great indeed! I'll make some changes. However, I stopped maintainting these railgauges, because here the maintaining categories were deleted, staking away those useful and irreplaceable maintenance tools. -DePiep (talk) 07:51, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
DavidAHull Could you improve the article wrt this? Worth mentioning, and use {{sfn}} maybe for the source? Since it is unique. -DePiep (talk) 07:57, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
I am very disappointed that you have been driven from this fine work. I don't pretend to understand the detail of the discussion, but it reads like an animal I've met many times over the years, which goes something kike this - "X is crap because I don't understand it or someone else invented it, so chuck it away" "no, no, it's useful, please keep it" "no, its crap because the moon rises in the south" "I agree that the moon rises in the south, but what has that got to do with it" "I never said the sun sets in the east, so X must be crap" "ok, let's forget sun and moon, please leave X alone, it does no harm and I use it a lot" "how can you forget sun and moon, they are important, you must be an idiot" X is zapped.

I've taken the mention of Trackgauge 2ft 7in out of the Dyserth branch line infobox at least temporarily because I haven't introduced it to the article yet and haven't decided how best to include the ng lines, they were quarry feeder lines, so not part of the branch as such. There is no question I will use it, but I'm not sure how, yet.

I have valued your work and manner and hope our paths will continue to cross.

Kind regards, Dave DavidAHull (talk) 08:48, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that's how that discussion felt like. I called them 'armchair maintainers' (saying for others that they don't need that tool). Anyway, now I can not research whether this new gauge has overlaps with 2 ft 6+1⁄2 in (775 mm) articles.
Edits: totally up to you. Pls add the source(s) right next to its first mentioning. As I wrote at {{Track gauge}} (talk), this could be a rounding mutation of more common 2 ft 6+1⁄2 in (775 mm). That would show in Goodall's own sources. For now, we stick with Goodall's original value. -DePiep (talk) 09:05, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Wow: 150K edits

That award at the top of your page sure looks pretty. Sandbh (talk) 12:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I gave it to myself, created from an older true honorary 100k badge. Also, for the occasion I actually printed our PT on hardboard, it's now at the wall above my screen. (The colors work horrible, in print. Work to do). -DePiep (talk) 12:36, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

uncolouring flerovium

Could you change the colour from PTM to "unknown chemical properties" for the navigation at Template:Infobox flerovium? Thanks in advance! Double sharp (talk) 07:09, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Inline image mobile display problem

Regarding the issue we had with the plus and minus signs, it has now been fixed according to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T159100. YBG (talk) 16:14, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

element 121 article is coming

RIKEN is planning to try it after 119 and 120, and there are now significantly more chemical studies and cross-section calculations for it than there were in 2014. I think it's notable enough for an article now: I'm working on it in my sandbox now, and telling you about this in advance now should make the coming transition from 120 main articles to 121 as smooth as possible. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 08:33, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

[{{U|[Unbiunium|And it's up]]! If I have neglected to update any of the templates to add element 121 in, please fix it for me and gently scold me about it. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 07:51, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Double sharp Unfortunately RL is requiring most of my attention and time. I don't expect to be able to join this week. -DePiep (talk) 20:06, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
No problem; please take your time! I think I got all the obvious ones already, so we're mostly okay. Double sharp (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Lead

Hi, DePiep, I've got a small favor to ask for.

You may see in the FAC thread that one vector picture needs some customization. Which I tried to make, but while it looks fine on my computer, the Wiki servers for some reason treat it as a re-upload of the old version. I tried compiling the svg via online services and they seem to ignore all texts, even in common fonts like Arial. Do you know how I could make the text look like intended?--R8R (talk) 21:45, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Your previous revisions were good. The issue brought up at FAC was the graphic being too similar to the original. I don't think it now looks better but at least different and that was what I was looking for. I think one of your revision save for the current one will work; I'll probably improve it or get someone to do it after the image review is over. Thank you very much!--R8R (talk) 15:45, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
Some of my revisions had black boxes again - at least for some time. Is why I edited some more. Note: current one has different fonts for the axis titles (that was a test only). Graphically, that is not desired (ugly). I won't edit, leave it to you. -DePiep (talk) 04:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Village Pump RFC

Because of your input on previous discussions, I wanted to bring your attention to a discussion I have started at the Village Pump regarding the use of foreign languages in templates. --Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 19:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Zackmann08 Avery very good initiative, high need. Now let's hope we/I can keep that 'merge' thing out... Will contribute there later. -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Wikidata

I am not happy to have the infoboxes pull much from Wikidata. There are simply too many issues. For example the medications it lists for pneumonia are "simvastatin, ticagrelor, aztreonam, cholecalciferol, prednisone, sucralfate, acetylcysteine, sparfloxacin"[14]

And what makes it worse is that this was added in Apr of 2016 by a bot[15]

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

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

remarks by CFCF

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

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

Orphaned non-free image File:Journal of Topology cover.gif

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Journal of Topology cover.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

recent changes

Hi DePiep, I think after you move [16] the RELC on our project page no longer works. --Stone (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Engvar template

I believe the discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)#RfC: Alternative language articles is showing strong community opposition to different versions of articles for different variants of English, and I have therefore nominated the Engvar template for discussion. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:28, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Xenophon Philosopher request

I note that you have made some previous input into the Duffryn, Llynvi and Porthcawl Railway and wonder if you would consider writing a short Wikipedia article on the terminal station of Porthcawl. Failing that, could you ask someone you know to take on this task.

Xenophon Philosopher (talk) 15:01, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Xenophon Philosopher Hi, just found your post now. Thanks. My answer: I am not that good in railway articles (I mainly do the track gauges, sizes only then). Interested editors you can reach on WT:RAIL I guess. Ask more here if you want to. -DePiep (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Suggestions

Hope you enjoyed your short wikibreak.

Following up on your suggestion for {{Living presidents of the United States}}, I have have a mockups in user spaceas follows:

If you've got a chance, could you have a look. It looks OK for me now, except for a couple of tiny details. On my browser the width of the {{rbox}} vary slightly, and the line pitch of the +/- column is ever so slightly different from the other multi-line columns. Any suggestions would be most appreciated - either related to these small issues or any other improvements you can find. Thanks and cheers! YBG (talk) 03:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Note re the +/- column. This is entirely because now that the bug has been repaired, I have gone back to using images instead of simply colored text.
The sub-templates above have all been designed to be used for both the Living POTUS and Living VP tables. In the living VP table, all of the VP inaugurations are currently redlinked, which before moving everything to template space, I propose to bluelink all of these by adding the appropriate redirect, which in most cases will be a link to the corresponding presidential inauguration, with the exception of John Adams, who "entered into the execution of his office" before his President (Washington) entered into his. YBG (talk) 02:51, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
re YBG. tbh, I'd like to skip this development research. The reason is that I want to spend my wikitime on the bigger issues (elements, chemistry). While the POTUS table already is fine as it is live. (I mentioned the subtemplating back when I didn't know you used a spreadsheet to do repetitive style settings etc. -- starting it now is good exercise, but not winning much any more).
First glance notes: 1. add a padding-left:1px to the /box (esp for the =/- column separation), 2. try to right-align the date (but not the From:-text). 3. Coming back for bugs is OK. -DePiep (talk) 13:21, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the input. Totally understand the need to budget one's wikitime. Cheers! YBG (talk) 15:09, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Oh YBG and when using subtemplates, start using named parameters not numbered ones. Helps editors like you & me, and prevents unexpected whitespace (parameter: number=/=name in this). -DePiep (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DePiep/Archive_9&oldid=1142961694"