User talk:DePiep/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

CC waiver

My school would like to use a variant of your periodic table diagram (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Elementspiral_(polyatomic).svg but fairly heavily edited) on the cover of an internal magazine. We do not sell this magazine or distribute it outside of school, and we make no profit from it. The nature of the magazine's design makes it difficult to include attribution text; would you mind waiving the CC restrictions for us? Thank you very much.

Michaelkielstra (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Michaelkielstra.

I give you the requested no-mentioning, provided that you upload your "heaviliy edited" new version to wikipedia commons (as a new file, do not overwrite).

Please confirm explicitly here. -DePiep (talk) 23:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Here it is: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Element_Spiral.svg. (I couldn't upload to Wikipedia Commons, as my account is new, so I put it on Wikimedia Commons instead. Is that OK?) Thanks.

Michaelkielstra (talk) 21:19, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Great, thanks OBO all wiki, and all the best to your publications. (There is only one wiki commons not?). And I repeat: no author mentioning needed. I'd like to see how you use this graph. Color things? Comment arrows? Interesting. -DePiep (talk) 21:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

1067 mm gauge

Regarding your change to the track gauge for the AM class EMU, I would like to locate your source for 1067 gauge. If it is other Wikipedia articles indicating NZ Track Gauge, I suggest that all articles need revising to the correct value of 1068. I would change them, but I would like some sort of consensus on the issue before proceeding. Regarding my reasoning, I work for a company that designs and supplies all turnouts for KiwiRail. I was looking for more information on the AM class EMU for a new design and found that the Wikipedia page for this train does not match the design information provided to us. I was hoping that if someone did change it back they would be able to provide evidence (the value shown on the main KiwiRail page has annoyed me for a while now as well). I have not been able to find out why KiwiRail use 1068, but all designs (commercial/confidential), standards (see KiwiRail website) and tools (https://triginstruments.co.nz/web/index.php/products/accessories/tools/angle-measurement/trig-instruments-rail-track-gauge.html) are to suit this value. I am not a serial wiki editor, so any assistance in correcting all the NZ Track Gauge values would be appreciated (it may be a difficult task to find them all).

Apologies if this is formatted wrong, first time and I'm working from my phone.

• Short reply: if there is a source that says "defined (ordered) as 1068 mm", would be great. So far, 42 inches (1,066.800 mm) is 1067 mm. - DePiep (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The defining source for KiwiRail track gauge is: document T200, section 301.

It was originally an ONTRACK document, but is now the KiwiRail track handbook.

An example of this document being referenced can be found here:http://www.nzta.govt.nz/projects/peka-peka-to-otaki/docs/sara/sara-appendix-o-kiwirail-design-basis.pdf

As T200 is not accessible online I can't provide a link, but I should be able to provide an excerpt from the document if not the whole thing.

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

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:03, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Extended periodic table (by Aufbau, 50 columns, compact)

Template:Extended periodic table (by Aufbau, 50 columns, compact) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost's presses roll again

• Signpost: Future directions for The Signpost

• News and notes: Photo of Kim Jong-un. Stephen Hawking death tops hits on many Wikipedias.

• In the media: The rise of Wikipedia as a disinformation mop

• In focus: Admin reports board under criticism

• Special report: ACTRIAL results adopted by landslide

• Opinion: Guideline for Organization Notability revised

• Op-ed: World War II Myth-making and Wikipedia

• Community view: It's time we look past Women in Red to counter systemic bias

• Discussion report: The future of portals

• Arbitration report: No new cases, and one motion on administrative misconduct

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Military History

• Blog: Why the world reads Wikipedia

• Humour: Our Favorite Places to Whine About Stuff

• Traffic report: A quiet place to wrestle with the articles of March

• Technology report: Coming soon: Books-to-PDF, interactive maps, rollback confirmation

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Gallery: A look at some famous and not as well-known border tripoints

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:X

Hello, DePiep. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "X".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 17:15, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your revert of my edit to Template:Periodic table

Just a note: I was changing group 3 back to Sc-Y-*-**, but rather the opposite, since you reverted to the wrong revision by mistake. I was in addition trying to re-add GKFX's edit, and seem to have succeeded since there's only a minor wikitext difference between your version and mine (that doesn't show up anyway). Anyway, everything went fine in the end. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 13:30, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes I had to do my thing all over again, and only after that action I saw your edit. Then I thought: I will stop editing this page, lest we would cross-edit again ;-) - DePiep (talk) 13:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Community sanction

Hi DiPiep,

The following has been adopted by community consensus at ANI:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. DePiep may regain permissions as a template editor only by way of a successful application at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions.
4. 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.

Topic ban exceptions are listed at WP:BANEX, and appeal timelines are in the motion itself. I appreciate this is not the outcome you might have wished, but thank you for taking part in the thread and discussing the events that led us here. Please let me know if you have any questions regarding this outcome, and all the best with your continued editing.-- Euryalus (talk) 04:56, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 June 2018

• From the editor: The Admin Ship is still barely afloat, while a Foundation project risks sinking

• Special report: NPR and AfC – The Marshall Plan: an engagement and a marriage?

• Op-ed: What do admins do?

• Opinion: Google isn't responsible for Wikipedia's mistakes

• News and notes: Money, milestones, and Wikimania

• In the media: Much wikilove from the Mayor of London, less from Paekākāriki or a certain candidate for U.S. Congress

• Discussion report: Deletion, page moves, and an update to the main page

• Featured content: New promotions

• Arbitration report: WWII, UK politics, and a user deCrat'ed

• Traffic report: Endgame

• Technology report: Improvements piled on more improvements

• Gallery: Wiki Loves Africa

• Blog: Wikipedia should be open for editors in Turkey

• Recent research: How censorship can backfire and conversations can go awry

• Humour: Television plot lines

• Wikipedia essays: This month's pick by The Signpost editors

• From the archives: Wolves nip at Wikipedia's heels: A perspective on the cost of paid editing

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Template:element cell-ec/element

What exactly where you trying to do here? The syntax broke and a temporary repair was made, but it still looks wrong.

Full documentation for the template(s) would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

The 2013 template is not used. - DePiep (talk) 18:34, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Up for speedy, db-author. - DePiep (talk) 09:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2018

• From the editor: If only if

• Op-ed: The last leg of the Admin Ship's current cruise

• Opinion: Wrestling with Wikipedia reality

• News and notes: Another newspaper for Wikipedia; Wikimania 2018 ends; changes at NPR

• In the media: Blackouts in Europe; Wikipedia and capitalists; WMF Jet Set

• Discussion report: Wikipedias take action against EU copyright proposal, plus new user right proposals

• Featured content: Wikipedia's best content in images and prose

• Arbitration report: Status quo processes retained in two disputes

• Traffic report: Soccer, football, call it what you like – that and summer movies leave room for little else

• Technology report: New bots, new prefs

• Gallery: Independence days, national holidays, and football – all in July

• Blog: Motivation of two editors

• Recent research: Different Wikipedias use different images; editing contests more successful than edit-a-thons

• Humour: It's all the same

• Essay: Wikipedia does not need you

• From the archives: The pending changes fiasco: how an attempt to answer one question turned into a quagmire

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Acyl chlorides

Hi DePiep, I remember that you created the Template:Navbox stereochemistry. Thank you very much again for your kind help. I would have a second request: Could you create the Template:Navbox acyl chlorides? It should contain Acyl chlorides as heading and the following content:

ethanedioyl dichloride (oxalyl chloride), propanedioyl chloride (malonyl chloride), butanedioyl chloride (succinyl chloride), pentanedioyl chloride (glutaryl chloride), hexanedioyl dichloride (adipoyl chloride), heptanedioyl dichloride (pimeloyl chloride), suberoyl chloride (octanedioyl), nonanedioyl chloride (azelaoyl chloride), decanedioyl dichloride (sebacoyl chloride).  

It would be appreciated. Best regards --Minihaa (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Minihaa see {{Navbox stereochemistry}}.

By the way, I found an image for {{Navbox stereochemistry}}, but the wording does not match the text. Improvements? - DePiep (talk) 09:14, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much, great work! I think it gives the reader quite some orientation. Would it be ok if I would introduce the navbox in the articles later today?

I think an image would serve the {{Navbox stereochemistry}} very well. I think I will ask the creator of the article Descriptor (Chemistry) for help, he would be able to give some educated suggestions. Best regards Minihaa (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, add it to the articles, that what it is for. And {{Navbox stereochemistry}} now has an image, it's just that it does not look fitting (has different wording). -DePiep (talk) 15:28, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

b y the way, can you change the formulas to show the group? - DePiep (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

phosphoric acid E number error

The E number for phosphoric acid (chembox) is incorrect. It should be E 337 (not 338) and it is definitely not an antioxidant. I can't find the culprit in the article text, so please can you help and correct this error. Many thanks, Petergans (talk) 13:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

E numbers are read from wikidata. I've changed it over there (was unsourced, remains unsourced). The word "antioxidant" is only there introducing the class of E numbers: E number#E300–E399 (antioxidants, acidity regulators). All ok this way? - DePiep (talk) 14:32, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It cannot itself be oxidised, so the classification as an antioxidant is erroneous. Petergans (talk)

The source is wrong. The entry must be changed as the title compound is not an antioxidant. Petergans (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

"antioxidant" is NOT a description of E337. It is an illustration of the E-number set E300 - E399. Note the plural, note the second word 'acidity regulators', not the ellipsis ...). It is a group description. - DePiep (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Nevertheless, it is misleading in the context of the article on phosphoric acid. As you say, the comment derives from the E-classification, but in WP it appears to be a comment on the subject of the article. Petergans (talk) 07:52, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Not to me. As I said: the text "E337 (antioxidants, ...)" is clear enough wrt this for multiple reasons. If you disagree, you can bring this up at Talk:E number or at Template talk:Chembox. - DePiep (talk) 16:06, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Keeping things friendly in Categories For Discussion

Thank you for your input on the CFD discussion for the Isotopes by element categories. Sometimes it's easy to come on strong in a discussion you care a lot about. With this red herring comment, I had trouble seeing WP:GOODFAITH being assumed. You might want to re-read the tone of the discussion with fresh eyes if you have time.

Thanks, RevelationDirect (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:User:DePiep/EMA/EMA List (original)

Template:User:DePiep/EMA/EMA List (original) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Pkbwcgs (talk) 11:47, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2018

• From the editor: Today's young adults don't know a world without Wikipedia

• Interview: 2018 Wikimedian of the Year, Farkhad Fatkullin

• News and notes: Flying high; low practice from Wikipedia 'cleansing' agency; where do our donations go? RfA sees a new trend

• In the media: Quicksilver AI writes articles

• Discussion report: Drafting an interface administrator policy

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Special report: Wikimania 2018

• Traffic report: Aretha dies – getting just 2,000 short of 5 million hits

• Technology report: Technical enhancements and a request to prioritize upcoming work

• Gallery: Leapfrog, historic Thai cave, and a rhythmic beat

• Recent research: Wehrmacht on Wikipedia, neural networks writing biographies

• Humour: Signpost editor censors herself

• Essay: Principle of Some Astonishment

• From the archives: Playing with Wikipedia words

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Hinduja Group

Hi there, I've undone your recent edit at Hinduja Group because it seems to have taken the end off of a lot of citations, creating issues. I kept a few other changes you made, but may have missed something, so you may want to check my work. Anyway, just wanted to let you know in case this was evidence of a bot/script going crazy or something. Cheers, Jessicapierce (talk) 18:14, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Lm/main

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

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. – BrandonXLF ^(t@lk) 22:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DePiep. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, DePiep. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Infobox element - 2018

• Hi Zackmann08 (1, 2): I don't think you are her to improve templates, to cooperate, or to improve wikipedia at all. Please fuck off. -DePiep (talk) 01:47, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @DePiep: seriously? WTH? --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 01:59, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

-DePiep (talk) 02:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Really? I come to you for advice and you bring up a TFD from 2 years ago? I actually thought you were a nice person. Not sure what your deal is but sorry I bothered you. take care. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, two years already. Armchair commenter, not involved in maintaining. -DePiep (talk) 02:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I honestly don't get what your point is. Your comments caught me SO off guard that I actually checked the page history because I thought someone had vandalized your talk page. I came to you to ask for advice and your response was to tell me to fuck off based on something I did 2 years? As for the TFD related to Elements, I openly said that I was probably missing something and pinged you directly. I didn't move forward with tagging all the templates, I tagged one and asked for a discussion. I don't get why you are so offended. I can't point to a specific line in a document that says single use templates are banned. I wasn't suggesting that there was one. I was just questioning why the need for the templates. Again, just trying to start a conversation. Seriously don't understand why that prompted such an absurd reaction from you. If you want some policy links, how about WP:CIVILITY or WP:AGF? Two policies that you would do well to be reminded of. I came to you for help. You resonse was fuck off. Sorry I wasted my time. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:24, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a current(!) discussion: here, here. Is why I react as I did: enough of this (note that you didnot/couldnot link to a policy rule). There is nu rule that says to delete. About 2016: you did not reply once, leaving others (like me) with a crippled maintenance program, without consequences for yourself. Is why I say: armchair commenters (with free destructive effects). Why should I forget, while you repeat this unhelpful behaviour? I repeat: "in the 2016 TfD, you did not respond". -DePiep (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Sorry my health issues 2 years ago was an inconvenience for you bud. Again, never said there WAS a policy. Was just trying to start a conversation. Take care. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:54, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Your recent editing history at Enrico Fermi shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. MPS1992 (talk) 01:40, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This ignores the talkpage and editsummary explanations, while "honoring" an other editor. -DePiep (talk) 01:42, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

		Happy Christmas!
		Hello DePiep, Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?" My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk 18:52, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

If that's not too much to ask

Hello DePiep. I was wondering if it was not too much to ask you to draw me a graph like File:Aluminium - world production trend.svg, but for prices rather than production. I have a certain feeling that asking to draw such a graph would be a lot to ask for, so I would be very grateful if you could do it and of course, you could ask for a favor in return. If you could, I will explain in detail what exactly I want (in my opinion, nothing special) and where you could find the data.--R8R (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

"I will draw" he said famously. (will need time) he also said. -DePiep (talk) 22:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I would like a graph containing two lines: one for the nominal prices and one for the real prices that should have different colors. I envisioned dark gray/black for the nominal prices and red for the real prices, though you may choose differently. And that's essentially it.

Now as for data. I have a year-to-year set of data from 1900 here (find Aluminum and get the .xlsx file under the column Supply-Demand Statistics from there). I actually also wanted to include more data from before 1900 but I need to rethink what data is exactly worthy. Whatever is chosen, it won't need a dubbing in real prices. I will figure out what to use and then pass it to you.--R8R (talk) 00:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

R8R I've read the file (ds140aumi). Do I understand: "nominal prices" = $/t at the time, "real prices" = $₁₉₉₈/t? -DePiep (talk) 10:06, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, you got that right.--R8R (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• R8R Here you are. I used wonderful c:SVG Chart. I used two colors, makes the lines stand out & recognsable (while crossing).

Todo

1. Add full data set (each year), not just 10-yrs (DePiep)
2. Stretch vertical (graph should be ~square) (DePiep)
3. Check all texts: Y-axis, X-axis, title, legends
4. In general, be inspired by these examples: commons:Category:Valid SVG created with Wikimedia SVG Chart

-DePiep (talk) 17:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You think it would be more instructive if the blue line were on a different scale (0-200 $/t), having its own scale on the righthand? (Can be done). Red line would be unchanged (and using lefthand axis). -DePiep (talk) 17:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Also thank you for sharing this interesting tool you mentioned. Hopefully I'll be able to make my next graph on my own. I've got Inkscape on my computer but it is not very intuitively clear to me and since I don't really have that much need in using it (at the very best once in a few months, and all of these cases are for Wikipedia where I can ask for help), I haven't learned how to. For now with Inkscape, I can only do the most basic things like changing a color. Here is my magnum opus with it (where squares, and the red and blue arrows had already been created by the time I got to this).

I was a little worried that the graph didn't look very precise before I read your to do list. If that is yet to do done, everything is fine then.

As for the texts, here are the changes I'd prefer: I'd like the words "metric ton" instead of "ton" in the title of the graph and the vertical axis label ("ton" on its own is ambiguous: see ton) and "t" instead of "ton" in the legend (simply because it takes less horizontal space and is still correct). Also not yet sure how to deal with the dollar sign ("$" or "US$"? What about "98"---should it be "98US$"? Maybe the smart decision would be to mention in the title that the dollars are the U.S. dollars---something like "Aluminium, historical price per metric ton in USD" and have the plain "$" afterwards. Still need to think how to mention the 1998 dollars are from 1998. USGS uses "98$"; sort of makes given that the country of a dollar is always written also before the dollar sign: US$, A$, C$, NZ$, etc. Then again, they also spell it out and since our graph doesn't, this may look a little puzzling. "1998$" is clearer.)

No, I don't think we really need two different scales. I think that this long-term chart is supposed to give you a visual representation of the trends but not the exact values which would be hard to read anyway. I'll link the sources in the file description in case someone needs a look at the data.

I will probably have set up a table with various pre-1900 prices and costs I can find at Talk:History of aluminium by the end of this week and we can see from there how the graph could be expanded into the nineteenth century.--R8R (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

• Replies & notes-to-self. Yes, a great tool for these graphs. I found it through the "production trend" example file you mentioned ;-). FYI, the source code is in talkpage commons:File_talk:Aluminium_-_historical_price_per_ton_(nominal,_real).svg (that is: my template input code, so look at the talkpage in edit mode). That's how it works. If you want to experiment & work with this graph, go ahead, but better not edit together (iow I can leave it to you, but I propose to work further on this now). There are a lot of parameters to squeeze him right, they need experimentation. The two data lists are the easiest ones!

And yes, happily no Inkscape needed here -- but for a masterpiece you can't do without it. Inkscape is my preferred tool too (until today...). BTW, I also do this (today too): paste the svg code in my notepad++ texteditor, save it on file, then choose menu "Run | Show in Firefox" which tests the svg right away. Even allows editing in-code fast (and tricky).

About the graph: I will process your suggestions, all reasonable. I found MOS:CURRENCY saying ~the same about use of $ symbol. For 1998-USD I will try "$₁₉₉₈" in the graph. It stays "aluminIum" in this then (as does the history article, except for company names etc).

I guess you can describe "real" and "nominal" cost in the caption. For me it was a discovery/study to get it.

If you have the pre-1900 prices (very interesting indeed), we can extend the data range in this one (and adjust axis settings etc).

And of course: what a wonderfuil graph. Shows that Al was more expensive than gold (1916!), as we were told.

Got work to do. - DePiep (talk) 19:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Aha, got it. Well, I'll be heading off to sleep now (so sorry if this reply is incomplete). How about I write you when I want to go edit it and then in no less than half an hour tell you when my editing session is over or leave it to you for now altogether if you don't think that's too rude of me? I'll fill my Wiki time with adding more stuff to the article.

I do get it that Inkscape is so cool---it wouldn't be so poplar otherwise even though it's free. I just need to learn how to use it (and I've seen loads of online courses) to actually use it, but then again, I don't have the need, it's always just little something for Wikipedia. If I were a graphical designer, though, I would've probably learned it ages ago.

I like explaining things but I think that explaining the difference between real and nominal prices is sort of off-topic in history of aluminium. I also think real versus nominal value (economics) which the article links to does a fairly decent job in explaining the concept. If it were, however, more closely related to the topic in hand, I probably would explain it.

(ec) Let me know when you want to start editing this graph. I will happily leave it, but cannot promise I can come back & then understand your discoveries and solutions and improvements. It's not about being rude, but about working impractical/inefective. See you tomorrow. -DePiep (talk) 21:04, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick note: this graph does not show that aluminum is more expensive than gold at any time. Its price approached that of silver back in the 1860s. In 1916, a troy ounce of gold cost about $20 per troy once (31 gram). That's $640,000 per metric ton. Aluminum did cost more than gold way back before Deville found a way to produce cheaper sodium, which happened in 1855 or 1856.--R8R (talk) 20:51, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Also, speaking of costs: I have not seen any proof that anyone actually bought or sold aluminum back then. It did cost more to make an ounce of aluminum than an ounce of gold. As for prices, I can't verify anybody could buy or anybody was willing to sell for money a piece of aluminum before 1855, so it could be there were no prices to speak about.--R8R (talk) 21:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

My "gold" remarks were only frolicking, afterthoughts. I will take another look at texts and data as discussed. Do write here when you want to take this graph over. -DePiep (talk) 21:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I've given it some thought and I think, not in a while. So if you'd like to improve it, please feel free. For now, I want to work more on the text. I want to answer the questions I have listed at Talk:History of aluminium. Also, I presume after more additions there will be more vertical space; currently, on my 1600x900 laptop screen, there's not enough room for one more picture now but there probably will be later. Maybe the pre-electrolysis prices will require a graph of their own (if so, I should be able to make it myself; I think that space for two more pictures is also a possibility).

As for gold, there is no need in trying to excuse yourself. I rather think I need to clarify this moment in the article better. Maybe if a separate graph for pre-electrolysis prices is to be drawn, it may also include the prices of gold and silver for comparison. In case you're curious, aluminum cost about as much as silver already in the 1860s IIRC.--R8R (talk) 08:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

OK. At this moment I'm preparing the full data lists. -DePiep (talk) 08:43, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

• Uploaded second version. All data in there, adjusted texts. Could not manage to stretch vertical (into more square graph). Input is in

c:File talk as required, for future edits.

I'll leave it here. You can always ask here to have me look & experiment with more details etc., or edit yourself. Have a nice edt. -DePiep (talk) 09:40, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I'll try to incorporate this graph into the article when I reach my laptop. Generally, I'll take it from here. I'll see if I can make it more square-like and improve the file description.--R8R (talk) 13:10, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I just reconsidered and I think that explaining the difference between nominal prices and real prices may actually be a good idea if that is done in a note. One of the main reasons why I didn't want to do this was that I've been familiar with the concept since my early teen years and I sort of expected everyone to be familiar with it as well, so explaining this would be pretty much explaining the obvious. However, it occurred to me that even though I was familiar with it, there is no fundamental reason why everyone should be---this isn't taught in schools or talked a lot about on TV or in the Internet, for instance; after all, you said you weren't familiar with the concept---so yeah, it may be a good idea. Notes are perfect for such explanations. Maybe this could even be done in a simpler manner: "Nominal and real prices for aluminium from 1900 to 2015. The nominal prices (i.e., the prices customers saw at the time) are given in blue while the real prices (recalculated by ignoring the inflation the currency experienced so that the money had the same purchasing power throughout the years, here standardized to that of the year 1998) are given in red"; how's that sound?--R8R (talk) 18:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding the note is good (and that cannot be done in the graph for sure). Could be a footnote. Your text here is a bit long. maybe like: "nominal price = price as paid at the time ("price in 1910: $492 then"). Real price = $ value recalculated to 1998-$ worth ("price in 1910: 8600 in $(1998)"). Real prices make prices comparable." -DePiep (talk) 19:52, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Hello. I've tried to spend some time changing the graph (without really knowing what I was doing at first, it was more like, "let me change this and see what happens"). Eventually, I figured what does what, expect I don't understand one thing. On line 470, you have, transform="scale(1, -3). If I change that to transform="scale(1, -1), the lines are shrinked vertically and this makes perfect sense, I get it. What I don't get is why the line that has been stretched vertically by a factor of 3 looks fine and the seemingly untouched line actually appears very flat. Why is that?--R8R (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Will take a look later on. -DePiep (talk) 00:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 December 2018

• From the editor: Time for a truce

• Op-ed: Looking back, looking forward: A beginner's experience on Wikipedia

• Special report: The Christmas wishlist

• Opinion: The blogosphere migrates to Galaxy WMF

• News and notes: Reviewer of the year, WikiCup winner, and the 2019 Wikimedia Summit

• Reflections: Wikipedia, history, and the 100th anniversary of Armistice Day

• In the media: Court-ordered article redaction, paid editing, and rock stars

• Discussion report: Farewell, Mediation Committee

• Arbitration report: A long break ends

• Traffic report: Queen reigns for four weeks straight

• Gallery: Intersections

• Recent research: Why do the most active Wikipedians burn out?; only 4% of students vandalize

• Essay: No one cares about your garage band

• Humour: The dark side of our favorite root vegetable

• From the archives: Ars longa, vita brevis

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:46, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

TFA

Thanks for reminding me. I was just thinking about that when history of aluminium was promoted but nihonium was a TFA less than a month ago. So I'd wait until January to have dubnium have the spotlight and then another month or month and a half to nominate history of aluminium. It's not like we pump out an FA per month anyway.--R8R (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

@R8R: Db was already TFA this June, though; I'm not sure if we can run it again this soon. Double sharp (talk) 13:18, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I was under impression DePiep's ping meant that we had forgotten to do it. Of course not then.--R8R (talk) 13:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Wait wait: March 6, 2019 (or later that month) the Periodic Table is 150 y old. R8RDouble sharp. -DePiep (talk) 22:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The ping didn't get through :( How about I try this so that DS sees that too: @Double sharp:

Realistically, I don't think we could crank out an FA in 3 months (~1.5 months would be required by the FAC alone). If that would be something different than an element article, I don't think I'll do that fast as I'm not used to doing so and will probably want to try everything before eventually accepting or rejecting it. I still want to try things with history of aluminium despite having already brought it to the FA status. Then again, I'm only now finally getting the feeling the article is becoming a real FA.

Of the element articles, yes, germanium (eka-silicon) seems a decent choice.

This whole last minute thing makes me think we should try to think what major event we should look for next if we want to celebrate it by writing an FA. In 2021, radioactivity will celebrate its 175th anniversary of the discovery date but the article of the element used for that discovery, uranium, is already an FA, and was already a TFA in 2007.--R8R (talk) 23:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Hello, I'm 93. I noticed that you recently removed content from Hydrogen 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. 9³ (talk) 23:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Creation of redirects such as E109 and E108

Is there a consensus regarding the creation of such redirects?  — fr ^❄ 05:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

No. There is a usefulness though. And a ratio. Why do you ask? -DePiep (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

To be more specific: Why do you ask after putting one up for WP:SPEEDY? -DePiep (talk) 05:08, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

I think these redirects make perfect sense for the elements past 100 (and maybe even past 92), and hence I have removed the speedy deletion tag on E109. These are and were common symbols for the heaviest elements before they received their trivial names. Double sharp (talk) 07:58, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2018

• From the editors: Where to draw the line in reporting?

• Op-ed: Wikipedia not trumped by Trump appointee

• Special report: The Signpost got 380,000+ views in 2018, sounds reasonable enough, right?

• News and notes: Some wishes do come true

• In the media: Political hijinks

• Discussion report: A new record low for RfA

• WikiProject report: Articlegenesis

• Arbitration report: Year ends with one active case

• Traffic report: Queen dethroned by U.S. presidents

• Gallery: Sun and Moon, water and stone

• Blog: News from the WMF

• Humour: I believe in Bigfoot

• Essay: Requests for medication

• From the archives: Compromised admin accounts – again

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Element categories

I saw that you reverted my edit to unbibium, and I understand that the hypothetical chemical elements category is implicitly a subcategory of chemical elements. In that case, how come elements 119-121 have both categories listed - is that a mistake by the same line of reasoning? ComplexRational (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I did not check those (I only saw your recent edit), but yes: if it is in the parent cat, do not add the child cat. per WP:CAT concepts. -DePiep (talk) 22:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Refs

To make it clear which ref supports which sentence we often have a tags at the end of each sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Doc James: Not like this: six same refs in two paragraphs: clutter. By definition, a paragraph is coherent on its subject, and so a sole source is a singular ref too, at the end of the whole coherent citation. (maybe unless one wants to add page different numbers - still then, not done this way). - DePiep (talk) 19:13, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Okay we disagree. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:24, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Not okay. Where did you learn that you should source each sentence separately in a paragraph? -DePiep (talk) 19:25, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Having these refs makes the article much easier to maintain / improve / and verify. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

No, you forget about the coherence in the paragraph (and the option to use oage numbers). Maintnance is not important, avoinding clutter for the Reader is way more important. -DePiep (talk) 19:29, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Having clarity regarding what references supports what text is important for our readers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes. That "text" being a coherent, single topic paragraph. Or are you saying these two paragraphs each are rambling unconnected sentences? -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is someone removing one of the hidden refs and adding a citation needed tag. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hepatitis_B_vaccine&diff=next&oldid=812961419&diffmode=source

Here is someone adding the citation https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Hepatitis_B_vaccine&type=revision&diff=868754060&oldid=864841203&diffmode=source

This is one example why it is good to have a ref for every sentence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

diff 1: Nonsense edit, nonsense statement. The editor removed a ref already present - says it all. There is nu cure for ignorant editing (the empty editsummary is telling). Solution: revert removes = answeres the cn note; ref at end of paragraph was it.

diff 2: That is a *different source*, apparently the WHO2019 source * was not ok*. Now of course it must be added as a source (added somewhere). It should have been there from the start. If you read it in a differentsource, that different source should be added somewhere, duh. But were talking about repeating the same source footnote three times in a single paragraph - an issue you not address with these examples.

Even worse: you skipped the requirement that the first (hidden) reference now must be show because that sentence is from an other source (not from the newly added source). So I don't see what you try to demonstrate. Also, to prevent cluttering for our Reader, it could be OK to have both refs only once at paragraph's end. - DePiep (talk) 16:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:Rail-interchange/doc

As far as I can tell, commenting out the Template Data section does not affect the usage statistics collection, but only suppresses its display on the page. I've done this to dozens (hundreds?) of RDTs with no problem. If you are insisting on keeping it (and what do you need the usage for, anyway?), at least fill it in with useful information instead of letting everything default to "optional" – which is certainly not true for {{{1}}}. Useddenim (talk) 13:34, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

As I already noted: adding TD causes the "TD monthly error report" (TDmer) tool to run per 1st of month (next: Dec 1 then). This tool does *not* work woth commented out TD (there is a reason it is named commented out). Your experience with RDTs might be OK wrt WP:VE effects (and other TD-usage; this is what you neant right?), which is nice if it works when commented out.

See for example [1] for the usefulness of a TDmer report (it takes some experience to enjoy the smart completeness). Also, for TDmer a detailed TD list is not required. Anyway, everybody can edit the TD data into more details, what is holding you back? The template doc itself can use some more parameter info too (in the regular doc prose area). Actually, since the regular /doc page is so poor on parameter options, I can not helpfully fill in these TD options. And of course the TD list is collapsed to reduce size. Still, a bit of overhead is common with TD. -DePiep (talk) 13:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Abbr Tooltip

Regarding [2], the RfD result was not to automatically replace all transclusions as AWB would do but to make sure the uses are appropriate before replacing. Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:40, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I see. Good revert then. -DePiep (talk) 16:41, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Bold elements

Hi there. Why remove the bold]? Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:42, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I did read MOS:BEATLESINUS, but all other elements are bold. Is the plan to change them all or just have one that is not bold or what? Cheers. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

re Anna Frodesiak. Per MOS:BOLDTITLE: if possible, we should bold the topic = article title in the first sentence. We do so in artcle about bohrium. However, when the article topic is isotopes of bohrium, we must either bold that complete title, or nothing at all. Since the words are not together any more, the MOS says that we should not bold them any more (the Beatles example). It also gives the opportunity to link to both articles bohrium and isotope (not allowd when bolded).

See also the talk here. -DePiep (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, my friend. Please undo anything I did, which was at bohrium. And please enjoy Amsterdam if that is where you are. I lived there for 4 years, and know De Piep, of course. Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 11:46, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I just remember it was De Pijp, and it looked it up and it is. I guess you live elsewhere. :) Anna Frodesiak (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

SMILES in Chemboxes

Hello, I am trying to make SMILES codes in Chemboxes to be amenable to automatic parsing. When editing SMILES entry in Chemboxes and Drugboxes please do not add the ref tag directly into the SMILES entry after the SMILES code but use a separate SMILES_ref line. Adding the raf tag after SMILES makes the SMILES entry unparsable by tools like Wikipedia Chemical Structure Editor http://www.cheminfo.org/wikipedia/ . Thanks SMILESmaster (talk) 08:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

OK, but |SMILES_ref= today is not a known parameter. I will add it to those infoboxes shortly (so that the reference will show correctly). Until then, indeed use |SMILES_ref= preliminary (it will not show for now). Note that since one can use indexes |SMILES1= ... |SMILES5=, there also will be corresponding refs 1-5 I propose. -DePiep (talk) 15:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@SMILESmaster: I have reverted those two pages. Interesting cheminfo link! -DePiep (talk) 15:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! SMILESmaster (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Nomination of 3DMet for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 3DMet is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3DMet until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 07:03, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Quick thanks

For mentioning me in Talk:Chromium. I wasn't aware this article is being prepared for FAC and I'd love to help that future FAC succeed. I agree with you that a lot needs to be done; I basically want to rework every section. That's laborious but the article will be greatly improved.--R8R (talk) 13:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It was not my itention to point other people to work. My concern was that there seemed more supportive talk than meticulous edits towards FAC. -DePiep (talk) 15:21, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

I get it. You helped nevertheless. I'll give them the directions towards the meticulous edits needed.--R8R (talk) 17:33, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Monsanto

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in genetically modified organisms, commercially produced agricultural chemicals and the companies that produce them, broadly construed. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

	Lightkeepers Award
	Thank you for your maintenance work on Lighthouses. Cheers 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:19, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Typo in FAC?

You kindly fixed a typo in BWV 134a, only: it's from a quote, and now contradicts the reference. It's only a hyphen, so will probably not be minded, - just asking. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:35, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

Thanks, I appreciate your help in moving my comment to the correct location. Once I submitted my comment, I noticed the Talk Page on the top and realized my mistake. You were quick to amend, so I want to thank you for being civil and helpful. Also, my apologies if I made the assumption that your Infobox is incorrectly formatted. Upon review of your Talk Page, it appears you work extensively in this area, so Please forgive my naivety. Cheers, Mark Halsey Mark Halsey 16:44, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! PLease expand more, trying to be more clear with examples etc. Would be helpful. -DePiep (talk) 16:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 October 2018

• From the editor: Is this the new normal?

• News and notes: European copyright law moves forward

• In the media: Knowledge under fire

• Discussion report: Interface Admin policy proposal, part 2

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbcom

• Traffic report: John McCain's death generates over 7 million hits, followed by historical low

• Technology report: Paying attention to your mobile

• Gallery: A pat on the back

• Blog: After a catastrophic fire at the National Museum of Brazil, a drive to preserve what knowledge remains

• Recent research: How talk page use has changed since 2005; censorship shocks lead to centralization; is vandalism caused by workplace boredom?

• Humour: Signpost Crossword Puzzle

• Essay: Expressing thanks

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 October 2018

• From the editors: The Signpost is still afloat, just barely

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's Strickland affair

• News and notes: WMF gets a million bucks

• In the media: Bans, celebs, and bias

• Discussion report: Mediation Committee and proposed deletion reform

• Traffic report: Unsurprisingly, sport leads the field – or the ring

• Technology report: Bots galore!

• Special report: NPP needs you

• Special report 2: Now Wikidata is six

• In focus: Alexa

• Gallery: Out of this world!

• Recent research: Wikimedia Commons worth $28.9 billion

• Humour: Talk page humour

• Opinion: Strickland incident

• From the archives: The Gardner Interview

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

December 2018

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Hydrogen, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use the sandbox for that. Thank you. 9³ (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

AWB rule 4

Hi! I noticed that this edit to San Junipero violates WP:AWBRULES#4, as it consists only of swapping two templates in order and removing a whitespace character; hence, it makes no actual change in the plaintext of the article. Please refrain from making such edits with AWB in the future. Thanks! (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 12:03, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Wish

Hello. Help improve and copy edit for article Maureen Wroblewitz. Thanks you. Ngocxuanmai (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Periodic table - article quality per element (2018-12-31).png

Thanks for uploading File:Periodic table - article quality per element (2018-12-31).png. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 13:01, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Infobox mineral/sandbox/doc

Mainspace article should not have subpages. Are you intended to create in Wikipedia namespace? ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 10:00, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Now I know why it wasn't working as expected... -DePiep (talk) 10:03, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

3DMet

Hello, can you please look over this article? At the moment, there is nothing to show why it is notable. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 18:29, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Article 3DMet exists since it is linked to (by left-hand label) in {{Chembox}} articles: see Arachidonic acid. Today some 124 articles use this parameter.

In wikidata, it is an item-property: {{P|P2796}} (3DMet itself is 3DMet (Q23948774)).

So imo it is a meaningful, viable stub. The three "issue" tags by now in top are unnecessary alarming. -DePiep (talk) 20:35, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for replying, DePiep. I can look at how to address some of the issues, but there is no indication whatsoever of why this is a notable topic. Which part of WP:NOTABILITY does it meet? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ask WP:CHEMISTRY, obviously. Or wikidata. Be sure to use my replies. -DePiep (talk) 19:24, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Chromium

Thanks for looking in on Chromium, as neither UP or I have attempted a Featured Article Nomination before (I've done GAs, UP not). David notMD (talk) 10:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

AWB cosmetic edit?

I think this edit and ones like it may qualify as cosmetic edits, which are not allowed under AWB rules. Is there are reason that you are doing them? – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I noticed this myself after starting the AWB run, and then stopped (skipped) making those edits (in Category:Unknown parameters (275)). -DePiep (talk) 12:05, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Jonesey95 that is, the main goal of that AWB run was something else (checking & aligning template's usage). -DePiep (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. You are usually pretty well behaved (on en.WP), so I AGF'd and put a note here instead of kicking up a big fuss. – Jonesey95 (talk) 12:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Thankx to you, your note here was asking nicely. -DePiep (talk) 12:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 17, 2018

Hi DePiep, can you find an article for me that mentions that IUPAC subcommision and talks about its role in element naming? - Dank (push to talk) 22:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

Dank If I understand your question: nihonium has links IUPAC and International Union of Pure and Applied Physics IUPAP. IUPAC/IUPAP Joint Working Party is a bit stubby indeed. Alse there are ref #23, ref #47. hth. -DePiep (talk) 05:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Actually it is not a subcommission, but a cooperation ("JWP") between two independent organisations IUPAC IUPAP (Chemistry & Physics) - DePiep (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Pinging User:Double sharp. I can understand the objection about the stubby article, although sometimes we do use links just to define terms. What's your preference? - Dank (push to talk) 14:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC) I mean, do you like the link, and do you like the current text, that says "subcommission"? That wording doesn't seem to be supported. - Dank (push to talk) 14:47, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Please come back

Hi DePiep, I've replied on the talk page re those edits that were made, please come back Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, nice words. I better take a 12-24h break. It is a longer term process anyway. - DePiep (talk) 22:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, please come back. I will also take a break now. Let's work together. – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thx you all. Prefer make it 24h, not 12h rest. -DePiep (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I can see why DePiep is taking a break, this has put me in an uncomfortable/confused state, and we're now having to put our focus here because you went and made those changes without discussing. I'm sorry Jonesey95, your edits may have solved issues and your help is appreciated, but I would have preferred you to have discussed this on the talk page so we can comment on before doing it straight away. |image2= for example when I was updating the list earlier on today (after midnight), you can see in the edit history that I put "Update response, confused myself thinking image2 was displayed beneath the logo!" - also here where DePiep had talked about image2, you replied with "|Image2= works at Template:Infobox UK school/testcases. See the bottom of "Dartford Grammar School" (on the left, using the live template). Please provide a link to an article where it is not working." Because of this, I was looking to get this changed to |picture= - this can be commented on in the list and is currently under the "discuss" section. DePiep said in the edit history "that your edit does not follow nor help current discussion." and that's right, it doesn't. Maybe you might have to revert your edits and propose the changes so we can comment on. I don't know, what are your thoughts DePiep? Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

My 24h break is OK for everyone & everything. The Merge can have it, and also the issues (no fire alarm is it?). I'll read the posts later on. Be fine, have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Chembox

So I really want to tackle this beast and wanted to see what you thought the best approach would be. I noticed that you started writing a module and I know there is thread going on the template's talk page... But I'm a bit confused and hoping you could help clarify somethings. So here's a couple of questions...

1. Why not just use {{Infobox}}? Why the need for a custom Module? It seems to me that each of the "subtemplates" ({{Chembox Pharmacology}} for example) could really just be converted over to Infoboxes that are embedded into the larger infobox. Could you help me understand your approach?
2. How can I be helpful? This is obviously a super complex template. In my opinion one of the most complicated in existence right now. I don't want to introduce a case of too many cooks in the kitchen, but I also really do want to be helpful. My day job is software development so I think I could actually be of use here. Perhaps for starters I could focus on writing up some good Testcases?

Let me know your thoughts! --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 21:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

FYI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 02:53, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec):... and I did publicly Thank you for that post right away. After that, and unrelated, and while I am involved in a large and long discussion exactly about deleting single-usde templates (here, here), Zackmann08 starts a drive-by TfD pointingly not linking to any policy. I could easily copy/paste these earlier TfD results, about the same, from 2012, 2014, 2016. That may look cynical, but it is to the point and should allow me leeway. -DePiep (talk) 03:07, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

November 2018

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks 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 ~~~~}}.  Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:06, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Ivanvector (ec)

... and I did publicly Thank you for that post right away. After that, and unrelated, and while I am involved in a large and long discussion exactly about deleting single-usde templates (here, here), Zackmann08 starts a drive-by TfD pointingly not linking to any policy. I could easily copy/paste these earlier TfD results, about the same, from 2012, 2014, 2016. That may look cynical, but it is to the point and should allow me leeway. -DePiep (talk) 03:09, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

For what is worth, had that simply be pointed out to me, I would have thanked DePiep and closed the DISCUSSION right away. Instead, I was told to fuck off for even bothering to start a discussion. --Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 03:13, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Let me save this for history writing:the 2016 TfD was also initiated by Zackmann08, as the closing admin noted. -DePiep (talk) 03:15, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

And: [3]: "Regret asking for input" (es), "Apparently discussions aren't allowed anymore". -DePiep (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

To be clear, Zackmann08, I request you do not write on my talkpage any more. No gravedancing. -DePiep (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2018 (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:

[Note beforehand: this is partly an "unblock" request (but no unblock is asked ;-) ), and partly a contribution to the ongoing ANI discussion re this block. Didn't know a better way to convey this. Box title "... be reviewed" may be to the point. DePiep]

• About the ANI as started by Zackmann [4] (currently open). I fully admit that the two diffs show unacceptable language, an I want to apologise to Zackmann08. These PAs etc. are unacceptable. These are context & timeline of these edits: that day was one in which I was engaged in month-long discussions (here [5] and here [6]) exactly about the topic Zackmann invoked in a new TfD [7] (the topic being: "subst then delete single-use template"). Most probably at the moment of TfD ignition Zackmann was not aware of these discussions. It was at that point and moment that I lost my patience and civility. Incidentally: the three earlier similar TfD's in those very same templates (2012, 2014, 2016—initiated by Zackmann) I already had been using as an example in the discussions. That is how tight it all was, both in time and in topic.

re OP Was particularly disappointing given ... [8] (third diff). That diff was about an other, unrelated template, and I had responded early by sending Thanks, and so I do not see how this would support the complaint (see 21:26, 18 11 2018). There is no unfriendliness in there. Zackmann repeated this false impression later on. I reject the suggestion.

Since there is no excuse, I do not seek or ask undoing of the current block. I use these two weeks to cool down, take a distance, and rethink on how to prevent any such situations.

• There is also this. In a later post, Zackmann refers to two other discussions as "has violated ... and not been reported": this ([9], btw I actually walked away from this) and this ([10]). However, I claim that there was nothing to "report" in those threads. Throwing in such a post is muddying the waters, while ANI has no mechanism or process to undo any non-argument. No admin ever concludes "incorrect, so this !argument is not to be used". The effect is that it keeps getting attention and repetition, and cannot be nullified. (Same about a later post by Cabayi [11]: nothing to report, plain content/edit discussion, while author keeps concluding 'blockable').

Reading Zackmans posts in the ANI thread I find them rather over-judgemental and imprecise reasoning. OP third diff [12] (both I already mentioned), a punishment?, "essentially saying" = putting words in my mouth, "Apparently discussions aren't allowed anymore" (?), and a non-admin !vote even. These, too, introduce the problem of how to unmuddy the waters. One more example: Non-admins Zackmann, SMcCandish, Davey2010, Snow Rise, Cabayi, J. Johnson (JJ) arrived !voting (ouch) for an extended block; even leading admin Ad Orientem to add: Per above ... (that is, following the non-admins' !votes). -DePiep (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

• (discussion continued below this template) -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Decline reason:

procedural decline. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 15:29, 3 December 2018 (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.

Just wanted to let you know that I have copied your comment to the ANI discussion. No comment on the block review as I am not an admin. –FlyingAce^✈hello 02:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• re Ad Orientem [13]: Strange moment to post this right below my post, while earlier you reopened the discussion [14] after an out-of-discussion remark by non-admin complainer [15]. (The same editor I made diff'ed remarks about, you did not address). To be clear: I don't mind the reopening, I do mind the asymmetrical closing request. You not responding to my post is a missed opportunity to clear things up -- as part of the discussion you wanted to happen. And anyway, my invocation of {{unblock}} implies asking an uninvolved admin.

I add that per this closing, "edits which are judged by an administrator to be ..." i.e., explicitly excluding non-admin judgements.

Rereading the thread and my "unblock" post, I find it more and more disgusting the way Zackmann was stirring up the pot (with virtually each and every post in this) and still is not being scrutinised overall. That creates a harmful and incorrect image. -DePiep (talk) 12:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

My reasons for suggesting a close are two. First I tend to believe that, with some odd exceptions, ANI discussions should not run longer than 3 days. Only rarely have I seen anything added after the third day that substantively adds to an ANI discussion. And secondly I was under the impression, perhaps mistakenly, that you wanted to get this resolved. On a side note I also tend to think that it is in your interest to close the discussion sooner rather than later. The trend in comments did not strike me as favorable to your cause. -Ad Orientem (talk) 13:33, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, Ad Orientem. I thought me replying to the thread (first time after ~7 days) with diff'ed arguments would be a contribution to the discussion, pointing to (harmful) misstatements, and IMO worth replies. I have no opinion on 'three days max' and 'shift in opinion' you point to; I can only strive & hope that admins do read & conclude carefully (as opposed to, say, '!vote counting'). -DePiep (talk) 15:15, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Afterthought: there is no reason to limit the ANI thread time (as in 'max 3 days'). Guideline best be: good discussion. (Hell: if a serious admin proposes to use one more week for this, I could agree). - DePiep (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's some free advice from someone who has lent you some rope in the recent past: stop digging. There are editors who have declined to add to the ANI conversation but who would have damning evidence to contribute. Your best route forward from here is to stop maligning the behavior of other editors (as you are still doing immediately above) and to edit and post carefully, coherently, and in good faith. If you have something to complain about, tell it to your husband, wife, dog, houseplant, or anyone else, but somehow prevent yourself from venting about it here at en.WP. You have some good editing skills; as you should clearly be able to see from the ANI discussion, you are on the edge of losing the ability to use them on en.WP forever. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:09, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

re Jonesey95. I think I am well entitled to point to misstatements, especially when harmful or misleading re myself. If something is unclear, please ask for clarification. I do not think one needs to direct admins on how to "read" posts.

re editors who have declined to add ... but ... damning evidence. A good discussion does not need to depend on such "graces". Even worse, as you write it they are more like a veiled threat to silence me. That is not how a discussion works, not even at ANI. This reminds me of [16], where you referred to WP:BOOMERANG to stifle critical discussion (which eventually led me to step out of that process i.e., silencing). -DePiep (talk) 14:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• A question for Zackmann08. In the ANI OP [17] you wrote, opening line: I wasn't going to file this until I saw that DePiep was placed on WP:PROBATION. My question is: how did you end up at that probation page, when not looking for it? -DePiep (talk) 23:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Contributors to the ANI, as of 02:44, 28 November 2018 UTC (my research):

Confirmed non-admin (15)

-Andy Dingley -Blackmane -Cabayi (TE) -Davey2010 -DePiep -FlyingAce -Hijiri88 -J. Johnson -Johnuniq (TE) -Jytdog -Mr rnddude -Pldx1 -SMcCandlish (TE) -Tom.Reding (TE) -Zackmann (TE)

Confirmed admin (6)

+Ad Orientem +Alex Shih +Bbb23 +Fish_and_karate +Ivanvector +Jayron32

-DePiep (talk) 02:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

eh, what?

What is non-admin Zackmann doing here? -DePiep (talk) 00:07, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reason you're focusing so strongly on everyone's status as admin or not? SQL^{Query me!} 01:52, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

1. The thread disappeared completely. 2. Read my line starting with "I add that per" above [18]. -DePiep (talk) 09:22, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Just to get it right: what happened here?

• AFAIK, the ANI thread was moved to /IncidentArchive997 (while formally unclosed) by this edit (?; there were earlier up-and-down edits). That is: by non-admin and heavily involved editor and original complainant Zackmann08.
• Then, in the archive 997 page, this edit [19] by Snow Rise (not an admin)
• And then in the archive 997 page this one [20] by Zackmann08 (not an admin)

Enough of this incompetent and incorrect editing. I request that the process be handled correctly. I ping Ad Orientem for technical reasons (has followed the history in detail). I is my interest that the thread be closed & archived correctly. -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

(removed forumshopping -DePiep (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2018 (UTC))

No opinion asked here. Just that the process be handled correctly. FYI: one shall never edit an archive. -DePiep (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

(removed content per WP:forumshopping). -DePiep (talk) 01:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

re "The question at this point is how you want the matter resolved now": says who? The ANI case is done, live with it. What "matter" are you talking about? I reverted the two discussion posts in the archive (you could have done that yourself, acknowledging their problematic nature). Also, I will delete your post above in a minute because stirring up the topic after closure this way I consider WP:FORUMSHOPPING and unhelpful talkpage behaviour. In general, I don't like to have issues being redefined & dumped here or anywhere this way. -DePiep (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

What on earth, are you talking about, WP:FORUMSHOPPING? A) I am in no remote way involved in your dispute with this other editor, and have no reason to go to any forum seeking resolution to your contest of wills. The sum total of my involvement in your back-and-forth was as a community volunteer responding to a random ANI thread. B) You pinged me here; if you weren't looking for my input, then...just don't do that? C) My comments to you were nothing but scrupulously courteous and neutral. If anything, I agreed with you that Zack should have proceeded differently with regard to the narrow issues under discussion here. I don't know if your limited facility with English caused you to read something into my comments that was not there or what, but at a minimum, I suggest you re-familiarize yourself with WP:FORUMSHOPPING if you think it has even remote relevance here. And honestly, if I read the last two ANIs correctly, I think many of your disputes start with these kinds of miscommunications, so you may (given your admitted challenges with the local language of this project) want to adopt a habit of using a little extra bit of WP:AGF and re-read twice when you think someone is attacking you. My responses to you here were for no other purpose than to iron out the concerns you had about the archive, an issue you raised, and I tried to be helpful to you in that regard; nobody "dumped" anything on this page but you yourself...

I want to make this clear: I am not a party to any of your personal disputes and I don't care to be dragged into them just because I chose to share my perspective at ANI. I urged Zack to drop this matter, and I urge you now to do the same--and that is quite the sum total of all I have left to say on the matter. Please consider this a request that you not ping me here again in relation to your dispute with Zackman or any other editor. Ad Orientem, forgive the ping back to a matter you clearly wish to be done with, but I wanted this request noted by the last admin with eyes on this issue. DePiep, best of luck moving forward. Snow ^{let's rap} 03:32, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Zackmann08

Hi DePiep. Recently you requested that Zackmann08 refrain from posting on your talk page. To that end I reverted a recent post they made here. However you have also been pinging him to the ongoing conversation here. Do you want to talk with this editor on your talk page? In all but the most unusual situations I discourage editors from banning others from their talk page, though the practice is generally allowed. This amounts to a sort of breaking of diplomatic relations and makes it very difficult to resolve disputes. Zackmann08 has recently shown interest in resolving your quarrel and moving on. While I respect your right to restrict comments, up to a point, on your talk page I would encourage you to lift your ban. This is up to you, but if you choose not to, then I would request that you not ping him to your talk page. Thanks... -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Ad Orientem: "you have also been pinging him to the ongoing conversation here" -- well, where else could I ping at the time? But actually, I pinged a question about the ANI-discussion (not this talkpage), and so Zackmann could have easily responded there. And no, the better-not-edit-here is still in place because the couse is still present. Example in case: the edit you reverted here (correctly & nicely preventing havoc) shows that Zackmann still did not get the issue. There are other examples of unhelpful talkpage behaviour, I see no "interest in resolving your quarrel and moving on". Even when the ANI was in archive, Zackmann kept rambling about longer punishments (I have just reverted this discuss-in-archive edit) etc. etc (diffs already provided; if unclear to you I can copy/paste these examples). As far as this talkpage & discussion behaviour appears in other places than ANI, they will have to be dealt with there (IOW, they are not enclosed in the ANI thread). BTW please stop framing it as a "your quarrel", it was an ANI complaint. All in all, Ad Orientem, I'm glad you kept a cool head thee weeks but re this I do not see a start of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution by Zackmann. -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I will let him know that he remains persona non grata. -Ad Orientem (talk) 19:33, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

No, not "persona". "Talkpage behaviour non grata"? ;-) Maybe better I do make a roundup list of points & diffs. I expect this being dragged up for years from now. Misinterpretations included. -DePiep (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC) +ping Ad Orientem -DePiep (talk) 22:11, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Diff

link I don't really understand your reasoning. That is only a category of elements. If anything would require a specification, that would be the "1" above the leftmost column, but not that cell?--R8R (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

(ec)We use "column" and "group" intermixed, also "category" in instances (NG, alkali earths, halogens) but only with group/column 1 we need to differentiate between category andgroup/column. IOW alkali metals is not group 1.

On second thought, you are right. In this place, not needed. -DePiep (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Element color legend/metal–nonmetal range

Template:Element color legend/metal–nonmetal range has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Element color/1

Template:Element color/1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Other deprecated Element color templates which you've created are also nominated. Gonnym (talk) 11:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Unicode replacement characters has been nominated for discussion

Category:Unicode replacement characters, 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. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Corrections on SOLRAD

Hello!

Thank you for your attention given to the SOLRAD series of articles! It seems you've been using some sort of bot for some of the edits, which has added &nbsp spaces in many places. Is that something we actually want, as it clutters up editing and doesn't seem necessary.

Please let me know, and thanks again! :)

--Neopeius (talk)

I made this edit (using semi-bot WP:AWB, i.e., I must check visually every edit). The nbsp I added is in 51 cm. This is per WP:UNITSYMBOLS, which says "Use a non-breaking space ({{nbsp}} or &nbsp;) between a number and a unit symbol". The intended effect is, that the number and the unit are kept together (not split over 2 lines). So it is by mos, and I think OK then. -DePiep (talk) 23:16, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Edit warring

Hello.
Yet another your revert of me in a template without citing explicit or obvious consensus, and I include you in my list of Wikimedia people having severe behavioural issues, people which disrupt my work and are unwarranted anywhere near. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:03, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

My editsummary was clear, as was my latest objection in the proposal discussion you referred to. BTW, if you keep turning rationales into personals attacks, as you do here again, I might consider other approaches. Stop it. -DePiep (talk) 17:25, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, your objection to title shows that there is no consensus in favor of it. It is not the same as “the majority is against title”, for example. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:38, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

I have replied at the sidebar discussion. Also, you might want to read WP:EDITWARRING to prevent ~misunderstanding of the term. (Hint: a revert mentioning lack of consensus is not EW, not even if it irritates you. -DePiep (talk) 17:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Chem molar mass (again)

Discussion has been inactive for the past eight days at Template talk:Chem molar mass, and I want to start it up again. I know that you already have plenty else on your plate, but we're the only two Wikipedians working on it, and I'm not sure how to go from where we are now. (Maybe reaching out to other editors who might be interested could be in order.) For the rounding, I think that if someone manually specifies the number of decimal places to greater than what is specified by the uncertainty, this should be allowed, but the number of digits in the uncertainty should be increased accordingly. This is better than people thinking the template is broken when it doesn't display the number of digits that they specified. Also, I've noticed that repeated calculations have been accumulating at Template:Chem molar mass/format/sandbox; maybe we should split the work into two templates so we can do each repeated calculation once in the first template then pass it into the second template as a parameter. Using parameters with short, descriptive names should also make the code more readable than long strings of parser functions whose function isn't immediately obvious. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 16:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

I need to think about engaging. Re "For the rounding, ...": "This is better than people thinking ..." -- better not IMO. Every person engaging in uncertainty, should know that one cannot make data more precise just by choosing a higher number of decimals here. The documentation should say: "The max number of decimals cannot be enlarged" or something like that. -DePiep (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Idea of split (to prevent repetition) is good idea. The second template should be a subtemplate I think (not visible to article editors). -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Must say, again: these complicated calculations better be done by Lua, not wikicode. -DePiep (talk) 18:25, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

re rounding: While I agree that every person should know about uncertainty, I don't think that that's the reality. I honestly didn't know what the parentheses meant until I started working on this.

re split: I'll start working on it right away. I'll probably send one to Template:Chem molar mass/sandbox/calculations.

re Lua: I agree once we're done, but I think that it's better to get this working with templates before going to the Lua coders so the Lua coders don't have to experiment and troubleshoot. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 21:45, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

re re rounding: not our problem. They know, they should know or theyt can read the /doc. Really, don't spend time on this. -DePiep (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

re*2 split: I ended up creating a pipeline of templates, and I'm done now, but there are errors. I'll see if I can work them out. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 01:27, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Module:Kill markers

Module:Kill markers has been nominated for merging with Module:Unstrip. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. * Pppery * _{has returned} 20:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Category:Hatnote templates documentation has been nominated for discussion

Category:Hatnote templates documentation, 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. DannyS712 (talk) 07:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

List generation for project recent changes

Hi, I noticed that you have generated article lists for use with the recent changes for WikiProject Pharmacology and was wondering how the lists are generated. I am looking for a way to do this for other projects. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 01:46, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Keith D Sorry I am late in responding. Will reply these days. -DePiep (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Keith D I have updated one list page Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Lists of pages/Pharmacology articles: Revision history. The process is described at Template:Recent_changes_in_Pharmacology#List updates. If anything is unclear, pls do contact again. -DePiep (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Many thanks for the information. Keith D (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

Re: "Christian"

I am confused by your edit summary in connection with this reversion. You wrote that "this should be solved in the article not here", but there is no article on the adjective, Christian. It is a disambiguation page, per consensus following a discussion on the term. As with other disambiguation pages, it should not be linked from any template. If you intend to link to the disambiguation page, however, the link must follow WP:INTDABLINK (this is policy). bd2412 T 15:38, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

First of all, it is a testpage and so even improbable, wrong or disputable options may be (should be) tested. Second, the subtemplates involved are under development, nothing is live. So it may be very confusing to have multiple simultaneous editing. IOW, in general one is supposed to go to the talkpage, not interrupting an editing process that is clearly not for publication yet. Is what I am asking now in this situation.

Now about the input option being a DAB page. The whole affiliation-to-id setup is to catch more input options for |religious_affiliation=. (Category:Infobox religious building with unknown affiliation (2,364); actually 1500 but alas). That is: recognise the religion entered. Then use that secondary, for coloring etcetera.

So if an editor enters |religious_affiliation=[[Christian]], for this purpose that is OK and better be accepted & recognised (so we use the right indicative bg color). The input also shows literally, i.e. as a wikilink, sure to a DAB page in this case. If that is a problem, this should be corrected in the church article itself (using the infobox), not the DAB page (is what I meant to say: "fix it in the article"). Anyway this is not a reason for the id-to-color process to declare an error. "Christian" is a correct affiliation.

On top of this: nothing wrong if the article links to this DAB page. Because Christianity indeed has many subvariants, so there may be a need to disambiguate -- even for the reader(s) not the editor. So ending up on that DAB page is helpful for starters. HTH -DePiep (talk) 15:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 March 2019

• From the editors: Getting serious about humor

• News and notes: Blackouts fail to stop EU Copyright Directive

• In the media: Women's history month

• Discussion report: Portal debates continue, Prespa agreement aftermath, WMF seeks a rebranding

• Featured content: Out of this world

• Arbitration report: The Tides of March at ARBCOM

• Traffic report: Exultations and tribulations

• Technology report: New section suggestions and sitewide styles

• News from the WMF: The WMF's take on the new EU Copyright Directive

• Recent research: Barnstar-like awards increase new editor retention

• From the archives: Esperanza organization disbanded after deletion discussion

• Humour: The Epistolary of Arthur 37

• Op-Ed: Pro and Con: Has gun violence been improperly excluded from gun articles?

• In focus: The Wikipedia SourceWatch

• Special report: Wiki Loves (50 Years of) Pride

• Community view: Wikipedia's response to the New Zealand mosque shootings

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Template talk:Chem molar mass

Activity there has been died down for a while. Do you want to try to resume discussion again? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 16:39, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Mmm. Takes a lot of smart thinking time. Do we know the next goal? And can we build that? When I left, I was not happy/convinced about the [interval] issues. Also, other topics are in play. I'll have a good sleep over it. -DePiep (talk) 16:52, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There are various bugs that I'd like to have fixed. I'm thinking that we should start with the rounding error for fluorine, aluminum, manganese, iodine, lanthanum, gold, and uranium described in this section, as that's probably just a floating point error solvable by subtracting an extremely small quantity from usquare, it's best to start out with something relatively simple before tackling the more complicated stuff. Tell me when you're ready to start problem-solving. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 17:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

It's not about bugs. It's about: we must handle three value forms [interval], (uncertainty), -most stable isotope-. For all of these we must have the complete calculation form (algorithm). That is Possolo (2018) to me. If we know these, we can program the template -- only then.

Also, this is a distraction subject for me (because we don't know the target). I prefer to reduce time for this one. Lots of other topics (re periodic table) are waiting. (This puzzle is too complicated for me and therefor frustrating, because a) we don't know the algorithm, b) it must be in Lua).)

To be clear: current live form, with maxc number of decimals you introduced, is best so far. -DePiep (talk) 20:17, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Should I work on it by myself then let you test it when I think that it's completely ready, or do you think that I would be able to help with what you're doing concerning the periodic table? I want to be able to work on something and be useful. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 20:44, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

you can ping me any time for questions or a check request, sure, OK. I WP:OWN the topic of Standard atomic weight ;-)

(first suggestion: remove this test-for-bad-input [21]: useless in development. Don't spend time on this.)

My points are, again: we cannot program software if we don't know the algorithms. So first source & dscribe the (three) algorithms. For me, that would be CIAAW sources.

After that, ask peolple at WP:LUA to program the module. They can (just put the right question / see prev point).

I myself do not have the time or interest to dive into this much more. The algorithmsms are missing. I can not and will not scrutinise the latest developments in CMM. I will not suggest code improvements, or set up tests.

Have a nice edit, -DePiep (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

re first suggestion: Done.

re sourcing algorithms: I'll put the source for using the Pythagorean sums in a comment, but I think that the logic behind the interval mode is straightforward enough to not require a source.

re LUA: I will respond to that in Template_talk:Chem_molar_mass#Future_development_(March_2019) to prevent a split. (I'm responding to the other questions here because you didn't ask them there.)

re myself: That's okay. However, is it okay if I ask you to help test it once I think it's finished? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 21:57, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, do ping me when you have a question! But I will unfollow our CMM development pages. Sort of heath thing: don't make myself overload with details. To be clear: that was a great edit process we did! -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that I need help with the rounding. Specifically, there are cases like Fluorine: 18.9984031630(60) g·mol−1 (debug:usquare=3.6E-17; u=6.0E-9; smart_round=9.2218487496164); value=18.998403163;unrounded_uncertainty_digit=6, Potassium: 39.09830(10) g·mol−1 (debug:usquare=1.0E-8; u=0.0001; smart_round=5); value=39.0983;unrounded_uncertainty_digit=1, and Phosphorus: 30.9737619980(50) g·mol−1 (debug:usquare=2.5E-17; u=5.0E-9; smart_round=9.301029995664); value=30.973761998;unrounded_uncertainty_digit=5 where the number and uncertainty each have a zero at the end even though this shouldn't happen when the uncertainty has only one nonzero digit (i.e. when the coefficient would be an integer if the uncertainty were expressed in scientific notation). I believe that this edit is what caused it; I added code to display an extra digit if and only if the unrounded uncertainty digit (the coefficient if the uncertainty were expressed in scientific notation) were not an integer, which I calculated based on ceil(unrounded uncertainty digit) ≠ unrounded uncertainty digit (although I have since changed it to unrounded uncertainty digit mod 1 ≠ 0). Can you figure out why the template is doing this? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 00:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I was able to fix it with this edit. Now the only bug that I know if is in User:The Nth User/Molar mass test/testtable, where every value displays as an error starting at molybdenum–rhodium, but I think that that is a problem with the sheer length of the table, not the template, because other fields, like element stop working, the table itself gains extra columns, and in User:The Nth User/Molar mass test/testcases, the testcases with heavy elements, like cesium auride, work just fine. Can you find any bugs, or is the template ready for submitting to the module-programmers? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 01:26, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the errors appear because the page is too large (to many function calls). The page is categorised Category:Pages containing omitted template arguments. Also, when in PReview, at the bottom there is the Parser overview, showing that some key numbers are at their max. Finally, if you remove the first 40 rows, the error appears at element 80 (that is, again around the 40th row). I have not looked for other bugs. -DePiep (talk) 07:02, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know what's causing the problem. I'll see if there are any parser functions that I can replace with templates to decrease the call number, but I doubt that it's important as the template probably won't be used forty or so times on any article. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 01:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

I think that we're ready to go forwards. At User:The Nth User/Molar mass test/testcases, everything is working perfectly except for the extra zero yttrium, which I neither think I will be able to solve nor think is a significant problem because there is an extra zero in both the value and the uncertainty. What do you think? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 02:32, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

The yttrium case I cannot explain (beacues I did not dive intop the recent calcualtion setup). I can assume, as you do, that the extra two zero's indeed describe exactly the same uncertainty situation (same sigma!). I must be honest: me giving green light is not useful, because I did not check the setup so my voince has no weight. (I did not check whether new calculation is more exact and better following the prescription). Altghough I can state that you are working sincerely.

All I can advise is (first) copy/paste your userpages to their {{Chem molar mass}} /sandbox equivalent, and make it work ({{Chem molar mass/sandbox}}, {{Chem molar mass/format/sandbox}}, etc. Then (second) do all the tough tests, perferably in regular {{Chem molar mass/testcases}}. At least do check all single elements (evading the parser errors, so use three pages?), and test the compound masses mantioned in the Possolo paper (CO₂ etc.). When you are fine, (third) go to the talkpage and propose the change. Invite smart people (those working with molar mass calculations!). If you can convince them, you safe! Might take a lot of convincing power though, but it is the royal route. Otherwise you could propose it (the sandboxes) as a "improvement, well tested" (protected edit request) without discussion - tricky. -DePiep (talk) 16:00, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I copied and pasted them in, but now a bunch of the testcases don't work, and I'm getting this error message: Warning: This page contains at least one template argument with an expansion size exceeding the technical limit. All such arguments have been omitted. I have no idea why I'm getting it because I didn't get it at User:The Nth User/Molar mass test/testcases. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 20:49, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

• I added CO2 to /testcases: [22]. Note the blank parameters |charge=, |round= (and check the tesresults). Removing those parameters gave a test different result [23]! (no errors!). IOW: those blank input matter. -DePiep (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I noticed a problem: When the rounding is manually specified to be less than the smart round, the uncertainty is not adjusted accordingly. For example, see Template:Chem_molar_mass/testcases#Charge_and_sortable. I'll try to fix it. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 22:44, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Please don't bother me with detials, can't read them. I already said I am not interested.(NO bad feelings). (useless & unhelpful post) -DePiep (talk) 23:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Sandbox

So the sandbox set is: (2019-04-05):

• Template:Chem molar mass(edit talk links history)
• Chem molar mass/sandbox (edit · t · history · diff · links · /test · Source · e · t · hist · links · /subpages · /doc · /doc edit)
• Chem molar mass/format/sandbox (edit · t · history · diff · links · /test · Source · e · t · hist · links · /subpages · /doc · /doc edit)
• {{Chem molar mass/testcases}}

User:The Nth User/Molar mass test

User:The Nth User/Molar mass test/format

User:The Nth User/Molar mass test/testcases

I'm very sorry to have to do this

I really am. It pains me to do so. Yet I'm afraid I have been left with no other choice.

Feel free to take part.--R8R (talk) 17:23, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

No you don't. Because: you did it. You did have a choice. -DePiep (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

The good news is: I don't see WP:BF. Must be something else. You won that lousy talk, still you see a problem? Beyond me now. -DePiep (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Oh and please do not ever go to someone this way while saying "Feel free to ...". To this I say: fuck off. This does not give me "freedom to ..", it is forcing me to spend time on whatever accusation. It is you doesn't let me "Free to ...". -DePiep (talk) 23:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Unused infobox element subtemplates

These templates are all unused. Are they subst templates or just stuff that was replaced and not needed anymore?

• Template:Infobox element/symbol-to--(blank)
• Template:Infobox element/symbol-to--(blank-group)
• Template:Infobox element/symbol-to-electron-configuration/electron-configuration
• Template:Infobox element/symbol-to-image/fairuse

If they are not needed, could you speedy delete (G7) them as you are the only editor and it would save time. --Gonnym (talk) 08:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Gonnym I have speedyéd the last two. First two are relevant & useful (blank templates to fill). -DePiep (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Date and time of Brexit

To accommodate readers, for ease of reading, the quote is now in a sidebox, and this allows the main text to be simplified. Qexigator (talk) 18:45, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

I will revert. This is not what we call 'consensus'. -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

@Qexigator: Cannot believe my eyes. Cannot believe you did this. The section you left behind was an illegible chaos. I repaired some of it. One more edit this way and yoyu'll be up for ANI or whatever. And to be clear: did you have a convincing point, you had no need to go to my talkpage. Why did you post here at all? WP:CONSENSUS. -DePiep (talk) 21:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Nice trick you pulled out: disrupt the section massively with that side-quote (I didn't even know that was possible or an idea at all), to distract me & us all from the grand chaos you gaslighted elsewhere in there. It will remind me that I have to revert more disruptive and non-consensual edits. -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Periodic table deprecated color templates

Hey, not sure if you saw my previous question on the topic, but are all pages in Category:Periodic table deprecated color templates fit for deletion? --Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

re Gonnym: yes, all are fit for deletion.

Notes: I checked a dozen (out of 61) for being used on mainspace: none (so that's good). For most of them, there are no replacements available (all modern ones use {{Element color}}, but not one-on-one). Also, their core legend function (legend color) may well be outdated = useless today. At first glace, I see no objection to subst:'ing where used (I leave that to the TfD processing; no opinion here); otherwise redlinks are created.

There are also incoming redirects (Template:Element color/7). I suppose these will be deleted by bot/TfD processing (good).

However, some subpages in this Prefix list are live. Keeps are: /sandbox, /overview, /secondary and their subpages (incomplete list here). I'll keep an aye on those. -DePiep (talk) 09:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

I noticed a few transcluded at Template:Periodic table (discovery periods, compact), such as Template:Element color/1800-1849. Is that table still used? --Gonnym (talk) 10:16, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

• From the editors: Help wanted (still)

• News and notes: Front-page issues for the community

• In focus: Wikimedia affiliate organizations seek community participation in 2019 board election

• Discussion report: Talking about talk pages

• Featured content: Conquest, War, Famine, Death, and more!

• Arbitration report: A quiet month for Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Binge-watching

• Technology report: Tool labs casters-up

• Gallery: Signed with pride

• Recent research: Research finds signs of cultural diversity and recreational habits of readers

• Essay: Optimist's guide to Wikipedia

• From the archives: New group aims to promote Wiki-Love

• Humour: Pesky Pronouns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Template:NNDC

Hi, please could you modify {{NNDC}} to fix the partial |accessdate= as all of the articles using it are now showing a date error. Thanks. Keith D (talk) 20:07, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

I tried to already, but ould not find the error cause [24]. Will take an other look. -DePiep (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

|accessdate= needs to be a full date including day, month and year. Keith D (talk) 22:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

The error is gone, right? -DePiep (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:When in sandbox

Template:When in sandbox has been nominated for merging with Template:Sandbox other. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 01:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Lack of attribution for Template:List of oxidation states of the elements

I don't have a position on whether this is useful, and I have no opposition if you or others think so. However, this is offloading of a large large amount of content contributed by many editors and there is no attribution chain in the history or talkpage of the new location for it (by history, you are taking credit for writing all of it yourself...obviously not what you intend). See WP:PROSPLIT for the proper process. Since this is actually the vast majority of the whole article, and much of the edit history is to the table (the content you want in the template) I wonder if it would be better to move the whole article to the template and then split back the prose to the article name? To my eye, that might keep more of the history intact at a single pagename. DMacks (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I have not thought about this attribution aspect but you do have a big point. Will take care of this later on. -DePiep (talk) 03:05, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Let me know if you need "admin" help with any of it. DMacks (talk) 03:17, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

 :-) :-) I was looking at this at this moment, esp re merging histories. Will be OK. -DePiep (talk) 03:19, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• Well, since you are an admin: please perform as you propose. Like, imo:

1. Kill the (recent) template
2. Move old article page (history=attribution!) to that template page
3. Recreate article page, use template transclusion (as is done today)
4. Ping me, so I can redo recent edits (manually; I know what I did today)

-DePiep (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

All done. I moved the article to the template, made the article transclude the template, moved the content from the template that surrounded the table itself back to the article, and tagged everything for history attribution. Let me know if you need more help (any history of the now-deleted old Template or its doc/?). Looking forward to...whatever use this will have. DMacks (talk) 04:56, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

All fine, thanks. -DePiep (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Use bold font for atomic number

On my display (and using my eyes) it is difficult to see the color of the font used for the atomic number (indicating the state of matter). If the font was bold, the color of the font would be easier to see. The number is on a line by itself in the cell, so the extra width of the bold font would not (apparently) effect anything else, and it would improve WP:ACCESSIBILITY. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Sparkie82, you are referring to the font colors in the {{Periodic table}}s then. You are right, these colors are (too) hard to recognise, also wrt the legend. However, the things to keep in main are multifold and often contradicting So far we have not found an easy solution. Maybe bolding is one, indeed.

Some background. When checking for ACCESSABILITY of webcolors (that is, readability in this case indeed), we use the w3c guideline to calculate contrast ({{Color contrast ratio}}, [25]). For bigger fonts it gives a better result (it signals a better readability). It says nothing about bold fonts, but it is worth a good look.

In this situation we have these nine+grey background colors for the categories. Finding nine good background colors is a difficult job by itself: they should have with good readability for simple black fontcolor (and blue wikilink color), they must be distinguished, etc. At the moment, some are not OK such as the dark red alkali metals. Once we have these nine, we can look for the fontcolors (now red and green). As you can imagine, the degrees of freedom are few.

Actually, when we changed the set last April 2018, we darkened the red and green fonts a bit for better contrast. Consequence: they do not stand out any more, as the brighter red and green did. (I think this is what you see: though a better w3c contrast it is).

So this is in play. Now, I' will write a note to myself (and keep in mind) that this number bolding is worth investigating, possibly i.c.w. enlarging. Thank you for your report. -DePiep (talk) 06:45, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:IPA audio filename

Template:IPA audio filename has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Nitrogen 10 half life

You reverted my edit at the start of Isotopes of Nitrogen. The value for N-10 in the text doesn’t match the value in the table. Newystats (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

re Newystats. I reverted [26] because it was not clarified or sourced. GF all around. What are other editors' opinions? -DePiep (talk) 23:19, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Category:Periodic table deprecated border templates

Hey, I noticed you marked all pages in Category:Periodic table deprecated border templates as deprecated. Two questions which would save me time investigating this. Is {{Element color}}} a complete replacement for the entire templates listed? And why was Template:Element frame deleted while the subpages not? --Gonnym (talk) 12:39, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

A1: Yes, {{Element color}} is a complete replacement for all templates in that category. Could be five years or more this way. I've kept them because I was not sure if they were used in some secondary, useful page (like in ns: Wikipedia). Expect outdated content too.

(So since you are working at this, I'd say check once more for mainspace usage, delete them, and let those archive pages become redlinked. If an affected page would be important, we can recreate it using the modern template).

A2: Template:Element frame was deleted because of someone else's TfD (not checked for subpages back then). Unless you see something strange in the deleted page (using admin rights), this template fits the category you mentioned just as well. HTH. -DePiep (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: same for Template:Periodic tables key: deprecated >5years, unused mainspace, replaced. Candidate speedy. -DePiep (talk) 13:00, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

If you want to, I dare putting them up for speedy db-g6 or so. -DePiep (talk) 13:16, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! --Gonnym (talk) 13:17, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Are all the templates in Category:Periodic table deprecated color templates also fit for deletion? --Gonnym (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2019

• Op-Ed: Random Rewards Rejected

• In focus: The Collective Consciousness of Admin Userpages

• News and notes: WMF staff turntable continues to spin; Endowment gets more cash; RfA continues to be a pit of steely knives

• In the media: The Signpost's investigative story recognized, Wikipedia turns 18 and gets a birthday gift from Google, and more editors are recognized

• Discussion report: The future of the reference desk

• Featured content: Don't miss your great opportunity

• Arbitration report: An admin under the microscope

• Traffic report: Death, royals and superheroes: Avengers, Black Panther

• Technology report: When broken is easily fixed

• Gallery: Let us build a memorial fit for such pain and suffering

• News from the WMF: News from WMF

• Recent research: Ad revenue from reused Wikipedia articles; are Wikipedia researchers asking the right questions?

• Essay: How

• Humour: Village pump

• From the archives: An editorial board that includes you

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:49, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Paragraph of the documentation for the Convert template

Hi, DePiep! As near as I can tell from the page history, you are the editor who added the following text to the {{Convert}} template documentation under "Default rounding":

   "If neither the desired precision nor the desired number of significant figures is specified, the conversion will be rounded either to precision comparable to that of the input value (the number of digits after the decimal point—or the negative of the number of non-significant zeroes before the point—is increased by one if the conversion is a multiplication by a number between 0.02 and 0.2, remains the same if the factor is between 0.2 and 2, is decreased by 1 if it is between 2 and 20, and so on) or to two significant figures, whichever is more precise. An exception to this is temperature, wherein the conversion will be rounded either to precision comparable to that of the input value or to that which would give three significant figures when expressed in kelvins, whichever is more precise."

I have read over this paragraph 4 or 5 times now, and still can't make sense of it (the em dashes are part of what is throwing me, along with how they are being used along with commas to indicate subsets of information about the template). I am not a mathematician, just an editor, but am wondering if you would be willing to rephrase that so that other editors like me can figure out what it means! It appears to be grammatically correct— I am not trying to correct you! I am just saying, "I don't understand it the way it is written". I suspect I am not the first person with this problem. I tried fixing it by rewriting it myself, but got lost in the structure. Any chance you would consider it? Thanks! A loose noose (talk) 00:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you've done some new editing there, but you haven't yet taken a shot at clarifying this paragraph (?). You know what you mean here better than anyone else, and no one is better qualified to tackle this. But maybe you don't think it's really a problem! Or maybe you are going to get to it soon, and I should be more patient. I will keep checking back. A loose noose (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

I asked the wider community here. As I wrote, I think I am a bit blinded. -DePiep (talk) 11:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

If that's not too much to ask

Hello DePiep. I was wondering if it was not too much to ask you to draw me a graph like File:Aluminium - world production trend.svg, but for prices rather than production. I have a certain feeling that asking to draw such a graph would be a lot to ask for, so I would be very grateful if you could do it and of course, you could ask for a favor in return. If you could, I will explain in detail what exactly I want (in my opinion, nothing special) and where you could find the data.--R8R (talk) 12:41 am, 12 December 2018, Wednesday (28 days ago) (UTC+3)

"I will draw" he said famously. (will need time) he also said. -DePiep (talk) 1:13 am, 12 December 2018, Wednesday (28 days ago) (UTC+3)

Thank you very much. I would like a graph containing two lines: one for the nominal prices and one for the real prices that should have different colors. I envisioned dark gray/black for the nominal prices and red for the real prices, though you may choose differently. And that's essentially it.

Now as for data. I have a year-to-year set of data from 1900 here (find Aluminum and get the .xlsx file under the column Supply-Demand Statistics from there). I actually also wanted to include more data from before 1900 but I need to rethink what data is exactly worthy. Whatever is chosen, it won't need a dubbing in real prices. I will figure out what to use and then pass it to you.--R8R (talk) 3:22 am, 12 December 2018, Wednesday (28 days ago) (UTC+3)

R8R I've read the file (ds140aumi). Do I understand: "nominal prices" = $/t at the time, "real prices" = $₁₉₉₈/t? -DePiep (talk) 1:06 pm, 12 December 2018, Wednesday (27 days ago) (UTC+3)

Yes, you got that right.--R8R (talk) 3:24 pm, 12 December 2018, Wednesday (27 days ago) (UTC+3)

• R8R Here you are. I used wonderful c:SVG Chart. I used two colors, makes the lines stand out & recognsable (while crossing).

Todo

1. Add full data set (each year), not just 10-yrs (DePiep)
2. Stretch vertical (graph should be ~square) (DePiep)
3. Check all texts: Y-axis, X-axis, title, legends
4. In general, be inspired by these examples: commons:Category:Valid SVG created with Wikimedia SVG Chart

-DePiep (talk) 8:02 pm, 12 December 2018, Wednesday (27 days ago) (UTC+3)

You think it would be more instructive if the blue line were on a different scale (0-200 $/t), having its own scale on the righthand? (Can be done). Red line would be unchanged (and using lefthand axis). -DePiep (talk) 8:11 pm, 12 December 2018, Wednesday (27 days ago) (UTC+3)

Thank you very much. Also thank you for sharing this interesting tool you mentioned. Hopefully I'll be able to make my next graph on my own. I've got Inkscape on my computer but it is not very intuitively clear to me and since I don't really have that much need in using it (at the very best once in a few months, and all of these cases are for Wikipedia where I can ask for help), I haven't learned how to. For now with Inkscape, I can only do the most basic things like changing a color. Here is my magnum opus with it (where squares, and the red and blue arrows had already been created by the time I got to this).

I was a little worried that the graph didn't look very precise before I read your to do list. If that is yet to do done, everything is fine then.

As for the texts, here are the changes I'd prefer: I'd like the words "metric ton" instead of "ton" in the title of the graph and the vertical axis label ("ton" on its own is ambiguous: see ton) and "t" instead of "ton" in the legend (simply because it takes less horizontal space and is still correct). Also not yet sure how to deal with the dollar sign ("$" or "US$"? What about "98"---should it be "98US$"? Maybe the smart decision would be to mention in the title that the dollars are the U.S. dollars---something like "Aluminium, historical price per metric ton in USD" and have the plain "$" afterwards. Still need to think how to mention the 1998 dollars are from 1998. USGS uses "98$"; sort of makes given that the country of a dollar is always written also before the dollar sign: US$, A$, C$, NZ$, etc. Then again, they also spell it out and since our graph doesn't, this may look a little puzzling. "1998$" is clearer.)

No, I don't think we really need two different scales. I think that this long-term chart is supposed to give you a visual representation of the trends but not the exact values which would be hard to read anyway. I'll link the sources in the file description in case someone needs a look at the data.

I will probably have set up a table with various pre-1900 prices and costs I can find at Talk:History of aluminium by the end of this week and we can see from there how the graph could be expanded into the nineteenth century.--R8R (talk) 9:07 pm, 12 December 2018, Wednesday (27 days ago) (UTC+3)

• Replies & notes-to-self. Yes, a great tool for these graphs. I found it through the "production trend" example file you mentioned ;-). FYI, the source code is in talkpage commons:File_talk:Aluminium_-_historical_price_per_ton_(nominal,_real).svg (that is: my template input code, so look at the talkpage in edit mode). That's how it works. If you want to experiment & work with this graph, go ahead, but better not edit together (iow I can leave it to you, but I propose to work further on this now). There are a lot of parameters to squeeze him right, they need experimentation. The two data lists are the easiest ones!

And yes, happily no Inkscape needed here -- but for a masterpiece you can't do without it. Inkscape is my preferred tool too (until today...). BTW, I also do this (today too): paste the svg code in my notepad++ texteditor, save it on file, then choose menu "Run | Show in Firefox" which tests the svg right away. Even allows editing in-code fast (and tricky).

About the graph: I will process your suggestions, all reasonable. I found MOS:CURRENCY saying ~the same about use of $ symbol. For 1998-USD I will try "$₁₉₉₈" in the graph. It stays "aluminIum" in this then (as does the history article, except for company names etc).

I guess you can describe "real" and "nominal" cost in the caption. For me it was a discovery/study to get it.

If you have the pre-1900 prices (very interesting indeed), we can extend the data range in this one (and adjust axis settings etc).

And of course: what a wonderfuil graph. Shows that Al was more expensive than gold (1916!), as we were told.

Got work to do. - DePiep (talk) 10:45 pm, 12 December 2018, Wednesday (27 days ago) (UTC+3)

Aha, got it. Well, I'll be heading off to sleep now (so sorry if this reply is incomplete). How about I write you when I want to go edit it and then in no less than half an hour tell you when my editing session is over or leave it to you for now altogether if you don't think that's too rude of me? I'll fill my Wiki time with adding more stuff to the article.

I do get it that Inkscape is so cool---it wouldn't be so poplar otherwise even though it's free. I just need to learn how to use it (and I've seen loads of online courses) to actually use it, but then again, I don't have the need, it's always just little something for Wikipedia. If I were a graphical designer, though, I would've probably learned it ages ago.

I like explaining things but I think that explaining the difference between real and nominal prices is sort of off-topic in history of aluminium. I also think real versus nominal value (economics) which the article links to does a fairly decent job in explaining the concept. If it were, however, more closely related to the topic in hand, I probably would explain it.

(ec) Let me know when you want to start editing this graph. I will happily leave it, but cannot promise I can come back & then understand your discoveries and solutions and improvements. It's not about being rude, but about working impractical/inefective. See you tomorrow. -DePiep (talk) 12:04 am, 13 December 2018, Thursday (27 days ago) (UTC+3)

Just a quick note: this graph does not show that aluminum is more expensive than gold at any time. Its price approached that of silver back in the 1860s. In 1916, a troy ounce of gold cost about $20 per troy once (31 gram). That's $640,000 per metric ton. Aluminum did cost more than gold way back before Deville found a way to produce cheaper sodium, which happened in 1855 or 1856.--R8R (talk) 11:51 pm, 12 December 2018, Wednesday (27 days ago) (UTC+3)

Also, speaking of costs: I have not seen any proof that anyone actually bought or sold aluminum back then. It did cost more to make an ounce of aluminum than an ounce of gold. As for prices, I can't verify anybody could buy or anybody was willing to sell for money a piece of aluminum before 1855, so it could be there were no prices to speak about.--R8R (talk) 12:00 am, 13 December 2018, Thursday (27 days ago) (UTC+3)

My "gold" remarks were only frolicking, afterthoughts. I will take another look at texts and data as discussed. Do write here when you want to take this graph over. -DePiep (talk) 12:37 am, 13 December 2018, Thursday (27 days ago) (UTC+3)

I've given it some thought and I think, not in a while. So if you'd like to improve it, please feel free. For now, I want to work more on the text. I want to answer the questions I have listed at Talk:History of aluminium. Also, I presume after more additions there will be more vertical space; currently, on my 1600x900 laptop screen, there's not enough room for one more picture now but there probably will be later. Maybe the pre-electrolysis prices will require a graph of their own (if so, I should be able to make it myself; I think that space for two more pictures is also a possibility).

As for gold, there is no need in trying to excuse yourself. I rather think I need to clarify this moment in the article better. Maybe if a separate graph for pre-electrolysis prices is to be drawn, it may also include the prices of gold and silver for comparison. In case you're curious, aluminum cost about as much as silver already in the 1860s IIRC.--R8R (talk) 11:39 am, 13 December 2018, Thursday (26 days ago) (UTC+3)

OK. At this moment I'm preparing the full data lists. -DePiep (talk) 11:43 am, 13 December 2018, Thursday (26 days ago) (UTC+3)

• Uploaded second version. All data in there, adjusted texts. Could not manage to stretch vertical (into more square graph). Input is in c:File talk as required, for future edits.

I'll leave it here. You can always ask here to have me look & experiment with more details etc., or edit yourself. Have a nice edt. -DePiep (talk) 12:40 pm, 13 December 2018, Thursday (26 days ago) (UTC+3)

Thank you very much. I'll try to incorporate this graph into the article when I reach my laptop. Generally, I'll take it from here. I'll see if I can make it more square-like and improve the file description.--R8R (talk) 4:10 pm, 13 December 2018, Thursday (26 days ago) (UTC+3)

By the way, I just reconsidered and I think that explaining the difference between nominal prices and real prices may actually be a good idea if that is done in a note. One of the main reasons why I didn't want to do this was that I've been familiar with the concept since my early teen years and I sort of expected everyone to be familiar with it as well, so explaining this would be pretty much explaining the obvious. However, it occurred to me that even though I was familiar with it, there is no fundamental reason why everyone should be---this isn't taught in schools or talked a lot about on TV or in the Internet, for instance; after all, you said you weren't familiar with the concept---so yeah, it may be a good idea. Notes are perfect for such explanations. Maybe this could even be done in a simpler manner: "Nominal and real prices for aluminium from 1900 to 2015. The nominal prices (i.e., the prices customers saw at the time) are given in blue while the real prices (recalculated by ignoring the inflation the currency experienced so that the money had the same purchasing power throughout the years, here standardized to that of the year 1998) are given in red"; how's that sound?--R8R (talk) 9:53 pm, 13 December 2018, Thursday (26 days ago) (UTC+3)

Adding the note is good (and that cannot be done in the graph for sure). Could be a footnote. Your text here is a bit long. maybe like: "nominal price = price as paid at the time ("price in 1910: $492 then"). Real price = $ value recalculated to 1998-$ worth ("price in 1910: 8600 in $(1998)"). Real prices make prices comparable." -DePiep (talk) 10:52 pm, 13 December 2018, Thursday (26 days ago) (UTC+3)

Hello. I've tried to spend some time changing the graph (without really knowing what I was doing at first, it was more like, "let me change this and see what happens"). Eventually, I figured what does what, expect I don't understand one thing. On line 470, you have, transform="scale(1, -3). If I change that to transform="scale(1, -1), the lines are shrinked vertically and this makes perfect sense, I get it. What I don't get is why the line that has been stretched vertically by a factor of 3 looks fine and the seemingly untouched line actually appears very flat. Why is that?--R8R (talk) 3:48 am, 20 December 2018, Thursday (20 days ago) (UTC+3)

Will take a look later on. -DePiep (talk) 3:52 am, 20 December 2018, Thursday (20 days ago) (UTC+3)

re R8R.

First, about the creating technique. I did not write svg code, nor would I manipulate it in this case. The work happens at commons: say in commons:DePiep/SVG Chart. In there I put a regular template called commons:Template:SVG Chart. Then I write input in the template parameters (see page in editmode). When saving, the template creates svg code (as the saved page shows). That code I copy/paste in a notebook (text handling program), and save it in a file like "Some graphic.svg". That file can be uploadded to WP (and inspected directly in browser).

The template input for File:Aluminium - historical price is in its talkpage: commons:File talk:Aluminium - historical price per ton (nominal, real).svg. Take a look at it in editmode (=template input).

About the scaling. I have not tried your experiment (yet; not directly in svg). I do know this about scaling in this template:

• The SGC Chart makes a square grid (not rectangular). That is: the point (1, 1) makes a square with (0, 0). This way, the aluminum graph would be vertical: 0-20 = 20 units ($20k), horizontal: 1900-2020 - 120 units (years). Built in squares, the graph's high:wide is 1:6 (a wide landscape rectangle).
• Then I added |GraphStretchHeight=300 (scale Y-axis 300%, the max). Now its reach is "0-60", and a 1:2 rectangle results, as the alunminium file shows.

That's how far I have come. I did not make more experiments with the scale or other manipulations.

Clear enough? -DePiep (talk) 00:53, 14 January 2019 (UTC)

R8R was this helpful? The tech manual part is big (but rewarding IMO). Tell -DePiep (talk) 22:53, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Sorry for a late response. As you can see in my Contributions, for example, I've been busy lately and not really active within Wikipedia in general, so I wanted to delay reading whatever you had for me to until I have enough spare time to act upon reading.

It seems to me that GraphStretchHeight is just what I need to solve my problem. However, I don't understand where it is present in your file exactly? I can't find that in c:File_talk:Aluminium_-_historical_price_per_ton_(nominal,_real).svg.--R8R (talk) 10:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't mind, it is for you to use.

Open the file in edit mode [27]. It has parameter input |GraphStretchHeight=300 (300% = hte max per documentation). -DePiep (talk) 10:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I think I'll handle it from here.--R8R (talk) 11:51, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Periodic table color in element pages

I have not been paying much attention to the extensive discussion of periodic table layouts, so please let me know if the following is part of one of them, or where else I should ask, but you seem to be doing a lot of work on these sorts of things. In the article for each element, the periodic table in the infobox, is color-coded according to a set of categories. The colors are defined in {{Periodic table (32 columns, micro)/elementcell}}. My problem is that the color of hydrogen makes its space virtually invisible against the white background on which it is displayed. |category=diatomic nonmetal gives color #e7ff8f, very hard  to  see or click the small space unless you know where to look. At least for the nitrogen and oxygen spaces, their locations are knowable from the surrounding darker colored ones on multiple sides. But hydrogen is fairly alone. I'd welcome any change of color but did not want to change it too WP:BOLDly..I'm not sure what other layouts are being kept in sync. DMacks (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

At enwiki We use a set of 11 colors for what we call "metallicity categories" in the periodic table (PT). See the legend in Periodic table. This set is the same over all PT's, both html tables and images. Could be a 40-50 together. Of course this consistency is very helpful in an already complicated topic. In specialised areas and in other topics (like blocks) a different legend-set is used.

Now you happened to walk into a new discussion about these colors (you have seen). Main issue with current set is bad contrast (re WP:ACCESS): background too dark. What you describe is an issue too (distinction from bg), and already mentiooned somewhere in there.

Now picking an other set (or just chaning one color in this case) is a huge process. There are many requirements to take care of , some even contradicting. There also is: contrast with fontcolors, distinction of neighbor colors, stressing main border area metalloids, colorblindness, and more. There is no single algorithm/process/recepy to reach an outcome; cyclic is better and still compromises might be needed. The problems are especially huge because of the number "11 categories": four would be a lot easier!

We have started the process by first focusing on: the 11 distinguishable background colors (status in User:DePiep/pt-2016). A lot of extreme errors are gone already. More tuning to do. Next step would be the other requirements like good contrast with fonts, and -- relevant for your point -- effects in big/small PTs, and re background. But today these 2nd set of checks is not processed at all. Also, I'd like to research more about such issues in the process (color perception).

So yes, this is a topic already in discussion, together with 20 other issues. To be a good website, we can not compromise on these access issues (but maybe elsewhere). And it takes loads of time. On my clock, and on the calendar. -DePiep (talk) 05:47, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sõ, there is no bold & quick solution b/c the color is embedded. Maybe, while working on this, I'll find a interim improvement. -~~

New colors for our PT

Hey, I just stumbled today on my proposal from the last year and I thought that it was certainly better than what we have today. I recall there are no immediate problems to solve before it goes live. I think it would be right to launch it into the main space as it is currently the only version that we have that complies with the color design requirements you introduced me to back then. I'm not immediately lauching it because you were to it as well and I wouldn't want this to create any uncomfortable feelings but you don't seem to be working on it at the moment, either. How about this: I'm launching my current version and then wait for you to finish yours; then when you do, I will stay away from the discussion on if we should use yours instead? (I want to make it absolutely clear this is not a competition to me and I am ready to step down when there is something to step down to.)--R8R (talk) 13:11, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

R8R The setup we reached last yer still have some flaws. I'm breeding on a new buildup of colors, but it requires much more checks & thoughts. -DePiep (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Are those prohibitively important flaws?--R8R (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

No, but better do it right once. -DePiep (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• R8R Some issues, I think of now:

1. Testing for contrast: Still looking for a comprehensive template that does contrast-checking (W3C levels) easy & right.
2. Generate RGB <- -> HSV colors: still looking for acomprehensive template (convert color values both ways). Did not come to build it in Lua myself.
3. Whichever category colors we propose: must be checked for contrast against 1. font color black and wikilink blue 2. Also, against legend colors (we use for state of matter): red, green, grey. Legend colors may be changed too.
4. We use "lighter shade to mean: predicted". That may be too much of a requirement (reducing our degrees of freedom too much). Need arguing this into a different rule (on how to show predicted categorising).
5. Better check for: contrast with white-ish background (esp yellows are tricky; see current H cell in the infobox, unbordered).
6. Choosing a principle from left to right ordering in the PT: checkered = better border distinction in neighbouring categories versus gradual change to support the trend we're showing.
7. For options & solutions, I've bought a copy of colorbrewer (on map coloring), which has a whole new analysis and approach. Especially since we need to cover ten categories. Checks for colorblind issues required too.

I must add, that last months I was distracted onwiki too much by petty issues... (bad). Also, RL occupations left little time for setting up this list of requirements and further argument.

-DePiep (talk) 11:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

There are many converters online. I have built {{HSVtoHEX}} in-Wiki. May also build {{HEXtoHSV}} if you want me to.

My current colors pass contrast test against black and wlink blue. Green for liquids is difficult to get contrast with other colors with, so changed it to blue. Also used a darker shade of red for gases for the same reason.

Lighter colors seem fine to me. They are auxilliary to the main colors anyway. If we put apart cyan and green (etc.), this should be no problem at all.

Seem to have agreed on color order over time. Maybe not even checkers (not too pleasing aestetically for me at least), but a more distorted order. See even the main-page color preview at colorbrewer.

I may dive back into it and try a new approach sometime soon (well, I hope I may). Should I, since you've been so busy lately?--R8R (talk) 12:25, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course you're free to go any route you like. It's just, I want to (planned to) check against points I just mentioned, and more.

The help template is not core of course, they are just to check. But to check every single set (10+1 backgrounds) against two text colors + four SoM fontcolors is = 66 checks. Before checking, one needs to develop (compose) colors, systematically. Is what HSV is useful for, but that must be converted to RGB too. That's 11+4 color developments per proposed set. Then there is the order variant proposals (AM-NG). So a templates would be helpful, as automation.

The lighter prediction colors are a reduction of freedom. If we keep that principle, ~each bg color must have a 2nd color, tested. (maybe not all - that's analysis to do). INstead, we could skip this test requiremnents by thinking of an other predicted-marking.

And this: in yellow hues, there is only one option for its lightness (too difficult to distinguis two yellows; the other hues can have 2 or 3). For this reason, I thought of using the yellow one for metalloids (unique hue, for unique & border category). btw, yellow probably should have higher V per colorbrewer (may stand out this way).

Need to analyse bordering colors (bordering categories). Bad situation today: group 3, with 3 reds! More such tricky ppints?

Sequence AM-NG should be checked being circular (eg, next to NG, AM returns as in Janets Left Step).

Can we use same x-S-V for all? Colorbrewer analysis (legend type). Does the grey (unk) conflict with other grey meanings & colors? Why does colorbrewer use brown?

note to self: check other wikis FA-periodic tables. Is our categorisation scheme stable? (current NNNM talk is OK -- note that new category==new color).

And this is just from the top of my head. Colorbrewer and access-colorblindness could jeopardize any setup. So I wanted to build all these arguments from scratch.

-DePiep (talk) 13:09, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

To illustrate the process. this article (+talk) has this color-development history (I did with YBG). The issue was way more simple, and still many angles had to be checked & improved. A dozen colors sets were needed for a final one. -DePiep (talk) 13:57, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

I came as far as this: User:DePiep/PTCC -DePiep (talk) 14:01, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

• See User:DePiep/PTCC. I've added basic content. Needs a setup for systematic color creation & checking (like contrast), to manage multiple lists. That's checking templates and color-building descriptions (motivations) needed.

You're invited to improve this setup. Once the setup is stable, it should go to WP:ELEM project (subpages).

This implies renewed development, a restart from the 2016 setup. I'm not sure if I've convinced you yet. I also looked at the one you made in 2016: colors look bleak, and therefor more difficult to distinguish. (colorbrewer has different solutions, given the higher number). -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

It seems I'm more busy than I'd thought I'd be. Alas.

If you write an extensive list of the templates you need in Wiki code, I'll probably write them over time.

You have actually convinced me that there could be improvements to be made. I think I could (if I had time) try to build a better scheme. I'll list some comments on my current scheme anyway (so you could learn something from my experience you could use when you try to make a better version):

1. The scheme complies with all color contrast standards.
2. The scheme is a constant x-S-V. I couldn't increase S much and V is already at its highest (and lowering only produced even bleaker colors). A major limitation is the wikilink color, being so light. I think we don't need to keep S and V constant (if we do, we can't have brown, for example). Maybe we'll need to employ a different standard (darkness, for example).
3. Another limitation is the need to show the colors for states of matter; we could have better colors if we didn't have that limitation. Green for liquids is so prohibitive I couldn't keep it (used dark blue instead). If there are any limitations to get rid of, I'd suggest this (not too important in my opinion anyway) and not lighter colors for "(predicted)".
4. We will definitely do better if we get rid of colors sequenced as either a straight circular sequence (my current suggestion) or a checkered one (yours). Your work w/ YBG shows that very well.
5. A new scheme should indeed pick the darkest colors for all borderline categories. The current scheme is very weak. Mine also could use improvements (boron and hydrogen, for instance).

I think codebrewer uses brown because it's a very distinct color. Better than two reds, for instance. I guess that's also with their pink is so much brigther than their red: so it stands out more.-R8R (talk) 17:00, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

ColorBrewer daringly uses colors with different x-S-V values (unlike we do in the 2016 proposals, as I advocated). Especially when 9 or 10 colors used. It has the advantage that colors are more outspoken and so more recognisable. (It also may be required once colorblindness is taken into account: that sort of forbids certain colors).

Maybe a good test wqould be: crete a blind (text-less) PT, see if one can bring home the colors. Or a randon colored PT (because we two are too familiar with location-category, which makes bad testing).

Templates I'd like:

• RGB <---> H-S-V values calculation (both ways).

Because: when we pick colors, they may be construed in H-S-V, and otoh we might have colors in RGB.

RGB best be the 6-digit triplet; H-S-V can be °-%-% (?), and 3-parameters input? (or °-255-255 (more precise).

• Analyse color. in: RGB, out: contrast number by W3C (and Y or N check), for colors:

1. Black, 2. Wikilink blue

Also, optionally: ~four font colors (current SoM).

• I'd combine those into a complete set (10+1 categories defined & analysed). -DePiep (talk) 16:47, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Useful templates

Let me relist the useful color analysis templates.

• From RGB (hex triplet) to HSV

Format: hex triplet can be/must be: #hhhhhh or #hhhhhh (e.g. from {{element color}}, this is to prevent the # creating numbered list in the template).

Format HSV tbd, could be a string °-%-% or °-1/255-1/255.

See {{RGBtoHSV.H}}, {{RGBtoHSV.S}}, {{RGBtoHSV.V}}. Do you need me to rework that to {{HEXtoHSV.H}} etc. or is what's been made okay as well?--R8R (talk) 16:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

I created {{RGBtoHSV.HSV}} and {{RGBparse}}, not sophisticated but working well in User:DePiep/PTCC/2013. -DePiep (talk) 16:56, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

• From HSV to RGB

Input HSV format tbd, 1 or 3 parameter values?, string as produced in previous template?

{{HSVtoHEX}}? Is there anything you need that this template does not address? (My PT color sandbox is one example of that template in use if you need one.)--R8R (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Shows how off I am in this... -DePiep (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• Input RGB, check contrast (W3C) with fontcolor (default=black, optional), return number & pass/fail

Also, will be used with fontcolor Wikilink blue (RGB=...), and SoM colors.

These are core templates, I'll combine them to describe & analyse any color set.

{{Color contrast}}. Good enough?--R8R (talk) 19:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

-DePiep (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

This whole template writing is such a bummer. I've got it and only then look closely and see there are these templates already. I have only myself to blame.--R8R (talk) 19:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Very well. I'll do it as soon as I have time for Wiki.--R8R (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

I have no argument to speed you up — at all ;-) -DePiep (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

• R8R I've made additional templates. See User:DePiep/PTCC/newcolors#R8R-2016 ;-).

R8R -DePiep (talk) 00:38, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Please take a look at my sandbox. I've just set up a color contrast check table in my sandbox. Possibly you'll find use of that yourself, so feel free if you want to.--R8R (talk) 19:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

The merged nonmetal version looks better to me, since the other one has all the greens starting to run into each other (important since H is next to those active metals). Note that this is not an argument to merge them, just an observation on the current schemes proposed. Double sharp (talk) 07:35, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

In fact, I am not proposing either of them at the moment. This thread contains some useful advice, which I have not followed or even taken into consideration; I just threw colors around so they're all good for the table. I am certainly not proposing the split nonmetal table because frankly, I have not even tried to make it look good. I have also not even tried to take predicted colors into consideration yet. However, I also think we should agree not to use different colors for different states of matter (for a good scientific reason: this is a periodic table of the elements, not of the simple substances). It could be we could even talk about aesthetics of this table then. And I, again, have not even checked this new color scheme against DePiep's suggestions. --R8R (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@R8R and Double sharp:. That's an important table, and it shows what we are up against. Now I'm only talking not acting, but I'd subdivide the quest into subtopics like "fontcolors" (now SoM), "categories", "border" (now ocurrence), "background", "unknown status" (in multiple properties). And apart from contrast requirements, we could add colorblindness check (exponentionalise the possible conflicts...). AFAIK, colorblindness awareness says to not use certain colors together, and with 10+1 categories start using different shades. (I have a hardcopy of [28], did not find this issue yet on the net). -DePiep (talk) 09:49, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Found this: Colorbrewer section 3, and [29]

New

Hi! Just wanted your opinion on a color scheme I've made: (look for the test table). I've made a monochrome table, made sure all categories are separable in the monochrome mode, and then added colors from the main table (with minor adjustments). This looks very promising to me.--R8R (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

R8R (was replying, then urgency - concept in my sandbox. The urgency was ... a replacement computer). Later more. DePiep

Hue circle (0-360 degrees)

• R8R Your new proposal User:R8R/PT_search_for_colors#Test table (the 2nd one)? In that second PT, the noble gases are darker green, but not so in the contrast-checking table.

I do not understand your saying "monochrome" (=defined: 1 color only). Are they from a same-S&V in HSV (as it looks like in User:R8R/Template:element color-test? I assume that you found most different colors (Hues) as possible when keeping S&V 'teinte'? the same, in H-S-V.

(at User:DePiep/PTCC, for development, I have easy-fied the process, e.g. in User:DePiep/PTCC/newcolors#R8R-2017: enter color once. But that is for an other day).

• reply. Clearly we only need ten colors not eleven any more, good. You have picked them nicely from the hue circle. However, I don't think this is the way to go (fixed S-V values). Because the main job of these colors is to link a cell (or cell set) to the specific legend description. A reader must be able to connect a cell to a legend description (=category name). Using only same-teinte colors, it looks like this job fails.

I have diffuculty recognising the exact color in the PT and the legend (I know am slightly colorblind btw, as many people are; 5%?). It comes together in group 3, which is extremely mixed and so extremely confusing & difficult. Imagine you are an unexperienced PT-reader, looking at it for the first time. Could you connect the cells with the right category right away? Or, test it by making a color-shuffled and blind (=text-less) PT to switch of pre-knowledge, and try to recognise the colors. (The situation might truly be improved by making all colors darker equally, but that will surely add contrast issues; even when we would limit the fonts to black & wikilink-blue).

I think, to get this recognition better, we need to leave the single-teint route, and accept we have darker & lighter colors in there. I am exploring Cynthia Brewer's ColorBrewer, e.g. [30]. - DePiep (talk) 10:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I should explain the monochrome part in greater detail. I originally tried a monochrome table to see what it looks like, HSV 0-0.27-v (v=0.68, 0.76, 0.84, 0.92, 1). I found that it was possible to make a table with these five colors that would have all categories separable. Then I added hues (making it no longer monochrome) from my previous table (again, with small alterations). I figured the resulting table would be better in that the colors differ in not only in hues, but also in values. The colors do differ to me more profoundly. That was what excited me in the first place. I decided to lessen the value differences for various reasons (for instance, 0-0.27-0.68 was too dark) and now the values are 0.8, 0.85, 0.9, 0.95, 1.

No, I have no color perception deficiencies and I am able to connect every color from the legend to every cell easily. But speaking of color-blindness-friendliness. Do you happen to know what are the effects that simulate various color blindnesses? I've tried to look for it so I could emulate various color blindnesses but was unsuccessful in my search.

To summarize my feelings, I am ready to accept having to go for darker/lighter colors but I'd still like to try to write a good circular scheme as long as it does not prove impossible, which can only be determined by trial and error.--R8R (talk) 14:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I get it, monochrome originals. Might be the squeezing from 0.68 to 0.80 (lowest) that reduced the basic effect (you used) a bit. About that number of five: I was thinking about identifying the colors that arre bordering in our PT, and at least try to use extremes for those (not neighbouring ones like yellow-orange; or 0.80/0.84 in your scheme.). And/or: maybe four could do, so that they can be more distanced from one another. That is: 0.8-1.0 with four points not five. One more thought: maybe your graph improves when we separate neighbouring hues (not red-orange bordering), abandoning the nice rainbow sequence... (Thoughts only so far).

re colorblind aware designing: Brewer spends some time on this in her book ([31] I have in print but not at hand... [32] is about that chapter. I want to look at [33]. ). The problem is that CB people cannot distinguish some color pairs (famously: red-green). She shows, in a smart 2D drawing, colors (areas) that should not be used (removing 40% of her 40? example colors!; they vary in hue and lightness). She also adds the rule "do not use colors that differ under 20% lightness" (or so). Since we need ten colors, that leaves us little free choices.

Maybe the PT has this usable advantage: the categories are in mostly in sequence left-to-right, as is the legend list below. So some colors are not near each other. MAybe we can use "bad" color pairs not near each other: say reddish for alkaline earth metals, and greenish in the p-block (for metalloids, PTM). - DePiep (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for giving me a link to that color blindness simulator. I see now the task as I put it is very difficult. Probably not unsolvable, though. I'll keep on trying. Please take a look at the current version (for the time being, ignore SoM colors and occurrence frames): is this an acceptable solution or is it at least close? I can match each color in the legend to a certain category in the table with any color blindness simulation of the three activated. I can see the temptation to give up on the circular color scheme but I still think it is a big aesthetical gain, so I better try to keep it if that's possible. The PT really is different from a political map with the circular nature of its categories: AM--AEM--TM--PTM--metalloid--reactive nonmetal--NG--AM--- and this cycle goes on and on, whereas countries on a political map are one of a kind each and just need to be different.--R8R (talk) 17:53, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

OK. I see I am writing quite chaotic. It comes down to: TEN categories to distinguish is very much, and then also serving CB people adds an extra restriction. And this is categories only, before entering fontcolors meanings like for SoM (I am easily willing to drop fontcolor legends for this). DePiep (talk) 01:54, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

New, July 2018

Please see the first table now. Looks fine to me given the restrictions. All categories are distinguishable with your color blindness simulator activated; all color contrasts are currently above 4.5 (see table at the end of the page). What do you think of it?--R8R (talk) 10:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow! I like the first one a lot. Sandbh (talk) 07:15, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Me too! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

I guess It looks like the nicest appearance so far. However, I want to make some checks, like on colorblindness (DB), when I have some more time. R8R, "your color blindness simulator activated" is that ther eye-icon in http://colorbrewer2.org? -DePiep (talk) 05:50, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, everyone, it is nice to hear that. DePiep: No, I meant the program you linked, Color Oracle. I tried it with each color blindness simulation. By the way, when you do make your checks, would you share with me what these are so I could factor them in any future search for colors?--R8R (talk) 16:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

of course. It will require sound reasoning etc. In a few days more. -DePiep (talk)

I like the first one because the colours are consistently soft, there is a good balance of shades, and the transition from one colour to the next colour is smooth. And H nicely, but not too loudly, stands out from the alkali metals. Sandbh (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Not good enough. It only looks nice for people like us: we know what to expect so we recognise. But. For a fresh person, this is not clear. For example, to check: what when these colors are in a micro PT? (ie with no text links). -DePiep (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

PTCC (PT category colors): April 2018

Currently, a proposal is finalised to change the NNNM's into one category: Reactive nonmetals (see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elements#Reclassifying_the_nonmetals). For the new category, a background color needs to be chosen. This section is about issues with that, many existing and some new.

Links

• User:DePiep/PTCC -- homepage in this research
• User:DePiep/PTCC/2013 -- 2013 color set overview
• User:DePiep/PTCC/2013 -- 2013update2018 (SoM changes) color set overview
• User:DePiep/PTCC/newcolors: testing contrasts for new colorset(s)

#NNNM-2018_(final_push)

#SoM_contrast

• {{Periodic table/sandbox}} -- new color(s) applied to basic PT, currently: NNNM=reactive nonmetals, green

{{Periodic table/blind1}} -- green, same, graphics only (no texts)

{{Periodic table/blind2}} -- yellow

• "NNNM" = non-noble nonmetals, as a blanket category name.
• "SoM" = state of matter, colors as used in fontcolor (green=liquid, red=gas)

-DePiep (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Colorsets

Colorset 2013

See User:DePiep/PTCC/2013

Existing issues: Color contrast with fontcolor non-w3c compliant (not AAA or AA).

See #SoM_contrast, nine existing combinations are not conformant ("none").

Change 1 (April 2018)

Proposal: Change NNNM-2013 colors (green, yellow) into one (reactive nonmetals, green). See PT/sandbox.

User:DePiep/PTCC/newcolors

Issue: contrast with fontcolors worse: ten combinations are non conformant (Br=green added).

Change 1b variant yellow (April 2018)

Changing into some yellow not green: back to nine nonconformant situations (see table change as #1).

Discuss

• SoM fontcolors. R8R had good SoM fontcolors in 2016 (darker). Would they be an improvemment anyway already? Improve existing conformation list? Or can we find new SoM fontcolors that would improve the situation?
• Change more colors now? Should we change other bg colors too? especially the AM and LC reds could use an improvement
• Or should we go quick & dirty, i.e. yellow right away, for now? - DePiep (talk) 12:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Fond these colors in User:R8R/Template:element color

<!-- PHASE (fontcolor) -->
| solid        = #000000
| liquid       = #0000cf<!-- blue! -->
| 2liquid      = #0000cb
| ga | gase    = #cf0000
| 2ga | 2gase  = #cb0000
| unknown | unknownphase = #646464

Notes: which of the 2 is used? And: blue fontcolor might not be distinguisbhable from wikilinks. R8R - DePiep (talk) 12:26, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

I used to work on two color sets at the same time, one reflecting the merge that is about to happen and one reflecting the current categories. The categories containing a 2 refer to the to-be-adopted category set.

I actually hope that this category change will reignite a full PT recovering. DePiep, would you be so kind and look at my latest color set and say if there is yet anything I need to work on?

Also, I wish we phase out states of matter. That is not a property of an element; that is a property of the simple substance formed by that element. Like we mark chlorine as a gas because elemental chlorine is one, but most people encounter chlorine as a solid (over a half of the common salt).--R8R (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Or, since you seem interested in the issue, will you produce a color scheme of yours? I'm sure we all would love to see one if you provide it.--R8R (talk) 13:53, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

They are in the contrast-cheching tables btw. (see links 2013, 2018 above). When testing fontcolor too, the overview might be lost (hard to be systematic & keep overview).

Low hanging fruit: I discovered that if we use red #cb00000 not current #ff0000, already two bad contrasts are gone (from 2013 scheme). Will tweak a bit more.

For the rest: will reply later. Problem is: cannot change everything at once: too complicated to discuss. Goal 1: allow new category Reactive nonmetals to proceed (color issues should not delay). Probably needs & allows change in the SoM colors. But changing the big backgrounds: not this week (as I said before, should be OK wrt things like colorblindness, recognise from cell to legend so no similar colors, and contrasts; alas good that we loose one category shortly, 9 is easier than 10). - DePiep (talk) 14:31, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

After-merge discussion enquiry

Hi DePiep, it's been a while since the Infobox school merge discussion - really glad it was a success. I'm sure you remember the after-merge discussion which we had started but left it for a while, we're about to start it and I've made a few changes and added further things. Just wanted to ask if you are interested in continuing the discussion, please let me know, thank you Steven (Editor) (talk) 20:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Steven (Editor) Thanks for inviting me. However, I perefer to decline the invitation. Reason is the experience after we started the UK school merge last October, then after some weeks someone else came by, did not engage in talking, hi-jacked, stole and wrecked the merge process without understanding what they did wrong (archive, [34]). I don't see the pleasure of once more spend energy onto such a prospect. -DePiep (talk) 12:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

Edit request

Having given you grief before, I have to say I really like the way you've set out your recent requests. They're so straightforward to deal with. Thanks, Cabayi (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!!! I do not remember a specific grief (I do not associate anything like that with your username; happily so). Now, I am not a TE any more, so I am invited to convince admins/TE's like you. Makes me a better-talking editor. Again: thank you for this post. Have a nice edit. -DePiep (talk) 21:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

• News and notes: An Action Packed April

• In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?

• Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages

• Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art

• Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee

• Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde

• Technology report: A new special page, and other news

• Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns

• News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?

• Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy

• From the archives: Portals revisited

• Humour: Jimbo and Larry walk into a bar ...

• Opinion: The gaps in our knowledge of our gaps

• Interview: Katherine Maher marks 3 years as executive director

• Community view: 2019 Wikimedia Summit gathers movement affiliate representatives to discuss movement strategy

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

• From the editors: Picture that

• News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections

• In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball

• Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia

• Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead

• Traffic report: Dark marvels, thrones, a vile serial killer biopic, that's entertainment!

• Technology report: Lots of Bots

• News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey

• Recent research: Wikipedia more useful than academic journals, but is it stealing the news?

• Essay: Paid editing

• From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Juliana of the Netherlands

I am far too busy to waste my time on you at WP:ANEW over such a nonsense edit, but be sure, I'll find the time somehow. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You obviously did not read my 1st editsummary. Then you went wild? What is wrong with "all or none"? -DePiep (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

They were all there, until you started deleting half of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:20, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You better behave. -DePiep (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

You better behave better. Depending on your response, I might report you for trespassing WP:3RR. And BF. -DePiep (talk) 22:04, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2019 (UTC)