User talk:DePiep/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15
Sep 2019 ~~ Mar 2020

ANI thread

Hi DePiep, You may wish to strike 3. Go fuck yourself. from the ANI thread. Considering the atmosphere of that thread, and that your other comments provide valuable insight, it wouldn't make sense for you to be admonished for the same thing you are commenting on. Even though everyone who has participated in that thread agrees that IM's actions were inappropriate, this comment crosses the same line. Just keep this in mind. ComplexRational (talk) 00:23, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Template:Unknown parameters category errors

A tag has been placed on Category:Template:Unknown parameters category errors requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to 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 deleted 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. Liz Read! Talk! 16:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

  • As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Larry Sanger

I am in the process of peer reviewing the article. QuackGuru (talk) 17:06, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Good. I hope my edit was helpful. -DePiep (talk) 20:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Do you want to review it after I review it. We can do this together. This is a problem with most of the content. It is going to be a massive review. I am going to review every single sentence and read every single source. I am also going to check every edit to the article over the last 3 months. I can ping you on the talk page. QuackGuru (talk) 21:11, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
@QuackGuru: I'm sorry, I would not be good in this! What I did was: use the automated spelling check in WP:AWB. It was the automate that did the edit check. I can not improve English sentences really. Succes with your edits. -DePiep (talk) 21:19, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
Very well then. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 21:22, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
AWB has problems following WP:ORDER. {{short description}} should be at the top of the article. Christian75 (talk) 07:21, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Ay, thanks for the heads up. I'll look for it. Is any action (AWB bugreport) active in this that you know of? -DePiep (talk) 08:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't know. I haven't used AWB in a very long time. Christian75 (talk) 08:43, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Reference at Template:Periodic table (nutritional elements)/doc

Hi DePiep,

This ref seems mis-placed. Should it go as part of the template itself (so it appears in articles that transclude the table)? DMacks (talk) 13:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Mass number for undiscovered superheavies

Is there a way to get the mass number show up as "(predicted)" for E119 and E121 and "(unconfirmed)" for E120? I see the qualifiers are already in Template:Infobox element/symbol-to-saw but somehow they don't seem to be showing up at the articles (Ununennium, Unbinilium, and Unbiunium). Double sharp (talk) 10:03, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Use {{Infobox element/symbol-to-most-stable-isotope|symbol=Uue |format=[]}} →
So the values in there are in {{Infobox element/symbol-to-most-stable-isotope}} (m.s.i.). These are complementary to the s.a.w.: when s.a.w. is present, m.s.i. is empty and vice versa. |format=[] is optional. The suffix (comment) is automatically, if needed I can make it an option. The comment is italics because of our infobox habit. -DePiep (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Later, I understood you were talking about the infobox not in general (could have been on other pages). ;-) -DePiep (talk) 13:14, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Everything looks right now. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BS8-replace

Template:BS8-replace has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 05:20, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BS9-replace

Template:BS9-replace has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:BS9-startCollapsible

Template:BS9-startCollapsible has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jc86035 (talk) 06:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:Track gauge/testcases

Module:Track gauge/testcases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:33, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:BananasArgs2

Module:BananasArgs2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Overriding the phase field in element infoboxes

Is it possible to override the phase field automatically inserted from {{Infobox element/symbol-to-phase}} in the superheavy element infoboxes? Currently for example {{Infobox oganesson}} reads "unknown phase (predicted)" under "Phase at STP", which is rather odd: it should really read "solid (predicted)", but only for the infobox (so periodic tables should still give it the unknown phase colour). Double sharp (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done: infobox reads {{Infobox element/symbol-to-phase}} by default, and |phase=any text overwrites this value. |phase comment= nicely can have (predicted) and a reference. This overwriting currently happens only in infobox Fr(!) and Z=100 - 118 (Fm-Og); I did not change these infoboxes. Z>=119: phase not shown at the moment. -DePiep (talk) 10:21, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! As for Fr (and At, really): I am a bit sceptical of those figures and will look around for where they come from, since macroscopic samples of these elements have not been made. Probably they will become "unknown phase" when I find out. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 10:33, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
OK. You may want to edit (update) {{Infobox element/symbol-to-phase}} for francium. -DePiep (talk) 10:40, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

July 2018

DePiep, I thought you had agreed to stop altering the capitalization of "middle ages" back in January, but you seem to have continued doing so, and continued mislabeling it as a "typo" (and labeling your revert as a "minor" edit) in March. Given how you behaved in the January discussion (going out of your way to take offence when I complimented you, and then twice posting "It's resolved -- let's stop talking about it") before going back and doing the same thing two months later with an almost identical edit summary, this seems somewhat tendentious: I would encourage you not to do so again. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Ouch, a very disappointing experience that must be. Maybe it is not all that bad. At the moment I don't have time to respond extensively and carefully, so I will reply later on. -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
User talk:Hijiri88: you write going out of your way to take offence when I complimented you. To be clear, do you mean to say that, back in January, I deliberately misunderstood your wording "useful-ass edit summaries"? (I note that later in that thread, its meaning was clarified and so I struck my objection).
Then if it was a compliment re my editsummaries, why do you now write doing the same thing two months later with an almost identical edit summary, this seems somewhat tendentious -- if it was a compliment back then, why do you judge it to be the opposite as a blame while being 'almost identical'?
As for the content of that discussion (capitalising of "middle ages/Middle Ages"), what would you describe is the final conclusion of that MOS-thread? To me it is not clear. -DePiep (talk) 07:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
That definitely seemed to be the case. Your somewhat troll-ish comments elsewhere in the discussion back this up.
Yeah, because you would not have an identical edit summary unless you went back and copied the wording you had used earlier, before we had agreed that "middle ages" was acceptable. That means you knew that the edit you were making was disruptive, and your edit summary is evidence of that. That your edit summaries are often useful in establishing your intentions is a good thing, but when your intentions are disruptive ... well, I guess it's still useful when your edit summaries make that clear.
The final conclusion was "don't change it", with perhaps a touch of "capitalization is usually only for the European Middle Ages".
Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Different uncertainty-expressing technique

I've tried a different method of expressing the uncertainty at Template:Chem molar mass/testcases. There are doing to be some difficulties, but so far, it seems like it will be much easier than what we were trying before. What do you think? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 18:07, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

@The Nth User: I am active in RL, so have little time to dive into this. Also, I have indicated that without using Lua these calsulations are extremely difficult to program and test. Meanwhile, many months later it is a pity that we did not implement our first, already improved version. Now this is working into Perfect version while skipping the Good. Finally: on Template_talk:Chem_molar_mass I have added the reference Possolo (2018). It has a defining and authoritative description on how to calculate. It also has examples (to test; I did add them to the testpages). I am still waiting for your statement that says: "Yes, we will go by Possolo (2018)". I cannot check the other uncertainty calculations you introduce, and I don't see why we would use them. -DePiep (talk) 07:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Okay; I'll change it back. Also, while I thought that I had already stated it, I am calculating the uncertainty using the method that Possolo (2018) uses and planning to continue using that method. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 16:05, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, could not find it right away. (and I lost the location of the Possolo test excamples). -DePiep (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
How do the testcases look now that I restored an earlier version of Template:Chem molar mass/format/sandbox? I notice that the result in the right column for fluoride at Template:Chem_molar_mass/testcases#Test_for_when_enthalpy_of_formation_makes_a_difference conflict with the calculations that I made at Template_talk:Chem_molar_mass#Enthalpy_of_formation, but I can't figure out why, as enthalpy of formation is included in the mass calculations. The only other potential problem that I could find is that for carbon dioxide and ozone, the sandbox version gives molar masses that are a little higher than the established version, although this is because I altered the molar mass of oxygen because it didn't fall inside the standard range. (I did the same for thallium.) Can you find any other potential issues? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 23:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
re: NO I WON'T SPEND ANY MORE TIME ON THIS. Is what I said. -DePiep (talk) 18:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

GHS errors

Can you clear out your recently-created Category:GHS errors? The pages in this category are also transcluding general errors and as the guy who patrols and fixes general errors, I can't immediately figure out what to do. So you might just make these populate the category without transcluding {{error}}. Thanks, wbm1058 (talk) 15:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

They are an error. True, someone should/could clear that out (in the template maybe?), but we cannot ingore the error in there. DePiep (talk) 18:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
What I'm asking for then is either (1) fix these for me or (2) explain what the errors are and how to fix them. You've put them in the top-priority work queue, so they should be fixed now. wbm1058 (talk) 18:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict) re User:Wbm1058 I don't understand. These are pages with an error, so they are categorised. What's the issue? -DePiep (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The issue is that I can't find the damn errors! If I can't find them then I can't fix them! wbm1058 (talk) 18:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Then click & read just only once in that category header. Anyway, stop cursing on my talkpage instead of asking me a question. -DePiep (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I did ask you a question. Oh, I see. I need to go to the extra trouble to edit and then Show preview to see the errors. Thanks for telling me that. wbm1058 (talk) 19:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, didn't you write [I'm wbm1058,] the guy who patrols and fixes general errors and [I'm wbm1058,] fix these for me? I don't understand your "question" (to ask it nicely). What wiki-commandor-in-chief are you? Of course, I won't fix these for me [you], nor will I explain more since you did not (even try to) grasp the basic documentation. -DePiep (talk) 19:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC) -- For the record: [1], [2], [3]

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

added Bradv • Chetsford • Izno
readded Floquenbeam • Lectonar
removed DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

removed Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

removed Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

  • Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
  • The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2019).

Guideline and policy news

  • A related RfC is seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure.

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2019).

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [4]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2019).

Administrator changes

added EvergreenFir • ToBeFree
removed Akhilleus • Athaenara • John Vandenberg • Melchoir • MichaelQSchmidt • NeilN • Youngamerican • 😂

CheckUser changes

readded Beeblebrox
removed Deskana

Interface administrator changes

readded Evad37

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following an RfC, the blocking policy was changed to state that sysops must not undo or alter CheckUser or Oversight blocks, rather than should not.
  • A request for comment confirmed that sandboxes of established but inactive editors may not be blanked due solely to inactivity.

Technical news

  • Following a discussion, Twinkle's default CSD behavior will soon change, most likely this week. After the change, Twinkle will default to "tagging mode" if there is no CSD tag present, and default to "deletion mode" if there is a CSD tag present. You will be able to always default to "deletion mode" (the current behavior) using your Twinkle preferences.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:20, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

EMA in infobox drug

Thank you very much for your feedback on this. I will look into it. A possible interim solution could be to remove the broken 'by INN' links for now and just link to the EMA medicines search page. Libby EMAcomm (talk) 08:10, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

@Libby EMAcomm: Then publish your API, ffs. (oh and thanks for prescribing how we should organise our site. Remembers me, two years ago, we had the same situation and editiors like me spend a million of hours to get it right). BTW, why on userpage now?-DePiep (talk) 00:01, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Unicode compliant font

Did you notice that you made a red link? (If you meant Unicode font, many articles have a short introduction to the article where more detailed information is to be found. That is what I am trying to achieve). --Red King (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes I know. Intentionally: I think article title Unicode font should be Unicode compliant font (so let's move it). Nice you noted this. -DePiep (talk) 21:21, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I think you would be very well advised to invite consensus before you do that move, rather than just wP:be bold! --Red King (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I will not move anything. I just propose it. -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Mathematical symbols

I'm curious to know why logic symbols are "in" but mathematical symbols are "out". I thought I was rectifying an omission but won't argue your reversion as sorting out the box is the priority now. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

IMO No, logic symbols could/should be out too. There is a grey line between "punctuatios" and "symbols". (currency symbol is punctuation???). Ayway, after the split it becomes more easy. -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Good, that makes more sense, inconsistent treatment bothers me. I'd give it 48 hours if I were you and then just wp:BEBOLD and split it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, giving it a few days at least is good. -DePiep (talk) 08:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Work in progress?

Presumably this is just an artefact of a work in progress but, on editing pound symbol just now (which invokes {{punctuation|£}}), an error message "unknown parameter 1=£" (or words to that effect) appears in preview. It has no obvious effect on the live version of the article. FYI only, no need to reply.--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 09:50, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, introducing named parameters |mark= and |name= (replacing |1, 2, caption=). But the old names still function, so you can ignore the message. (I will edit that article to make it clean). -DePiep (talk) 09:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Were you aware of template:Infobox certification mark? I don't suggest you should integrate it, rather that it might be a suitable template (sic) to emulate when splitting out currency symbols. They certainly don't belong with punctuation. --Red King (talk) 17:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, good point. I'll keep that one nearby when doing the split. Sure currency is higly questionable in there. Anyway, after a split these things are simpler to clean up. (Also, the new infobox can be expanded with extra fields indeed). -DePiep (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

No, it doesn't work

It's a pity you didn't invite comment before going live, it is too substantial to just wp:BEBOLD. Looking at the currencies in particular, I see a sidebox loaded with irrelevant junk (in that specific context). Currencies and other special symbols are not punctuation and it makes no sense to munge them into a mixum-gatherum. Hiding sections might work, but I doubt it. For now, I shall have to comment out the infobox from the currency symbol articles. Let me know when you have a new proposal. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

The infobox part works (apart from the odd name), the issue is the sidebar. I was going to suggest a 'currencies only' sidebar but there is already a navbar at the end of currency articles that does that. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
(ec): What??? 1. I proposed the split, and I performed it as proposed & supported. this did not change the content of the Sidebar list. The junk you see was already present in the previous box. 2. Also, I noted: changes can be applied & proposed from here. (As a matter of fact, the /sandbox is showing what I am working on. Might not surprise you). -DePiep (talk) 16:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I confess to a bit of a knee-jerk reaction because the split [which I supported and continue to support] had the effect of exposing how really inappropriate the old model is/was. Compare the rouble sign now (after I cut the sidebar) with what it was, admittedly it is the worst case I saw. Your infobox works well for currencies because they can be difficult to read at the standard font size so I expect it is going to work equally well for other symbols. But as for the rest of the sidebar, frankly I can't see the point. A navbar does the same job, but less intrusively - see for example Currency symbols. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:16, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
(ec)All fine. I think {{Infobox currency}}, which is the sole infobox to be used there I guess, can show the symbol bigger & clearer, esp the non-Latin ones. Meanwhile, see the infobox in dagger (typography) for changes :-) -- it was your earlier (original) request before the split. -DePiep (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Where is the sandbox you mention? Your own says deleted and template doesn't seem to have one. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
In {{Sidebar_punctuation_marks/sandbox}} I prepared the change: remove currency. Now live. Also I removed the Sidebar from all currency articles. As you prefer, I understand. -DePiep (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
That (navbar) looks a lot more professional. Applause. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Commented out line

Just a note to say that I should have told you that I was commenting out the punctuation template calls in currencty articles, so that it could be reinstated easily if needed. So thank you for just getting on and removing them, you could have just asked me to do it. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

New Infobox currency sign

I have blatantly copied your template:infobox punctuation mark to create template:infobox currency sign. When you can spare a few minutes, would you look it over for me please as it is my first infobox. One item I notice is that in a couple of places you've written just 'punctuation' rather than 'punctuation mark': is that significant or just an oversight during the change of name? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

It should be used: "Punctuation" is the topic of punctuation marks. that is: more in general.
I cold take a fast look. What you can do:

List the parameters you need. I'd say:

(TOP:)

symbol, symbol name, unicode, other names, image+caption, language, script, symbol when plural, name plural

CURRENCY (all can be plural, so there are sets: currnam1, country1; currname2, country2)

curr name, country, is historical?, subunit & symbol (eg cents)

SEE ALSO

see also (eg, pound sign also used for ...), related,
Variants
-DePiep (talk) 20:41, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
You have just proved that I am trying to swim out of my depth! I'm afraid that I don't understand your suggestions. <blush>.
Pound sign: there is only one (the two bar version is just a font choice, same code point). The Egyptian pound is quite different.
Yen sign is a bit more complicated because (a) the same symbol is used for the Yuan and (b) there is a 'normal' width and a 'wide' width.
The Cifrão doesn't have a unicode code point. The consortium decided that it was just a double barred dollar sign = font choice. So on wikipedia we have an svg for it so I have no idea how to fit it into this template.
Others?
Some of your other ideas seem to fork template:Infobox currency so obviously I don't want to do that.
I'll leave it a few days before going ahead. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll have to quit too. I can build some demo within a week... -DePiep (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Reinventing the wheel: Wiktionary did it first and better

Look up £ in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

I've just stumbled on an entry at wiktionary for £ (and also for yen etc) and it seems like someone there has already done everything we could want and more. So right now I think I should abandon my draft and find out out how to transclude (sic?) the wiktionary code into en.wiki. Do you agree? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Sure, ofcourse. Still I will make a demo infobox that reads informnmation from Wikidata, and presents it in an infobox here? Will look later. (see eg telescope info, Mount Wilson Observatory). -DePiep (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The Wiktionary code is not free-standing so I will abandon that idea. Your last edit to pound sign looks good enough to me. (The challenge that the minimal infobox is pointless was fair, but I think it is good now). We still need to deal with the narrow and wide forms, as mentioned above. (We really should discuss this at an article or template talk page, not your personal talk page. So if you can explain your ideas above in more detail, please use Template talk:Infobox currency sign). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
OK. BTW, I misread: you wrote Wikktrionary, I only replied re WikiData... -DePiep (talk) 18:10, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Font sampler for one-bar and two-bar dollar signs

I have asked Kes47 at Commons if they would make a font sampler showing a mix of styles. I think it will be a better use of your new 'variant' argument than the euro one (which was a good edit in principle but unfortunately it was needed more where it was, explaining that the typefounders decided that typeface consistency was more important that a blind copy of a rotating sign outside the ECB). --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Unexplained error condition

[deleted material after moving to the template talk page]

1st replies:
A. Go to Template talk:Infobox currency sign. How is this personal? -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
It isn't. As you largely wrote the template, I felt you might know straight off. As you wish. --John Maynard Friedman (talk)

MOS and NBSP

Hello,

In regards to [5] and &nbsp;, the MOS page states that it is desirable to prevent line breaks where breaking across lines might be confusing or awkward.. When representing units, as shown by the examples with abbreviations and that can be generalized to written-out names, it does appear awkward when a line break appears between a number and its attached unit. This is especially noticeable on mobile devices with narrower screens, and in captions for fixed-width images; that is why I have been adding them to some articles. The MOS does not explicitly forbid such edits, and seeing as it does makes prose more comfortably readable, I don't see where the problem is and I'm having trouble following your reasoning. Could you please explain why you disagree with R8R and I on the use of &nbsp; in these articles? ComplexRational (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I have replied already. The consequence of this edit would be that almost all articles could need this change—it is called "style" for a reason. I think this should be discussed at the MOS talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Template editor

Hey! I've noticed that you seem to have made several template editing requests recently; have you considered becoming a Template editor yourself? I daresay you know more than I do! . Sceptre (talk) 16:49, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Lost that bit some time ago, I don't mind that much. Working this way, it mkaes me prepare & test the edits very well :-) -DePiep (talk) 16:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Punctuation navbox?

I like the split of that enormous redundant box you did, but would it be better to put the whole mess down in a horizontal navbox at the bottoms of the articles? The Ordinal indicator article in particular has had to be edited to put images together at the bottom rather than the more useful positions of being adjacent to the text describing them due to the sidebar size.Spitzak (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, quite obvious. Go ahead! (or do you want me to make steps?) I suggest you start a talk/proposal at Template talk:Sidebar punctuation marks, and use the sandbox in there. (I think there are multiple content improvements possible too, e.g., re groups present, but that can be done always). -DePiep (talk) 19:44, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not an expert at this at all, but I did determine that replacing "sidebar" with "navbox" was not sufficient to make it look correct. You might want to do it if you are familiar with the templates.Spitzak (talk) 19:54, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Topic ban and editing restriction

From Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#DePiep:

  • DePiep is indefinitely topic-banned from all edits related to WP:DYK, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions [ Enacted 29 May 2018 ].
  • DePiep is placed indefinitely under an editing restriction, in which he is subject to immediate sanction (including blocks) if he makes any edits which are judged by an administrator to be uncivil, or personal attacks, or assumptions of bad faith. This restriction may be appealed in not less than six months from the enactment of these sanctions [ Enacted 29 May 2018 ].
  • DePiep may regain permissions as a template editor only by way of a successful application at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
  • DePiep is reminded to engage in good faith discussion, and to communicate clearly, with other editors about any contentious edits he might make or consider making, and to consider other editors' concerns with respect.

Related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive984#DePiep and DYK.

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Typo "corrections"

You recently edited Being Impossible and claimed to fix typos, but instead only introduced spelling errors. Please be more careful and check what you are editing next time. Kingsif (talk) 18:55, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Sure. Also, in such cases {{lang}} could be used, esp when working for GA-level. -DePiep (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Insignificant edit with AWB

This edit to The Faith of Graffiti appears to have been an "insignificant edit" (no effect on the rendered page) made with AWB, in violation of WP:AWBRULES, rule 4. Please do not make edits like this, especially when there were substantive changes needed.

This edit to The Education of Everett Richardson also appears to be an insignificant edit made with AWB. Please do not make such edits. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I slightly disagree with your re "insignificant" (as in '... is generally considered an insignificant edit'). Central point is that these articles are listed as WP:GAN, and so outside editors are requested to take a thorough look i.e., spend serious time on it. The edits you refer to are intended to improve the article code, so as to make the checks by other editors, unfamiliar with the code quirks, easier—especially when glancing at & working in source code. For this, imo these edits are helpful improvements because they reduce distraction and hard-to-follow source code. For example, personally I would change <ref name="Greatest"></ref> outside of AWB too in these situations (usually in an upgrade period cooperating with multiple editors). OTOH, truely insignificant-only edit suggestions in such an AWB-run I have skipped manyfold. Interestingly, in these AWB-runs remarkably many editors send me a ThankYou note while these are usually just minor edits; iow appreciation shown. Finally, you noting that "there were substantive changes needed" is both correct and not relevant: nowhere on this wiki is there any *requirement* to make an edit. -DePiep (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, you made insignificant edits (no change in the rendered code) with AWB, which is a violation of AWB rule 4. There is no exception for the AWB user's intent, as far as I know, and there is no exception for edits that result in someone clicking a Thank link. The change to the ref tags, for example, may have been a useful cleanup of the wikitext, but it was still an insignificant edit by the definition of WP:AWBRULES and therefore a violation. As someone who has been blocked and placed on edit restrictions repeatedly, you should probably be more careful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I quoted the rule, which shows there is no 'list of exceptions', while there is leeway for discussion (however small it may be), to which I referred. Your last sentence does not sound like an argument btw. Anyway, I understand that you disagree wrt my point re GAN improvements, and so I will be more restrictive as requested. -DePiep (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

And on the other side of the coin, I would welcome a run of AWB on Milton Keynes, which I edited up to GA standard a few months back. I would hate to find silly errors in it that could easily have been uncovered automatically. If there is some trivial collateral damage such as is being moaned about above, I consider that a small price to pay. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:17, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Appears non-trivial. - DePiep (talk) 15:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
My thanks to you and Jonesey95 for finding an embarrassingly large number of foot faults. And to think that I has considered nominating the article as an FAC! <blush>. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

lead nitrate

Please look at lead(II) nitrate and associated talk page for suggestions concerning the chem box. Petergans (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

drug infobox adding rx norm fetch from wikidata

I wanted to ask you for guidance on how to best add rxnorm fetching to infobox drug. I worked on template medica resources but the code for drug box seems much more complex. Here is the logic I plan to use: for ciclopirox 

21090

I would than add a link to the code.

Like this

21090

The template seems to use parameters and then build the box?

EncycloABC (talk) 13:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloABC:, please note that this user is currently blocked and may not be watching this page. You therefore may want to ask this at a relevant noticeboard or talk page. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Admin, obviously I am blocked. Could you clarify whether it is acceptable if I would reply to this editor (OP)? I am not sure if current editing rights on my talkpage include topics not related to the block. A reply would only be informative, not controversial (& I will not allow a discussion here). -DePiep (talk) 10:13, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
While blocked, you should only be using this page to request unblock, as that is the only reason you are permitted access to it. You should not be using it for other purposes. If you want to aid other editors, you need to make a successful unblock request or wait for the block to expire. 331dot (talk) 10:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
OK. I may have to wait 3 months then. EncycloABC (talk) 21:27, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Category:Isotope content page has been nominated for discussion

Category:Isotope content page, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:18, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Hydrogen-2 and hydrogen-3

I noticed that you re-added these redirects into Category:Isotope content page. I do not understand exactly why – the inclusion of redirects seems to contradict the idea of a content page – so I was about to re-remove the category. Browsing the history, however, I saw that you noted in an edit summary "it is part of the design", so could you please explain what you meant by that (or what the justification is for a seeming contradiction)? ComplexRational (talk) 01:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I created that category. My design purpose was (also) to have a list, accessible by automate. For example when reverse-engineer those articles ("list all isotopes of element X that have an article").
Shortly after creation, the category was challenged and attacked, I dare say, for deletion at CfD. Also there were other related "contests" by the same editor (I call attacks, notdiscussions; even PA's). Multiple side 'discussions' were initiated (by editsummaries — and at talkpages by me, not the edit warring editor), but none resulted in a conclusion per CfD. So: I say these side-talks did not mature in any change.
Now TBH, ComplexRational, apart from the clear and crisp CfD line of reasoning we had to pull out of the dirty thread it was, I do not whish to be challenged on this issue. The design & purpose of the category I made is sound & serious. If you want to challenge me on manintenace issues: pls do so. -DePiep (talk) 01:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019 (1)

Information icon Hello. This is a message to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions, such as the edit you made to Hydrogen-2, did not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Hydrogen-2 and Hydrogen-3 are redirects, not content pages, and should not be added to tracking categories that are specifically designed to have articles in them, and not redirects. Do not re-add those against consensus. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:00, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

And to make things crystal-clear, the non-redirect pages Deuterium and Tritium are already in the category. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:02, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

April 2019

  1. DePiep: [6] edit 1, es: "→‎Marriage: all or none"
  2. Andy Dingley: [7] rv es: "Restore birth of two oldest children. Why would you delete this??"
  3. DePiep: [8] es: "Undid revision 894599923 by Andy Dingley (talk) as I wrote in my es: all (7) children or none. Not that hared is it?"
  4. .
also [9]
(Another weird ANI)
Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)
@MSGJ: How should I find another editor to work with on Template:Chem molar mass/sandbox while DePiep is blocked? There's something wrong with the template pipeline that I set up, and I have no idea what. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 00:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
You could ask for help at WP:VPT — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:11, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. I have just made a new section there about it. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 20:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Really and sincerely, MSGJ, could you clarify (with diffs preferably) what actually was my "disruptive editing"? Rereading this ANI tread I only read personal impressions, not a factual trespassing. OP Dingley really wrote "I'm sick of this sort of attitude from them." — how could I argue with this? (mind us, this was in their OP ANI complaint) Actually, as I wrote already then, the OP (accusor) failed WP:BRD themselves. So what exactly was my bad behaviour? (Ofcourse, "You were blocked before so you deserve a block" is not sound). As the threads shows, *I* (DePiep) was the one who followed WP:BRD. So please clarify you "disruptive editing" conclusion. -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I am on holiday at the moment and not spending much time on Wikipedia. If you still want me to answer any questions, I should be available sometime next week — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:57, 30 May 2019 (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:

(ANI thread) I ask for unblocking me. However. I do not and cannot honestly claim to "I understand my error, and I have learned so I will not do so again" (as the prescribed Unblock request requires). Because such "error" was not explained or did not even exist. Instead, I explicitly ask unblocking because the complete ANI thread is, let me say, immature. (In detail: I (!) did follow WP:BRD, while the ANI-OP did not). On top of this, the argument logic reads "Your were blocked before, so I block you". DePiep (talk) 22:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Decline reason:

There are no grounds here to consider lifting your block. Please see WP:GAB to understand how to craft an unblock request. Yamla (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2019 (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.

  • To me, this is an example of an ANI thread going wild. Which is typical for ANI. "You are blocked because you were blocked before". -DePiep (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
"That is: I started the BRD talk, Andy started a BF talk on my talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2019 (UTC)"

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

NO! NO GOOGLE IN WIKIPEDIA. NO COMMERCIAL LINKS. (tbh: are you cyber-deaf?). -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

November 2019

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is DePiep. Guy Macon (talk) 00:39, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Stop icon with clock
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 months 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 for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Primefac (talk) 00:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

(ANI permalink)

Primefac please be more specific. For example, does it have to do with criticising WMF? -DePiep (talk)
No, this edit. I'm a little surprised I need to link that. Primefac (talk) 00:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Strange. IMO the editor was self-qualifying down-relating an other editor [11]. -DePiep (talk) 01:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Guy Macon -- No. this is a discussion you were involved in. It is called abuse of admin rights then [12]. And to be clear: is opposition on Jimbo's talkpage blockable? Weird. -DePiep (talk) 00:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

While I know Jimbo Wales tends to allow a free reign on their talk page, personal attacks are sanctionable anywhere. It's perfectly possible to oppose something without needing to call another editor a "self-glorifying pig." The fact you don't understand this is maybe one reason why you are now on 3 months and people are suggesting topic banning you.

Also slightly confused about your complaint here, especially since you linked to the same diff twice. But it is impossible for Guy Macon to abuse admin rights, since they are no admin Special:UserRights/Guy_Macon. AFAICT, the admin who did block you doesn't seem to have edited Jimbo's talk page in over a year [13] and that was in an administrative capacity so I'm not sure how they are involved. They did comment in that thread on you at ANI but that doesn't make them involved.

You've been around for long enough to know that it is completely normal, in fact probably the most common sort of ANI thread is opened by someone who themselves involved in the issue. There is no requirement or expectation that only uninvolved editors open discussions, in part because there's no guarantee any will be aware of it, and many try to help (i.e. involve themselves) but it doesn't work and then may require the attention of uninvolved admins and experienced editors precisely by opening a ANI thread. Of course any involved editor should be prepared for a WP:Boomerang when they open an ANI thread. The possibility of a boomerang is in fact further reflective of the fact ANI threads tend to be opened by involved editors and it's perfectly acceptable provided the complaint is. If this wasn't acceptable, then only very inexperienced editors will ever get boomeranged and it will be very fast. Since people on ANI will quickly see an editor inappropriately opened a thread on something they were involved in by the very fact they opened the thread and were involved.

The edit you cite is the notification template that is suggested in all the big warning boxes you receive when editing ANI. You are required to notify anyone you are discussing on their talk page when opening an ANI thread, and for me personally, an editor failing to do so is a big red flag. You don't have to use the template, but most do since it hopefully avoids unnecessary disputes or mistakes. You don't have to notify yourself, since um, you're obviously already aware of the ANI thread having opened it.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:21, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

First of all I do apologise for the horrible edit I made, and do excuse to the addressed editor. The situation (not the excuse) was that I was discussing/questioning a to me highly surprising discovery that I questioned in multiple paces. -DePiep (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't suppose that it possible for an uninvolved editor to make a plea for a reduced sentence? DePiep has been a major contributor to the success of Wikipedia in general, and in particular has helped me greatly with a template that I've been working on. WP:NPA is a fundamental principle that keeps this project workable despite its size and the example here was certainly not trivial, so a ban was inevitable given previous history. But it would be a real pity if its length were such as to put a return seriously in doubt. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:32, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

John Maynard Friedman, that might be persuasive but for his regrettable block log. Guy (help!) 15:48, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
John Maynard Friedman, I see no reason to shorten the current block. Taking into account his editing history and the gravity of his attacks, an indef block would also have been appropriate. DePiep should actually consider himself fortunate that this one is only three months. I am reminded of this statement by JBW:
Part of the problem is the perennial moronic view that someone who makes a lot of good edits should be allowed to get away with being uncivil and making numerous personal attacks, unlike new editors who should get blocked for far smaller numbers of uncivil comments. [14] Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:35, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
I too am concerned that we might lose DePiep as a contributor -- there really are a lot of good edits in the history and whether we should accept grants from Google is something we should be talking about -- but unlike John Maynard Friedman, my concern is about a likely indefinite block in the future.
DePiep, the following may seem harsh, but I really am rooting for you and don't want to lose you. Would it be OK to discuss [15]? Let me explain why I have a problem with that edit:
First, you instantly accused me of "abuse of admin rights". That's a very serious accusation, if true, but I am not an admin and have turned down multiple offers over the years to nominate me at RfA. You propably should have checked before making such a serious accusation.
Second, it gets worse: Even if I was an admin our policy at WP:INVOLVED says that when an admin notices disruptive behavior in a thread where he is involved, he should report it and let another admin decide whether to block. Which is what I did. After being blocked fourteen times I do not believe that you are unaware of our basic policies regarding blocking and administrator involvement. You owe me a sincere apology.
Third, your "And to be clear: is opposition on Jimbo's talkpage blockable?" comment makes it look like, after being blocked again and again for incivility and personal attacks, you remained seemingly unaware that doing something incredibly stupid like calling another editor a self-glorifying pig on Jimbo's talk page would get you blocked. I would really like you to explain to me why this keeps happening again and again, why you didn't recognize it before you hit the save button, and why you did not recognize why you were blocked at first.
So let's talk. What is it going to take to get you to stop this ongoing behavior pattern before you are blocked again? You won't get a sixteenth chance. The next block will be indefinite, and it will be years before anyone is willing to even think about lifting the block. Is the answer getting a timer and adding a five-minute delay before you hit the send button? Is some sort of mentoring the answer? Is there anything that I personally can do to help? The winds are shifting all over the Internet, and behavior that was ignored before is no longer tolerated. Like I said, I am on your side and want you to keep editing for many years to come. Talk to me. Tell me what the plan is.[16] --Guy Macon (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
The invitation is fine, but I won't reply soon. I note that I do not ask for a coulance as John Maynard Friedman does here, I do know it does not work that way. Meanwhile, we understand that the idea JMF posted here is born and written from their GF. -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I honestly think it is very nice of Guy and others to be bending over backward to be kind and helpful here, but I have to wonder when enough is enough. I indef blocked this user last year for personal attacks, and that was the sixth time they'd been blocked for personal attacks or trolling, along with a number of blocks for edit warring. We're now on block number 8 for personal attacks, block 14 overall, and as far as I know not one of the previous blocks has later been found to have been wrongly applied. I frankly can't see why the previous indef block was not re-instated. If 7 previous blocks for the exact same thing, including a previous indef, didn't get the point across I don't know what will. wikipedia has a problem wherein it lets people get away with this sort of thing if enough people say they otherwise do good work. 14 chances to conform with the most basic standards of behavior is rather a lot. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
There are no second chances. Only chances. ——SN54129 21:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Concurring with Beeblebrox, the indef block that had been lifted to permit participation at a disclipinary hearing should have been reinstated. It is generally considered that blocks for repeated misconduct of the same kind should be incremental. The current increment should therefore be at least indeff with standard offer. It is not, however, but the next block may not carry the option of the standard offer and may well include a community site ban which would be a lot harder to appeal. When the current block expires, DePiep would do well to bear this in mind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

MOS and NBSP

Hello, In regards to [17] and &nbsp;, the MOS page states that it is desirable to prevent line breaks where breaking across lines might be confusing or awkward.. When representing units, as shown by the examples with abbreviations and that can be generalized to written-out names, it does appear awkward when a line break appears between a number and its attached unit. This is especially noticeable on mobile devices with narrower screens, and in captions for fixed-width images; that is why I have been adding them to some articles. The MOS does not explicitly forbid such edits, and seeing as it does makes prose more comfortably readable, I don't see where the problem is and I'm having trouble following your reasoning. Could you please explain why you disagree with R8R and I on the use of &nbsp; in these articles? ComplexRational (talk) 21:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I have replied already. The consequence of this edit would be that almost all articles could need this change—it is called "style" for a reason. I think this should be discussed at the MOS talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
re User:ComplexRational I want to zoom in on this: This is especially noticeable on mobile devices with narrower screens. I understand this is about narrow screens having smaller lines (fewer number of characters per text line). A similar thing exists with printed newspaper column lines (like, with seven columns wide on a page). My point is: you are wrong in this! When the line-width ~is smaller, one does not want early line-breaks. An early line break occurs when a long word must be on a new line, causing the previous line to have excessive whitespace. This excessive whitespace disrupts the page view. Instead, as each and every typograph in newspaper columns has learned & intuitively does: strive for the regular number of characters per line, reducing excessive whitespace. For example hyphening is used, preferred over keeping words as in one (this we do not do on Wikipedia). So, when lines are less wide, as on mobile devices, we want to give the typograph (or browser) enough options to fill the line regularly. This includes omitting the NBSP as much as possible. Narrow lines, as on mobile devices, look better when "500 pieces" may be line-wrapped. -DePiep (talk)
That's one way to look at it, yes; that's also why we don't insert them in tables (which I have been avoiding per the clear MOS note on that). On the other hand, narrow screens also introduce more line breaks overall, so it is (statistically?) more likely that they will occur in awkward places such as "12.3 years" (or in your example, 500 [break] pieces would not be preferred unless the columns really are as narrow as in some old newspapers). In these cases, the phrases are short enough that non-wrapping them will not create excessive whitespace, but long enough that a line break could be awkwardly inserted. With a little wordsmithing, though, it might be possible to use abbreviations (e.g. 12.3 y) so that MOS is less ambiguous and the blocks to be non-wrapped are even shorter (less whitespace), or otherwise phrases in which line breaks won't be awkward. Unfortunately, my post at MOS talk hasn't brought about much discussion, so it seems there won't be much clarity on this matter. ComplexRational (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Unicode versions

Hi, via some articles being edited I noticed Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 20#Scripts encoded in Unicode 1.0 — I just wanted to let you know that the statement

This makes sense, since no Reader looking for a script in Unicode searches by its version-of-introduction.

is not quite right, because this Reader indeed on occasion looks for scripts in Unicode by their version of introduction (for example, to know when Noto Sans might be expected to come out with a font for that script). The new category Category:Scripts encoded in Unicode is useless for that purpose. I think this information is still available on Wikipedia via this article section so it's not a big deal but thought you may want to know. :-) Shreevatsa (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

As you write it yourself: a reader who knows which script they are looking for, goes to page Noto Sans and there will find all Unicode info. What would that reader miss when the version-category is gone? -DePiep (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Oops, it is a font not a script. Same situation: go to article Script XYZ, look for its Unicose status. Also, Noto sans shold publish by themselves which scripts are covered when. -DePiep (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Information icon Hello, I'm Allenjambalaya. I noticed that you recently removed content from List of Philippine public figures who underwent COVID-19 testing without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Allenjambalaya (talk) 02:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@Allenjambalaya: Hi. This is the edit I made on that page. I did not remove content. What I did do was remove repeated content, that was still shown in the article. The named reference <ref name="philstarBongbongLiza>{{cite news ...}}" is entered once, and (re)used by ref name three times. This is described in WP:REFNAME. You can check that nothing has disappeard by checking the number of times the citation was used (in the footnote, it has a, b and c so three times). The same for <ref name="gmaStatementBongbongWife"/>. So: no content was removed. Have I clarified? -DePiep (talk) 08:09, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
@DePiep: Hello! Sorry, it took me a while to read your reply until you pinged my talk page. I was not able to see clearly in that time so I assumed you removed something without explaining. Yes, thanks for clarifying. I acknowledge now I made a mistake. Keep on being cool here in Wikipedia. Cheers!—Allenjambalaya (talk) 06:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ParameterUseFirst

Template:ParameterUseFirst has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Rehman 05:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Dishonoured statues has been nominated for deletion

Category:Dishonoured statues has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies 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. SummerPhDv2.0 15:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Mistake?

See here. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Rogue_treading_banks --2604:2000:E010:1100:34ED:B275:BB1D:DF86 (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Subtemplates of chembox used stand-alone

A tag has been placed on Category:Subtemplates of chembox used stand-alone requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the category has been empty for seven days or more and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to 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 deleted 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. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • There is an ongoing request for comment to streamline the source deprecation and blacklisting process.

Technical news

Arbitration

Miscellaneous

  • The WMF has begun a pilot report of the pages most visited through various social media platforms to help with anti-vandalism and anti-disinformation efforts. The report is updated daily and will be available through the end of May.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Punctuation marks template

In case you miss it, there is a challenge to phasing out the infobox in favour of the navbox. See Template talk:Punctuation marks#Proposal: change to footer Navbox. Unfortunately it didn't quite get fully wrapped up last year before you went into Anchoresis. :-) --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 16:36, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

:-) These boxes we worked on together are a bit complicated (as in: hard to find good set-up criteria; not technically). For this, I am keeping some distance (1.5m not 6ft, a cultural thing). IOW, my mind is not free enough to dive into those, these weeks. If you want help I can respond, but maybe you have enough with you to go bold. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 16:58, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this should be on the template talk page but I don't want to break into your discussion with Spitzak: I believe that proposed a yellow background in the past, if so, I give a grovelling apology to everyone who now has a headache! It is terrible, you were right the first time with grey. [BTW, 'Obelus' has been replaced by division sign because it is ambiguous, it can also mean Dagger.] --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

No worry. All this, including /sandbox2, is just playing around.
The reason I introduced yellow is this: I started using the standard navboxlines, alternating lightgrey/white (even/uneven lines). Check this.
After using these navbox-lines, it appeared the 'fine grey'did not distinguish from background-grey. So I roughly changed the color. Happened to be tough yuellow (notnow any more). Anyway, I am very happy with the sandbox, could be live without harm even. -DePiep (talk) 23:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Time to just dive in

Hi, is there a reason to delay going live with the new version? My update to Diameter to add this navbox was reverted because it did not appear to be relevant. I can't argue with that view: the old navbox really is a waste of space in hindsight, the new one is just so much better. So can I persuade you to go ahead now, please? As you have done the work, it doesn't seem fair for someone else to get the credit. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, it looks good. Let's leave it a few weeks to see the response before doing a TfD proposal on the old sidebar.
But why do you think that the diameter symbol doesn't belong? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Because of what you wrote here above ;-) (In general, I'd say if a link is in thisa box, the article should have the box and v.v.). You are free to add it though, it's up to you. I have no opinion in this. -DePiep (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Aha! Catch 22! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Weird behaviour of unichar template

If you have a moment, I wonder if you could have a look at very strange artefact of the unichar template. Since you wrote it, you might be able to see what is going on? I have been trying to debug the way the article Obelus#Use in text annotation is displaying an instance of unichar. I have isolated down to the simplest example I can create. The issue is that sometimes the all-caps Unicode Consortium name is displaying full size ('SHOUTING') rather than  – the more appropriate in most contexts – smaller caps. The trigger appears to be the nlink= option, but not consistently. Take this exanple:

  1. U+2052 ⁒ COMMERCIAL MINUS SIGN SIGN SIGN
  2. U+2052 ⁒ COMMERCIAL MINUS SIGN SIGN SIGN

In both cases, the name is in full size caps. Now swap the order of 1 and 2 and the problem goes away. (!!!). But now the next problem: if I try to do that here now, it is too late. #1 above has already poisoned the well and it won't work. You have to edit this to do the swap yourself to see what I am talking about. I am seriously beginning to doubt my sanity! --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

You can see the effect of reversing the order of 1 and 2 at my sandbox User:John Maynard Friedman/sandbox#Unichar test. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)


Tests
U+2052 ⁒ COMMERCIAL MINUS SIGN
U+2052 ⁒ COMMERCIAL MINUS SIGN
COMMERCIAL MINUS SIGN
COMMERCIAL MINUS SIGN
reply
the text is in smallcaps, which is definitely not formatted as <small>CAPS</small>. Smallcaps is a font variant, like italics.
I don't know the exact formatting used by {{Unichar}}, it was changed recently by another editor.
To look at: {{Smallcaps}}, {{Smallcaps2}}.
The formating of example 1 here is (using Special:ExpandTemplates):
<span class="nowrap"><templatestyles src="Mono/styles.css" /><span class="monospaced">U+2052</span></span> <span style="font-size:125%;line-height:1em">⁒</span> [[commercial minus sign|<templatestyles src="smallcaps/styles.css"/><span class="smallcaps smallcaps-smaller">COMMERCIAL MINUS SIGN</span>]]
→ U+2052 ⁒ COMMERCIAL MINUS SIGN
Conclude
So, in {{Unichar}} there is a (sub)page that uses a {{Smallcaps}} template. That defineds the oputput. (did not find it yet). AFAIK, this is regular behaviour (but the smallcaps-issue is not stable, I admit).
-DePiep (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. How strange. I don't think 'small caps' style is even appropriate: the Consortium uses all-the-same-size capitals, not big initial cap, small caps rest of word. I could change it to use <small> but the problem is that some editors invoke it using an all-lower-case name (which wouldn't work) and others use all-upper-case (which would). So the solution has to be fix {{Smallcaps2}}. :-( . OK, thanks, I will try to find another place to raise it.

Should I move this discussion to template talk:unichar? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

  • No, not at Unichar. With {{smnallcaps}} or sc2 (problem already is: two smnallcaps forms?!).
Unichar should use one of these. This is a style issue, not a preference.
We are stretching the limit already by using some caps in-line, with Unichar. To reduce bad visuals, they should be true smallcaps (not regular ALLCAPS), even when Unicode does so: again, this is a WP style choice not Unicode definition.
-DePiep (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Found it:
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">Abc</span> → Abc
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">commercial minus sign</span> → commercial minus sign
-DePiep (talk) 19:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
So is that a fix that you are about to apply or are you advising me to do it? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 23:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
To me, that is what smallcaps should look like so I'd like that change to happen. But, changing {{smallcaps2}} &etc. must be discussed first. I'd say currently it is not smallcaps at all, but I don't know what the css-people will say. (Also, the two templates are needlessly complicated). I don't have much time for this, and I'm not sure of the best approach TBH. -DePiep (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Well it seems to work well enough for most of the time, so I wouldn't spend time on that aspect. What confuses me is how the presence or absence of nlink=, and the order it is done in, can push the whole invocation into large caps and  – even more mystifying – can push subsequent invocations into large caps. But I really can't see it being easy to find, let alone solve, so given your time pressure it would be best not to even try. Thank you for what you have done already. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
well, about this |nlink= detail you mention: I did not see the difference in rendering you refer too. Both your examples here in top, and my first two "test" examples, do not show a difference. Or am I missing something? (If it is about this {{Unichar}} difference detail, must be easier to solve ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 11:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
Well that is strange. I have verified it in Chrome and Firefox, what are you using?
Compare the two sample lines that I gave at the top of this section (here on your talkpage) with the same two lines on my sandbox. They are coded identically: the only difference is the order they are presented. The ones here display on Chrome and Firefox with large caps, the ones on my sandbox display in small caps. (Feel free to experiment on my sandbox).
[I have just worked out why we see it so rarely: most articles where potentially it might be an issue begin with {{infobox symbol}}, {{infobox currency}} etc, and therefore the very first invocation of unichar in the article is right there and of course it doesn't need or have an nlink= for its own article].
--John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:55, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
BTW: I spent a while looking at this and there seems to be a hack to get the right behavior. (I'm no where near brave enough to change a template as used as the smallcaps ones.) If a dummy smallcaps item like {{sc2|}} appears before the first unichar|nlink= template, the problem behavior goes away for me. I'd suggest something like "{{sc2|}}<!--dummy sc2 template to fix unichar small caps problem -->". It's not pretty but it works. DRMcCreedy (talk) 19:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Will reply, in days? -DePiep (talk) 21:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The problem is One problem is: the enwiki "smallcaps" templates are corrupted ({{Unichar}} uses those). Has been going on for months or years.
That is: {{Smallcaps}} and {{smallcaps2}}. See their code: does not look well.
But for now: I have no time to dive into this (and cannot grasp this whole thread here)
-DePiep (talk) 21:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2020).

Administrator changes

removed Gnangarra • Kaisershatner • Malcolmxl5

CheckUser changes

readded Callanecc

Oversight changes

readded HJ Mitchell

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Miscellaneous

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

History of Christian thought

I have completely redone the lead as a summation in four paragraphs. Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:29, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Incivil behaviour by User:DePiep

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 07:20, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

‎Uncivil behavior by User:DePiep

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. R8R (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding "neutralising" the infoboxes

Would it be possible to do what we already do for element categories in contentious edge cases like polonium, in order to make the infoboxes for everyone's favourite elements to argue about read things like:

  • {{infobox lanthanum}}, {{infobox actinium}}: Group, "group 3, sometimes considered group n/a"; Block, "d-block, sometimes considered f-block";
  • {{infobox lutetium}}, {{infobox lawrencium}}: Group, "group n/a, sometimes considered group 3"; Block, "f-block, sometimes considered d-block".
  • {{infobox unbiunium}}: Group, "group 3, sometimes considered group n/a"; Block, "d-block, sometimes considered g-block" (forgot this one initially)

I guess the same could be done for period 1, but then the problem is trickier as there are more options. So I think we leave hydrogen and helium alone as long as IUPAC doesn't acknowledge there is a dispute. Double sharp (talk) 05:50, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Will take a look. Could there be a useful link in the proposed text, to a single point of clarification? A group 3 (element)#section? -DePiep (talk) 07:17, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
And, regarding the dispute at enwiki, should this be applied in more places, so be formally discussed? -DePiep (talk) 07:19, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, since "group 3" is going to be linked anyhow, and that is going to be where the dispute is discussed in greatest detail, I think there's no need for an extra link.
I would like something like the plwiki solution, honestly. You can see it at pl:Szablon:Pierwiastki_chemiczne. Well, they show group 3 as Sc-Y-Lu and add a note saying that often Sc-Y-La is also encountered, but I don't see why we couldn't do it the other way round until IUPAC decides. My suggestion would be (since we are temporarily keeping Sc-Y-La pending the IUPAC project's recommendation) to put a note [a] beside every "3" on our templates that reads "In some periodic tables, lutetium (Lu) and lawrencium (Lr) are placed in group 3, rather than lanthanum (La) and actinium (Ac). A IUPAC project was started on 18 December 2015 to recommend which it should be." Such a note could also appear in {{infobox yttrium}}, where we could have the note where we write "La" as below Y, and {{infobox unbiunium}} where we write "Ac" as above Ubu.
If you think it's a good idea, you can bring it to WT:ELEM if you like. For the sake of not getting into yet another argument (which does not do wonders for my emotional state) I prefer to not post there for a while. Double sharp (talk) 08:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
P.S. Just noticed we already have something similar to the plwiki solution in {{Periodic table (group names)}}. Double sharp (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
re PS: of course, {{Periodic table (group names)}} is one of those places where the issue should be described, since it is a core topic in there. Same with Group 3 (elements) (in sections). But this edit is going to bring the note more general, in what we used to call 'single preferred PT notation at enwiki'.
IMO this change would be OK (esp. because circa IUPAC-based), but still we need some limitation (enwiki-wide selfrestraint), to prevent adding large texts everywhere. So I think wt:elem is required. I understand your situation. -DePiep (talk) 09:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
OK then. I'd already be happy if just the relevant things I asked for in the OP could be done for those five infoboxes (I added some notes to Y and 121, but the one I asked for at the top requires some template magic skills). And then wait for IUPAC. Double sharp (talk) 10:09, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
The situation is ugly. I'm very concered wrt incidental edits. wp:elem might be lost as the +++ talkpage we knew. -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
Well, for above-mentioned reasons I prefer not to go there for a while...
I figured out how to do the change I was looking for in the OP. So, I did it along the lines of WP:BRD. Except that I am not keen on discussing it yet again, so if anyone reverts it, I won't reinstate it. Double sharp (talk) 03:34, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
OK -DePiep (talk) 09:29, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Rx

Template:Rx has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Tom (LT) (talk) 08:26, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

"Air speed velocity" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Air speed velocity. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 July 23#Air speed velocity until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. signed, Rosguill talk 17:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Alternative to template:code

If it interests you and you can find the time, your advice at template talk:code#Is there a version of this template that highlights the text but doesn't change the font to mono? would be appreciated. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 20:09, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help!

The Half Barnstar
This project would be twice as onerous if I didn't have you helping me out resolving all the edge cases that I don't have the time to look into. Your helpfulness in the past has not gone unnoticed, but I'm glad to be able to have something so concrete to recognize you for. VanIsaacWScont 05:27, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Thanks :-) Half a barnstar, funny too  ;-) -DePiep (talk) 11:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
I was looking for something like a "helping hand" barnstar, and this was the closest thing I could find. VanIsaacWScont 17:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)
Yess, 'helping hand' is the right wording, and half-a-star is apropriate. -DePiep (talk) 18:47, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2020).

Administrator changes

added CaptainEek • Creffett • Cwmhiraeth
removed Anna Frodesiak • Buckshot06 • Ronhjones • SQL

CheckUser changes

removed SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

  • A motion was passed to enact a 500/30 restriction on articles related to the history of Jews and antisemitism in Poland during World War II (1933–45), including the Holocaust in Poland. Article talk pages where disruption occurs may also be managed with the stated restriction.
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:27, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:32, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 September 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:47, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2020).

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2020).

Administrator changes

added Red Phoenix
readded Euryalus • SQL
removed Jujutacular • Monty845 • Rettetast • Madchester

Oversight changes

readded GB fan
removed Keegan • Opabinia regalis • Premeditated Chaos

Guideline and policy news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2020).

Administrator changes

added Eddie891
removed Angela • Jcw69 • Just Chilling • Philg88 • Viajero

CheckUser changes

readded SQL

Guideline and policy news

Arbitration

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:56, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the talk page comment and also not reverting

I have a large edit I've been working around an hour on, I will submit it then reply over on the talk page. Thank you for not reverting until you see my reasoning. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 10:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Re consensus on intro

Hi. I'd like to ask you in general not to use an FAC as places to make conclusions about articles other than the one under review. It's a stressful process already, and that's not the right place for that. Knowing your scrupulousness on accuracy of scope, I hope you'll see where I'm coming from.

Also, to point it out, I was not wrong on that the intro could be viewed as an introduction to hassium. That interpretation would still be correct, it's just that text could also be interpreted differently. It's rather disheartening to explain your point and then see a comment like "I find the notion that the original "Introduction" it can rightly be read as "Introduction to hassium" incorrect" that totally ignores what I said without any argumentation at all to counter what I said. What was the point for me to speak up then if you're not gonna try to listen? At least that's what it looks like from the outside even if you didn't mean it. The FAC is not the place to make that kind of an aftermath anyway (see previous paragraph). This isn't the first time I've seen you do something like that (i.e., not taking into consideration presented arguments) either, so I'd appreciate it if you tried to use argumentation more clearly if you disagree. Thank you--R8R (talk) 19:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Recoloring the periodic table

By the way, I've been meaning to ask you whether you were going to present a recoloring of the PT of your own at all. We had a talk quite a while ago after I produced my recoloring that you'd try and make something too and that we'll probably use your version. Is that happening or can we go with the established consensus that what I produced is better than what we have right now?--R8R (talk) 19:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I seriously will build a case for recoloring. Actually, I have created a wallpaper PT for my former high school, testing practicing most of these ideas. (Really, now a professional print of 3.55 metres (12 ft) wide it is!). I hope to mail WP:ELEM people soon about this. -DePiep (talk) 20:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
FYI: also on my todo list are: {{Infobox periodic table group}}, tough melting point and boiling point checks (sources, {{Convert}}), and List of chemical elements#List. -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
Great to hear it (congrats on helping your school!). When do you think we can expect to see that?--R8R (talk) 07:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
It needs a clarifying paper with it (eg it had to serve exam requirements) ;-). -DePiep (talk) 16:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Improving version 3 of a new 18-column template to navigate compact-periodic-table within Wikipedia

Hi DePiep. You made a recent comment

"Version 3 says that the bar below is in total below Sc, Y. Sc and Y, and grtoup 3 both stretch 15 columns."

on the periodic table talk page where we are trying to reach consensus on a new 18-column navigation table for use across en:Wikipedia. I know you are an expert on these matters as you regularly contribute to the talk pages of the templates themselves. However, I'm not sure what you intended by your latest contribution Were you, I hope, merely reassuring Sandbh there isn't a problem in version 3, or were you trying to make a more elaborate point? Please clarify.

I hope that we can all now just make specific suggestions how to improve version 3 (and implement the changes within the thread without creating a version 4) and soon we'll be done ;-) Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 11:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for making the initial changes to the template. We certainly need to be consistent within the main ones that are widely used. And we need to await a consensus before going further. I'll be interested in learning the details of your suggestions / objections, provided they don't re-run the whole group 3 argument, which, as an organic chemist, I don't really care about :-) Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
While I'm here, it may make sense for the hover-over for La and Ac in the current template to give the element names but briefly mention the controversy about group 3 (i.e. something like "Lanthanum. Some versions of the periodic table put Lu in this position in group 3 instead". Just a thought..... Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
(I'm short in time) This is not the place to discuss this. Your OP place is fine. If this is personal (for example, re my behaviour), then here all right. If so, please be clear about that. -DePiep (talk) 22:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
No, your behaviour is exemplary and I'm very grateful. I've added a couple of further comments in the OP, including an apology to you about my meaning of "supercede". Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 11:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome

For thanking this comment of mine. ;)

Now, if I may ask for a rather personal favour: I suppose you know I have a periodic table specially configured to the way I like it on my userpage. I have one with outlines for articles I worked on, I also have one in my subpages that lacks those, explaining why it is that way:

I trust the presentation of the footnote meets your requirements. I know the 18-column table I show on my userpage is not really consistent with it. That's not because I wanted to be inconsistent, it's just because scientifically speaking we don't yet have enough predictions for elements around 140s and 150s to say for sure where they should go, so for now I wait and show both possibilities (with this one as maybe a bit more clear even if chemically speaking some resemblances may be iffy).

Now, the reason I ask. I would like to draw a metal-nonmetal line on this between: H and Li; He and Be; Be and B; Al and Si; Ga and Ge; Sb and Te; At and Rn; right of Og; E171 and E172. Do you have some idea how I could do that with wikimarkup magic? Double sharp (talk) 05:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, challenge taken. I recently have used such a border in my wallpaper PT (more on this by your email). I'll use css (like style="") first, not wikicode.
BTW, I'm not to be a policeman in the 18-vs.-32 debate, just looking for consistency. For this, I point to this paper Scerri (2020) Sandbh mentioned, I guess you have met it before (re group 3 maybe?). Interesting take on PT presentation, while I feel a need to correspond to Scerri on some details.

sidenotes

(not relevant to the Q).
  • Later on I'll try to learn why you use Roman numbers for periods (where I prefer ⑦ ;-) ). -DePiep (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No Pyykkö number swaps then
  • columns id's: ?
  • "s-element" not "s-block" then.
    • I can answer these relatively simply here if you want. Or anywhere else if you would prefer ;) Double sharp (talk) 07:08, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Solutions

User:DePiep/PT by Double sharp

Double sharp: please check the concept above (it's in my userspace). Usage: 

{{element cell-compact/sandbox|1|Hydrogen|H||Gas|s-block|border=right, bottom}}
{{element cell-compact/sandbox|4|Beryllium|Be||Solid|s-block|border=top,right}}
{{element cell-compact/sandbox|6|Carbon|C||Solid|p-block|border=top,left,right,bottom|border-format=3px dotted red}}

I want to publish the new options (adding the function to {{element cell-compact/}} for general use).

Things you might want improved:

The border exactly in between cells, not part of/inside a cell; this needs some research,
Keep option to highlight a cell (eg your contribuitions); now the sandbox uses the same border position so cannot do two;
Anything else?
Yeah, it's just that. It really looks good already, I just hope for a border in between so that I can keep my highlights. So, thank you and hopefully even better things will soon be around with your wizardry! ;) Double sharp (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! Unfortunately I since got convinced by the paper that I should be calling Cn a nonmetal for now, which messes up a nice line, so currently I kludged a different solution by using muted (old predicted) colours to indicate that something is not a metal (User:Double_sharp/Template_Periodic_table). Probably there is a way to clarify the legend but I have not yet figured it out...

P.S. On my mobile the element names crash into the atomic numbers below them. Double sharp (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Solution2

Double sharp

Not a class=navbox any more, plain wikitable.
border, default: 2px white, collapsed (border B-right = border C-left).
Options
first: PAGENAME (='when on Hg, highlight Hg-cell'): 3px solid black. See At in demo.
second: |border=top, right, bottom, left: 2px black solid. Can be set like |border-format=2px dotted red, see C.
third: |style=border:2px dotted pink
Layers: later option overwrites earlier option (2 over 1; 3 over 1, 2)
so, it has flexibility all around (but takes some work). Also, shared border (B-right=C-left) may cause unexpected effectws, order of setting=important
Issues, questions
demo has: PAGENAME 3px black, border 2px black: bad for distinguishing (see At/metalloid lone demo)
Cannot set border too fancy. grey? dotted? 1px dotted red?
|style= is cumbersome and sensitive, but gives freedom (eg, mark your involvements).

Proposal to replace 32-column graphic in element infoboxes with a new 18-column version

Hi DePiep

Now that the problematic thread on the proposal to alter element navboxes has been closed, I've sandboxed a new proposal [19]. I would be very grateful if you would review it and check that it is sufficiently well drafted that it won't stray into multiple issues.

Assuming you approve, I will place it on the discussion page at WT:ELEM as I think it fits better there than at the Periodic Table talk page. Anyone interested in articles about the elements is likely to have a view on the proposal and I'd like to involve more editors than I managed to attract previously.

Thanks in advance. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 14:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Not closed yet, and better wait I'd say. And discussing at the same page is OK, as it is about the (enwiki-)periodic table. At WT:ELEM, a single note can be placed to the same effect. -DePiep (talk) 16:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
OK, I'll wait until at least tomorrow and will put it back at the same page, with a link at WT:ELEM. Meanwhile, I'm happy to have any suggestions for edits by you suggested here. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 16:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
I prefer waiting til full closing, beccause clearly new posts keep dripping in there. My request is here. Pls try to stick to one proposal (maybe multiple variants is OK). Maybe it would help if you read the old thread once more, to recognise do's and dont's ;-) If you need more examples (demo's), pls say so. (But I think you have them, IIRC). All the best. -DePiep (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
You don't seem to be getting as much help from User:ToBeFree as I would have hoped. His latest suggestion is to "close the thread yourself", by which I assume he means "move it into the archive", at which point as far as I understand the way WP works, it won't be accessible for further editing. I took a look at H:ARC to see how this could be done and I concluded that I wouldn't be confident of getting it correct. However, I'm sure you have more experience of this sort of thing than I do, so please just go ahead now. Thanks. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 10:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Well read! Well, I am involved in the discussion, so I cannot close it myself (that suggestion by ToBeFree is trying to pull me into disruptive behaviour, aka trolling. Very disturbing post, by an admin).
Anyway, closing a non-trivial discussion like this one is done explicitly, not implicitly (by archiving, also we want to have it in sight to copy arguments ;-) ). The closer can use {{Discussion top}} and {{Discussion bottom}}, and add concluding status.
Since I want to do this by the book (is why I reverted my edit), at least we'll have it done over time by the formal request. Our patience will be rewarded (by a fruitfull new discussion, as I know WP:ELEMENTS editors). But some cooperative working by an admin would be better. -DePiep (talk) 10:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Please don't take this as me trolling you ;-) but on the instructions on the page WP:RFCL it specifically says
"Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion."
I would support you that we have a consensus for closure/restart, if not one about the topic itself. From what you have just said, this means adding the relevant {{Discussion top}} etc tags, which seems correct to me. If it is just a matter of adding two tags and a summary, I'd be happy to try that myself. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 11:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
:-). No, self-closing could be read as disruptive, and give a bad report. I prefer to wait. -DePiep (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
OK. We have plenty of other useful things to do meanwhile. Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Periodic table".The discussion is about the topic Periodic table.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

--Double sharp (talk) 08:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

GA/FA candidates and Short Description

I've been reviewing recent AWB edits that have left the Short Description below the top (see MOS:ORDER). I noticed you had made a number of recent edits on FA/GA candidates, so I started to bump the SD up to the top. But I suspect you've been editing more than I saw.

Most of the edits that I saw simply left the SD in place, but some of them specifically moved hatnotes to the top, which is an AWB 6.1.0.1 genfix. The AWB guys made a genfix change to bump the SD soon after that release, nearly a year ago, and I've started bugging them to release another binary. I have a build from their latest source if you're interested. David Brooks (talk) 16:32, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Page numbering

On Bowdoin station, I had several page numbers formatted as {{rp|3-5}}<!--not a page range, do not use dash--> because the individual page numbers are hyphenated in the source. (That is very common with government documents.) In this edit, you changed them to dashes anyway. Same with this edit to Alewife station. Please be more careful to check that your automated edits do not introduce these errors. Thanks, ~5|Pi.1415926535]] (talk) 17:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

That would be a bad edit sure. Allow me to take a better look at it later on. But really, my edits I checked. If you think it is bad: do revert ;-) DePiep (talk) 23:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
[20] then. -DePiep (talk) 23:22, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
{{rp}} -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DePiep/Archive_12&oldid=980859811"