User talk:DePiep/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Category:Chemical elements discovered at University of California, Berkeley

explain your objection.Xb2u7Zjzc32 (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

As i said iny 1st revert, cat should be defining, not just a description. See WP:CATDEF. DePiep (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC) DePiep (talk) 22:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Posting to User talk:InternetArchiveBot

As noted at the top of the page "Please do not edit this page. Messages left here will likely go unnoticed. Please follow the directions below." The operator of the bot is User:Cyberpower678 and there is clear direction to direct questions and comments to their talk page. --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, what Ponyo said. ​—DoRD (talk)​ 23:15, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Its a Talkpage. If the owner wants something else: have them do that. What's you question? Why no Redirect? -DePiep (talk) 23:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

No it's not a typical talk page, in this case it is the information page for the bot. It is actually protected specifically to avoid edits to the page from new users unaware of the need to post to User talk:Cyberpower678.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 23:29, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes yes yes! Is what I say all around!: if it is NOT a regular talkpage, the owner must take care. DO NOT BLAME & ABUSE ME, A VISITING EDITOR. By the way, please stop harassing me here. DePiep (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propanoic acid moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, 2,3,3,3-tetrafluoro-2-(heptafluoropropoxy)propanoic acid, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 22:33, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Its a stub. -DePiep (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

And has a QID. -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

disruption you say? Really? -DePiep (talk) 22:48, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

I left a reply to your comment over at wikiproject chemicals. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 00:10, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:Catalan name

Template:Catalan name has been nominated for merging with Template:Spanish name. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:John F. Kennedy/sandbox2

Template:John F. Kennedy/sandbox2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Metal-nonmetal periodic table

Just a note to say that I have inserted your metal-nonmetal periodic table linked from Talk:Metal into the Metal article. Dirac66 (talk) 14:01, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Mark 6, 7

Thank you for helping to show that the discussion at WT:ELEM § Mark 4 + Mark 5 was confusing. However, what you put as Mark 6 and Mark 7 were not different categorization proposals in parallel to Marks 1-5, but rather different ways of constructing a legend for Mark 5. I hope that my insertion of subsection headers and editorial comments has now made this clearer.

I am glad that you have returned to our discussion! I hope that by archiving off large volumes of text we were successful in bringing the page size back to a more reasonable level that facilitates your involvement. YBG (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

To me they look like different structures so they are different. If not: ok, then again do mark their identity (variants?). A bit frustrating that I am supposed to research that. -DePiep (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

If there were to be more discussion that harkened back to them, then I'd mark them 5a, 5b, and 5c. Mostly they were attempts to create a legend without having to came a category "other something". As the discussion seems to be proceeding in a direction that would provide a reasonable name for this 11-element category, I think that all three legend alternatives are most likely dead. But I have been wrong before.

Thank you for your patience. Sometimes when I'm in the middle of a discussion, I forget to take into consideration that some come to the discussion with fresh eyes. Those fresh eyes are always helpful in making sure that things are explained better. But there is always the extra frustration for the first set of fresh eyes. Thanks again! YBG (talk) 22:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

(ec) YBG: No, they are NOT the same. If you don't add a sensible ID, I will. What a stupid approach. And I don't like at all that the discussion is forked into this page. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Jeeeee. The very moment I come back to read & contribute to WT:ELEMENTS I get reverted again. Sure, I am the one who does not undertand the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 22:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I have now added my explanatory comments without removing your marks. I should have done that in the first place. Sorry for frustrating you by my edits and by my forking to your talk page. YBG (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I've changed them to YBG's suggestion of 5a, 5b, and 5c. Hopefully the lettering suggests that these were just a few ideas thrown out in quick succession and then abandoned. Double sharp (talk) 23:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Read. -DePiep (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Periodic template legend

Hi DePiep, where is the template showing the 11 categories of colour-coded element plus the row along the top divided into metal and nonmetal? Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Sandbh Its Template:Periodic table legend, documentation should be clear. You'll need like |theme1=category, |child=yes/no. Ask more when trouble. -DePiep (talk) 17:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

As far as I can see none of these templates show me the actual code. It's the code I need so that I can update my proposal from some weeks ago. I only have limited internet access at the moment and it's impractical for me to code the thing manually. Sandbh (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

OK, I'll make a single-code template for you. That will be all fixed code colors then. 24h ok? -DePiep (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

That'll do, thank you. The top row only needs to show metal and nonmetal and it butts up against the two row high category box for unknown chemical properties. The bottom row shows the eleven categories. The metalloid category box is only one row high, not two. Sandbh (talk) 23:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

• Sandbh. For your development: Template:Periodic table legend/Category2017set(edit talk links history).

So, it uses the live PT legend frame. See also 2017set testcases.

Usage: {{Periodic table legend|theme1=Category2017set|child=yes}} →

s-block

f-block

d-block

p-block

-DePiep (talk) 10:48, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Isotopes

In the meantime, could you implement the idea to hide decay energies and daughters from the table in the main infobox? We agreed on that not too long ago.--R8R (talk) 18:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

That's what I proposed on WT:ELEM! (well, not the daughters because Double sharp opposed a bit I remember; can that do too if it is proposed & supported at WT:ELEM). -DePiep (talk) 18:23, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I remember I've got DS agree on this one: see User_talk:R8R_Gtrs#RFC_closed. We can go for it; wouldn't say so if I didn't think so.--R8R (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Why an indirect talk? Whatever it is, add it to the discussion at WT:ELEM. No need to take shortcuts. Last thing I want is having to revert because of bad process/talk/unclearness. -DePiep (talk) 18:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I sort of see the point. But what I am afraid of is that we can't seem to get it there; I wouldn't say so if we didn't try. If we were a project of at least 10 active members, then a decision of three would be bad. But, really, apart from us three, it's really only Sandbh and YBG, and neither of them seems to be interested in this issue. Or, to put it this way, we can act boldly; if anyone reverts us then, which anyone is totally free to do at that point, we'll proceed to the inter-WP talk. But I'm sure none will; that's why I'd rather go for it now.--R8R (talk) 19:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not worried. If all three editor agree there, I feel strong & supported to make the change. That's how it works, and especially the WP:ELEM team is very good in this.

Even when afterwards someone comes along and raises issues, the Talk will give a result (useful: let's do it, not useful: keep).

More worried I am about mixing of unrelated issues and proposals. If I meet that, I'll try to be clear: "... is unrelated, but you can start a separate topic for that". For now, the best thing you could do is say 'support' (or 'not') for the simple proposal I did. -DePiep (talk) 19:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Oh and I did not research the DS thing you linked. If it is worth it, you will bring it on at WT:ELEM somehow. That would be good. WT:ELEM is OK. -DePiep (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Template:IPA chart non-pulmonic consonants with audio

Hi DePiep, I'm taking this template as an example.

Time ago I've tried to implement in voy:it: a "single audio play icon" (like the ones in that template) to play something without changing the page, but unfortunately without success.

Could you help me to understand how it works and how is possible to implement it in that wiki?

Thanks, --Andyrom75 (talk) 11:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Andyrom75. I worked on this long time ago, but I can take a look. Please link to the en:wiki source you used, and the voy:it: target page you want help on. -DePiep (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

In this section we use intensively the voy:it:Template:Traduzione that currently shows three things: the Italian sentence, the translated sentence in the target language, "an Italian sequence of letters" that is supposed to have a similar sound to the translated sentece if pronounce by an Italian person.

I'd like to add an icon of the sentence/word in the target language to be played without leaving the page, in the same way of the player shown in voy:it:Svedese#Altre_note_sulla_pronuncia but with just a small icon like the ones used in your template.

I cannot link the en:w code, because I wasn't able to understand which is the code (or maybe the JS?) that allow such effect. --Andyrom75 (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you taken a look at it? --Andyrom75 (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Andyrom75 Oops, unkindly I forgot this. Will do now. -DePiep (talk) 10:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• Andyrom75 This is the code that shows the play-box:

<div style="height:20px">[[File:{{{audiofile|_nofilename_}}}|{{{size|40px}}}]]</div>

For example:

<div style="height:20px">[[File:Voiceless bilabial plosive.ogg|40px]]</div>

Notes:

The audio file should have no image (won't show correct, eg File:Automatic telephone Siemens & Halske - ringing.webm)

The button is in a <div> box (that is: not inline with text). This box can be in a table or infobox.

Of course, it can be made into a template (input: filename).

Also, that template can have text added in a second div-box. Etcetera.

The IPA phonetic files are nicely read from a list (input ʘ returns its filename). Do you need that?

Please let me know if you this is useful for you. Or if you need more. -DePiep (talk) 12:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Easier than I've thought :-)

Now, I've done the first big step: to have just the play button that play the ogg file without changing the page.

That said, would be great to have that button inline with the text without using tables, because tables would add a lot of useless HTML code.

Any idea? --Andyrom75 (talk) 13:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Code is easy indeed, dunno why I have hidden it in a stack of 4 subtemplates. ;-)

It still is a File (like an Image is), so inline usage may give page troubles. Trying a <span>:

<span style="height:20px">[[File:Voiceless bilabial plosive.ogg|40px]]</span>

Lorem ipsum and text continuing.

-DePiep (talk) 13:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

In fact I got lost between all those templates :-P I've tried div, span on image, text and a combination of them ... no success... --Andyrom75 (talk) 13:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

• To research: use <span style="display:inline-block"> ? see[1]

by div: Lorem ipsum

and text continuing.

by span: Lorem ipsum and text continuing.

-DePiep (talk) 14:14, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Cool, I've just discover it at the same time from another source :-)

One question. Do you think that would be possible to show a smaller image or even better a different one?

Look at voy:it:Inglese#Vocali, I'd love to preserve the current image, or at least to reduce the size of the "play button" to that. --Andyrom75 (talk) 14:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

I've changed the last examples to: h=15px, w=35px. A different image: don't know. The trick is that this is the original play-button, to stay on the page. (An image would open a new page). But this is basics I know of, maybe there isa an other option.

This is problematic: I discovered that on my mobile screen the button does not work... -DePiep (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh no! You are right, on mobile view it doesn't work :-( I can't implement somthing that doesn't work on all the environment. Thanks anyway for your support. --Andyrom75 (talk) 13:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Found this: <span class="nomobile"> (looking for the class="nodesktop"? "mobileonly"? counter option). Then flip like (mobile view falls back to loudspeaker):

mobile:

desktop:

• :by div: Lorem ipsum
  
  and text continuing.

Needs another look. Could ask WP:VPT village pump. -DePiep (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)-DePiep (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 June 2017

• From the editors: Signpost status: On reserve power, help wanted!

• News and notes: Global Elections

• Arbitration report: Cases closed in the Pacific and with Magioladitis

• Op-ed: Wikipedia's lead sentence problem

• Featured content: Three months in the land of the featured

• In the media: Did Wikipedia just assume Garfield's gender?

• Recent research: Wikipedia bot wars capture the imagination of the popular press

• Technology report: Tech news catch-up

• Traffic report: Film on Top: Sampling the weekly top 10

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 June 2017

• News and notes: Departments reorganized at Wikimedia Foundation, and a month without new RfAs (so far)

• In the media: Kalanick's nipples; Episode #138 of Drama on the Hill

• Op-ed: Facto Post: a fresh take

• Featured content: Will there ever be a break? The slew of featured content continues

• Traffic report: Wonder Woman beats Batman, The Mummy, Darth Vader and the Earth

• Recent research: Utopian bubbles: Can Wikipedians create value outside of the capitalist system?

• Technology report: Improved search, and WMF data scientist tells all

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:32, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 July 2017

• News and notes: French chapter woes, new affiliates and more WMF team changes

• Featured content: Spectacular animals, Pine Trees screens, and more

• In the media: Concern about access and fairness, Foundation expenditures, and relationship to real-world politics and commerce

• Recent research: The chilling effect of surveillance on Wikipedia readers

• Op-ed: Why Task Forces are Dying in 2017

• Gallery: A mix of patterns

• Humour: The Infobox Game

• Traffic report: Film, television and Internet phenomena reign with some room left over for America's birthday

• Technology report: New features in development; more breaking changes for scripts

• Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 3 wrap-up

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:48, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

AWB

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%BF%D1%80%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%8B_%D0%BA_%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%BC%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BC/%D0%90%D1%80%D1%85%D0%B8%D0%B2/2017/05#Permission_to_use_AWB_.28.D0.92.D0.9F:.D0.90.D0.92.D0.91.2F.D0.90.D0.92.D0.A2.29 --Sunpriat (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI notification

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. ~ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

• Please note that I have closed the ANI discussion based on your pledge of a voluntary topic ban, specifically I therefore propose that I voluntarily shall not edit in this area for a year. The area includes: WP:EARTHQUAKE esp wrt seismic scales, templates etc. and their talks. Unless, that is, I am explicitly invited by an active WP:QUAKE member.. This is done in lieu of a block or other sanctions, so it is my hope that you stick to your word. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 15:04, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

List of allusions to The Divine Comedy listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect List of allusions to The Divine Comedy. Since you had some involvement with the List of allusions to The Divine Comedy redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 13:49, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Tests

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Tests, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Jjjjjjdddddd (talk) 09:25, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Feels (song)

Hi User:DePiep, can you please help by creating a collage image from the "Feels" video for the article's music video section please? If so, my idea was one of these [2], [3], because you couldn't show just one of the artists, and they're never seen together, but if the shots could be like these [4], [5], so it shows the psychedelic effects used if possible, thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 12:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Theo Mandela Unfortunately, I have little experience and less time to dive into this. I advise you to drop the question at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab. -DePiep (talk) 13:51, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Collapsible table on mobile view

Hi! Thank you for the idea on collapsible tables on the talk page of WikiProject medicine! Its really not good that the tables don't collapse. I did not quite understand how the change you proposed would be implemented but I wanted to try it out (there are some other tables online outside the medicine projects pages that could maybe benefit of the change). Could you please give me some further detail? I tried searching for it on some help-pages but was not very successful. Here I have the example:

Trifluoperazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

Summary
Trifluoperazine is an effective antipsychotic for people with schizophrenia but it increases the risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects.
Outcome Findings in words Findings in numbers Quality of evidence Global state Clinical improvement Follow-up: average 19 weeks Trifluoperazine increases the chance of being 'improved' when compared to placebo. Data are based on low quality evidence. RR 4.61 (1.54 to 13.84) Low Relapse or worsening Follow-up: average 5 months Trifluoperazine reduces the risk of relapse when compared with placebo. Data are based on low quality evidence. RR 0.34 (0.23 to 0.49) Low Mental state Experiencing 'intensified symptoms' Follow-up: average 16 weeks At present it is not possible to be confident about the difference between trifluoperazine and placebo for this outcome and data supporting this finding are very limited. RR 1.05 (0.54 to 2.05) Very low Leaving the study early - Because of any reason Follow-up: average 5 months Trifluoperazine may reduce loss to Follow-up, but, at present it is not possible to be confident about the difference between the two treatments and data supporting this finding are very limited. RR 0.67 (0.38 to 1.19) Very low - Because of severe adverse effects Follow-up: average 2 months It is not possible to be confident about the difference between trifluoperazine and placebo. Data supporting this finding are very limited. RR 1.31 (0.22 to 7.8) Very low Behavior Any clinically significant agitation or distress Follow-up: 4 months There was no clear differences between trifluoperazine and placebo for this outcome. Data supporting this finding are very limited. RR 2.0 (0.19 to 20.72) Very low Economic outcomes No included randomized study reported on economic outcomes.

Lena08041993 (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Lena08041993 oops I totally missed your question. Will reply later. -DePiep (talk) 00:41, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

• RE Lena08041993. So tables do not collapse in mobile view. I wrote: "Best general solution I can think of is: try to use a section(header) to contain the large table (which is collapsible in mobile view). Of course this works best if the table is ~alone in the section". IOW: you as an editor add a sectionheder right above the table: ==Placebo effects compared==. This header does have a collaps option by itself! The table is integrated into the TOC. So like I did right below here (check in your mobile view):

Problem: only works with level-2 (==) headers, not three. So below is a new section level-2 to demonstrate collapseing section/table:

Placebo effects compared

Some introduction text for the table can go here.

Trifluoperazine versus placebo for schizophrenia

Summary
Trifluoperazine is an effective antipsychotic for people with schizophrenia but it increases the risk of extrapyramidal adverse effects.
Outcome Findings in words Findings in numbers Quality of evidence Global state Clinical improvement Follow-up: average 19 weeks Trifluoperazine increases the chance of being 'improved' when compared to placebo. Data are based on low quality evidence. RR 4.61 (1.54 to 13.84) Low Relapse or worsening Follow-up: average 5 months Trifluoperazine reduces the risk of relapse when compared with placebo. Data are based on low quality evidence. RR 0.34 (0.23 to 0.49) Low Mental state Experiencing 'intensified symptoms' Follow-up: average 16 weeks At present it is not possible to be confident about the difference between trifluoperazine and placebo for this outcome and data supporting this finding are very limited. RR 1.05 (0.54 to 2.05) Very low Leaving the study early - Because of any reason Follow-up: average 5 months Trifluoperazine may reduce loss to Follow-up, but, at present it is not possible to be confident about the difference between the two treatments and data supporting this finding are very limited. RR 0.67 (0.38 to 1.19) Very low - Because of severe adverse effects Follow-up: average 2 months It is not possible to be confident about the difference between trifluoperazine and placebo. Data supporting this finding are very limited. RR 1.31 (0.22 to 7.8) Very low Behavior Any clinically significant agitation or distress Follow-up: 4 months There was no clear differences between trifluoperazine and placebo for this outcome. Data supporting this finding are very limited. RR 2.0 (0.19 to 20.72) Very low Economic outcomes No included randomized study reported on economic outcomes.

References

Next subsection

Text (Article text) can continue here. -DePiep (talk) 17:01, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Category:Articles that mention a specific track gauge has been nominated for discussion

Category:Articles that mention a specific track gauge, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:26, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Reply to message

Got your message - thanks for the tip. I use m for typos, punctuation, spelling: is that not correct when doing Elements? Please let me know which specific edit(s) I labelled incorrectly.

I've been editing Calcium today: if you are so inclined, go there and critique those edits. Everything you did at Potassium was an improvement on what I did!

Regards IiKkEe (talk) 00:23, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Test9

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Test9, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 13:52, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Name culture

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Template:Name culture, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 16:32, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 August 2017

• News and notes: Non-English special edition! 99% no news about English-based wiki communities!

• Recent research: Wikipedia can increase local tourism by +9%; predicting article quality with deep learning; recent behavior predicts quality

• WikiProject report: Comic relief

• In the media: Wikipedia used to judge death penalty, arms smuggling, Indonesian governance, and HOTTEST celebrity

• Traffic report: Swedish countess tops the list

• Blog: Canadian Supreme Court rules against Google in favor of worldwide court orders

• Special report: Sharing Wikipedia offline medical information in the Dominican Republic

• Featured content: Everywhere in the lead

• Technology report: Introducing TechCom

• Humour: WWASOHs and ETCSSs

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Template:Chembox

Howdy. I noticed you've done a fair amount of editing on Template:Chembox. Was curious if you have any interest in helping convert this pain in the behind to use {{infobox}}?? --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 22:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Zackmann08 Luafying is needed of course. Quite a challenge (i18n, indexes, current setions, ~500 parameters). I cannot do the Lua encoding coming months, afraid I can only add support & background info.

How would you setup this enterprise?

BTW, {{Chembox}} is a complicated thing, bit it does manage to process all changes all these years: improved layout, new parmeters, indexed params, changed websites, etc. -DePiep (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Other angles with the template: parallel handling with {{Infobox drug}} of certain parameters, CheMoBot validation. -DePiep (talk) 18:35, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Ping Zackmann08 -DePiep (talk) 00:34, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry got distracted by some stuff. You make some good points. Probably not worth tackling at this point. :-\ --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 16:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Got another one to float past you... Category:2012 Summer Olympics event navigational boxes I've found that all these olympic event nav boxes still use the old style code... Was thinking of trying to generalize it... My thought would be to have something like {{Olympic event sidebar|year=2012}} that would handle the basic outline and whatnot. I'm going to start messing around with some code. Would love your input/assistance! --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 06:15, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• Zackmann08 re "Probably not worth tackling at this point": didn't want to scare you off! It's very rewarding, WT:CHEMICALS is a very active topic/wikiproject much editing. Some angles could be parked outside of view (like the {{Infobox drug}} parallels). I'd mostly promote some systematic approach, not just entering 500 parameters in Lua. Must say: not much time these months.

Re Olympic templates: Will take a look. later more. -DePiep (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

• • No worries! I haven't done anything with LUA yet and am not sure I'm ready to learn.... If/when you get a chance, take a look at User:Zackmann08/olympics. The main issue I'm facing is that I don't know how to align the contents... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 18:14, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

Zackmann08 First and foremost, {{Sidebar}} is a {{Navbox}}, (with class=navbox set). This means: it will not show in mobile view (while current boxes, without that class setting) do show. Think about it, and start a discussion on some central (olympics) talkpage if this is what you all want. Of course there are very very strong reasons, at Wikipedia page & info design level, to not show navboxes. -DePiep (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

For the aligning, checkl |contentstyle= in {{Sidebar}} documentation. Another question could be how to make columns. Clearley, sidebar is not a basically a table. -DePiep (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Right on. Yea the main thing is going to be how the heck do those columns... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 19:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Off-Wikipedia item

Hi DePiep

Could you turn on e-mail this user for a little while so I can e-mail you? Alternatively, could you e-mail me?

sincere regards, Sandbh

Sandbh Should work now. -DePiep (talk) 12:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

E-mail sent. Sandbh (talk) 03:06, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 September 2017

• From the editors: What happened at Wikimania?

• News and notes: Basselpedia; WMF Board of Trustees appointments

• Featured content: Warfighters and their tools or trees and butterflies

• Traffic report: A fortnight of conflicts

• Special report: Biomedical content, and some thoughts on its future

• Recent research: Discussion summarization; Twitter bots tracking government edits; extracting trivia from Wikipedia

• In the media: Google's Ideological Echo Chamber; What makes someone successful?

• WikiProject report: WikiProject YouTube

• Technology report: Latest tech news

• Wikicup: 2017 WikiCup round 4 wrap-up

• Humour: Bots

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 September 2017

• News and notes: Chapter updates; ACTRIAL

• In the media: Monkey settlement; Wikipedia used to give AI context clues

• Humour: Chickenz

• Recent research: Wikipedia articles vs. concepts; Wikipedia usage in Europe

• Technology report: Flow restarted; Wikidata connection notifications

• Gallery: Chicken mania

• Special report: Two steps forward, one step backward: The Sustainability Initiative

• Traffic report: Fights and frights

• Featured content: Flying high

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Request

Would if be OK if I refactored your two bullet points at WT:WikiProject Elements § Reclassifying the nonmetals to follow the same format as the 3rd bullet point that I added? By the way, thank you so much for starting this index section! YBG (talk) 05:46, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

YBG I'm not sure. That section can have these approaches:

1. Links to archive sections

2. + A pure TOC with those links (not a copy of their TOC, but the main useful sections, say 12–20? entries).

3. + A summary description of the main discussion parts (e.g. main proposals, main arguments, intermediate conclusions).

Whichever, it should be consistently short and complete (at a certain level of summary). The conclusion you added is not following this.

I am still struggling getting an overview of that discussion. Early archiving even took away the steps that led to the current proposal(s), and even those proposals themselves (I think Parcy Traxel did this recently). Once this leads to a formal proposal (PT category change), I and others would have to study 500k of archives to understand it. Time and time again, people have disrupted (in GF) the arguing flow with sidesteps, and not once my strong suggestion to keep it organised was followed. IOW: its a chaotic talk, and so nothing good can come out of it.

So I take OWNERSHIP of this single overview section to save what can be saved. I therefor ask you to remove the 'conclusion' you added (not the archive link). Then we could build the overview after one of the three options I mentioned. -DePiep (talk) 10:05, 19 August 2017 (UTC)the

Thank you for the suggested revision of my note, I have now removed my synopsis accordingly.

I think it might be best to leave this section at your level 1 where it started. Levels 2 and 3 would provide some benefit, but IMO they would be better in a new (sub?)section, leaving this grand level 1 summary in place.

I think the easiest way to show what I have in mind would be for me to make the changes to your talk, and then immediately revert them. This allows you to see what I have in mind and choose to adopt it or not adopt it as you see fit.

YBG (talk) 17:01, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

You can see what I have in mind here. If you like it, you can undo my self-revert. YBG (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Very well, my section looks good now. One thing I still don't get: why do you great WP:ELEM people cannot get that overview right? And: why do you all not want to get it right? Do you see my question? -DePiep (talk) 23:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC) @YBG: -DePiep (talk) 23:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Three comments

1. I never received the ping. According to Template:ping#Usage, the ping and signature must be added in the same edit.
2. I'm not sure what you mean by saying my section looks good now. Are you saying that you approve of the reformatting I made or that you prefer that it remain as you originally formatted it, which is how it was after I reverted reverted my reformatting. For reference, here is the current version.
3. As far as Do you see my question?, no, I don't quite understand your questions. Part of my problem is that wikformatting, for all its flexibility, is not very good at encoding non-verbals such as tone and intent. Being a fallible human being, I find it easier to add a negative tone of voice than a positive one, and this tends to impede online communication.

Anyway, if you want the changes that make your comments and my comments formatted the same, feel free to make those changes - or ask me to make them. I'd rather not modify your comments without your express permission. YBG (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edit in aluminium

I get the intention, but don't let uniformity be the only trait that guides you. I want to try out something new here. A story is especially interesting when you see its different parts affect each other. This is why I run my usual order of sections (I don't know if it's the one preferable by our project; certainly it is not the order I met this article with), for example. Here, I want to try this as well: start with nuclear properties (not only isotope-related, but also the generally element-related lightness of nuclei) to show why aluminum is so light i.e. not dense (aluminum is well-known for its low density, so this is perfectly appropriate to try here if you ask me). Can we have the previous subtitle back?--R8R (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Your edit in tennessine

Capital letters do not necessarily represent shouting in comments. Instead, the capital case makes the note stand out from the text so you spot there's something going on there without having to read too closely. At one time, I left a note in some article and another editor ignored it; as I learned later, that was not on purpose, but rather they did not see it. (WP:SHOUT, by the way, is related to talk pages only.) Could you please reconsider this edit?--R8R (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I stand with my edit and its editsummary. I'm not interested in YOU MAY SHOUT OUTSIDE OF TALKPAGES subtilities. Whatever it wants to say, do say it otherwise. -DePiep (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Do not do this again

Not giving enough time to reply is rude and certainly to civil. I didn't insult you or something that could possibly justify such actions from you. I'll assume you're having a bad day, but I don't want to see this sort of behavior again. We've had a productive relationship and I suggest we continue to do so.--R8R (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Merger discussion dealing with Burma/Myanmar Railways

An article that you may have been involved in editing—Myanmar Railways—has been proposed for merging with Rail transport in Myanmar. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. --Bejnar (talk) 23:26, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Term symbol sandbox page

That looks good for the term symbols it has. Thanks. I presume you got them from the little discussion in the term symbol article. However, that's as far as we can go. Groups 3, 4, 9, 11, 12 plus 9/14 lanthanide/actinide 2-columns, have the same term symbol. But in the other columns/groups, it varies and will need addition by hand. But will all the edit buttons I see, I can't do it. The ones you have must be transcluded from yet someplace ELSE. And we're reaching the limit of how far we can push that. SBHarris 01:25, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

OK, thanks. As I just wrote elsewhere, you can edit page Template:Infobox element/symbol-to-term-symbol‎. In QM, I am blind but I do can publish stuff ;-). I suggest you improve that page, and blank the groups/elements that do not have such a value. Please continue this at Template talk:Infobox element, I prefer (being central). -DePiep (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Image-(re)numbering

Thanks for getting things in order:) DMacks (talk) 15:13, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

FYI, I'm checking the use of high-numbered images (LR3, LR4, 4). See if any infobox has/needs so many images. When they are not used, we can remove them from chembox code, reducing the number of parameters. In the process, I renumber them preferably 1-2-3, corresponding with the image row they make. This is for the editor's eye, and gives an easier check on input completeness. Also, I check the image sizes. (In the end, we want to use default sizes & upright scaling, not fixed px any more). -DePiep (talk) 15:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:IsNumber

Template:IsNumber has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Christian75 (talk) 17:18, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Nowrap/convert

Thanks for dealing with the typos. RegardsKeith-264 (talk) 00:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realise there were so many, is there some way to find them automatically? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 08:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I discovered this tool: Template parameters! For example, for {{abbr}} it lists all parameters used + their value. So I saw that list of "abbr=on" used in this template, so something was wrong. I then use WP:JWB (like WP:AWB, but in-browser script), to look at each page. The tool updates at the beginning of every month (nex on Dec 3 or so, for the Dec 1 situation). Need more info? (BTW, ask if you now about more templates that should be analysed that way). -DePiep (talk) 08:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

The tool (monthly analysis) is triggered by the TemplateData in template documentation: see Template:Abbr#TemplateData (there is the external link in line 3). Keith-264. -DePiep (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I prefer not to make mistakes but where I do I like to remedy them. I'm looking at your links but as usual they are written for people who know far more about computers than me. I'll keep going though. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 12:48, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

• One more try.

1. {{Infobox military conflict}} has documentation with Template:Infobox military conflict#Template data. There, the second line has this external link: monthly error report.
2. This report (green page) says, in top: "Pages: 14847, Transclusion count: 14946" for the infobox. That is: 14847 articles have this template, and some 99 have two of them (making 14946 templates in articles).
3. It also lists all parameters that are used (in the lefthand column).
4. For example, down the page you can see parameter |casualties1=. Its row says "Y" (Yes, a correct parameter), then "10792" being the number of templates that have this input. Then: "> 50 unique values" (in those 10,000 inputs).
5. That row also has: (page links). That leads to a page that lists all those pages! This is a known, OK parameter.
6. Back to the the top, the first row. It says there is also parameter ") result" (?!). Only one time used, and its value is: "Seljuk victory.Crusader withdrawal (etc.)". Obviously, this is a wrong parameter. If you click on the "(page list)" link, youĺl see that article listed.
7. How was this wrong parameter entered? Well, for a template, everything before the "="-sign is a parameter name (so we write: |casualties1=10.000. In this bad case, someone wrote: {{Infobox military history|) result=Seljuk victory.[[Crusades|Crusader]]}} (note the ")" and the "="-sign!). You can open that article to edit, search for ") result", and remove the typo ")".
8. One more thing. There is also parameter "1" listed in the lefthand column, second row. This is the first, unnamed parameter: when entered {{Infobox military history|blabla}} (no "="-sign there!, so "blabla" is the value of unnamed parameter "1", like |1=blabla). It is a bad parameter ("N"), and 121 pages have it. Now you can open "(page links)" to see those 12 articles listed. And maybe you want to edit them out. (This is where I would use WP:AWB to automate this job).
9. Hope this helps. -DePiep (talk) 13:30, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It would if you were here to point it out ;O) I found one that I edit (Arras 1917) which either had a wrong nowrap or convert but I couldn't find it, even by copying into word and searching for both.... With this stuff I need "first you do this, by pressing X...then this, by pressing Y...then this, by pressing Z....";O)Keith-264 (talk) 16:21, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this is too far off. In short:

Step 6, after clicking the "(page links)" links, about a parameter named ") result" (?!?). It links to [6]. That lists article Battle of Shaizar. Go to article and open edit screen.

Then, in my browser, I can "search" (Ctrl+F, often key F3) for the text ") result". Found (I did not edit now).

But I'll leave it with this, you probably better spend your time doing other edits good & fast. ;-) -DePiep (talk) 16:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, DePiep. As one of Wikipedia's most experienced Wikipedia editors, Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 21:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, DePiep. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 18 December 2017

• Special report: Women in Red World Contest wrap-up

• Blog: Close encounters of the Wikipedia kind

• Featured content: Featured content to finish 2017

• In the media: Stolen seagulls, public domain primates and more

• Arbitration report: Last case of 2017: Mister Wiki editors

• Gallery: Wiki loving

• Interview: Interview with Charlesjsharp, regular contributor of Wikipedia's Featured Pictures

• Recent research: French medical articles have "high rate of veracity"

• Technology report: Your wish lists and more Wikimedia tech

• Traffic report: Notable heroes and bad guys

• Humour: On their way to the WMF Incubator

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:28, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, DePiep. AfC submissions Random submission 3+ months 2,567 pending submissions to update I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged. Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 02:57, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Insertcleverphrasehere thank you for inviting me, again. At the moment, I don't have the opportunities to engage in new tasks here at enwiki. I'll keep it in mind though. -DePiep (talk) 12:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Reversion

Hey Bud! I reverted your revert, because I think the grammar in the first part NEEDS to be fixed, and the "special note for one isotope" is unneeded with the other (2) links that get you to that isotope. Neither is in the infobox, btw. Riventree (talk) 10:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I sailed by your misunderstood es. OK now. BTW, I find the wikitable less ideal. Better be {{Infobox selenium isotopes}}. -DePiep (talk) 10:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Agreed! (You're a champ)

Riventree (talk) 02:36, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about FBPE

Hello, DePiep,

I wanted to let you know that there's a discussion about whether FBPE should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FBPE .

If you're new to the process, articles for deletion is a group discussion (not a vote!) that usually lasts seven days. If you need it, there is a guide on how to contribute. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

Thanks,

Icewhiz (talk) 14:26, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Not correct

Hi
Also to @Double sharp: I did work on your request and Your last pings were not correct so I have missed this up to now.
I don't think it's correct for you to upload my drafts. They are drafts and not the final files. I'm the creator and I think it's up to me to set licenses, attributions and so on. I will upload a correct version and I will change the information, thanks.
You are not supposed to set out the resolved code until I have set out the done code. --Goran tek-en (talk) 19:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Also to @Double sharp:. What is going on, why is the file deleted? --Goran tek-en (talk) 07:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

You should ask DePiep about that, since he uploaded it originally, and asked for it to be deleted as a mistake after you wrote the above (saying that you would upload a correct version). Double sharp (talk) 07:38, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

I will upload it again then as I guess you still want it. --Goran tek-en (talk) 08:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Now you can find it here Commons:file:Molar volumes of liquid-solid phase of elements.svg. --Goran tek-en (talk) 08:40, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@Goran tek-en: OK, no problem. Thank you for all your work on this! Double sharp (talk) 09:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

• Goran tek-en You are absolutely right. I'm sorry. I asked to have the file removed to make a restart, so you can upload your file exactly as you want to, in every detail and setting.

The only reason I uploaded is, that I did not see a response on WP:GL. This is GF. I hope in the end you can enjoy your work as much as I do. -DePiep (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Everything is fine, no problem. What do you mean by "This is GF", I don't understand. --Goran tek-en (talk) 10:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. "GF" was to say: I acted in good faith. -DePiep (talk) 12:02, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

ENG VAR

Thanks for the tip you left on a third users page. He always has to make the last comment, and while he may forcible pursue an idea he never admits that others may be right or completes the legwork. It is destructive. The infobox incidents are a case in point- and he still has little concept of what infobox writing is about, An example of help rebuffed Thanks for your intervention and the rebuke- I enjoyed it --ClemRutter (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Apart from the content matter, this gossiping is unacceptable at wikipedia and you might get in trouble over this. I will delete it very soon. Also do not ever write such stuff on my (or any) talkpage. @ClemRutter: -DePiep (talk)

January 2018

Your recent editing history at Wikipedia talk:Administrators shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:14, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Looks like you ran into a bit of trouble :-) Did you have any further questions that weren't answered in the thread? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:18, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi NeilN. Not nice to meet you this way. Saying Looks like you ran into a bit of trouble :-) shows that you did not really read my posts, did you? Now next time you come back, be sure to read the backgrounds an make sense. Promised? Ad don't use scripts - DePiep (talk) 21:29, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You realize I was offering to help you, right? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:30, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No, NeilN, that is not what it looked like nor what it was. Did you "offer help" to those who fucked up my quest? Did you? (I did not track your "helps" btw). No, NeilN, you came here tho "warn" me. Instead, you better had addressed those you warned me against. Really, I was posting on a TALKpage, and you know what I got in return: ADMIN threats. - DePiep (talk) 21:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

• Some reason you “thank-bombed” me for getting rid of that nonsense? I don’t know what you are trying to accomplish here, but might I suggest you take a break and do something else for a while? Unless you are actually trying to get blocked? I can’t tell. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:36, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for speedy archiving your friend-admins. Sure, criticising your friends will get me blocked. -DePiep (talk) 23:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Z

Template:Z has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

It's Module:Z that has been nominated for deletion. Twinkle has made a mess of it. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 20:19, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Now the template:Z has been closed, understandably. What's next? Please keep me informed. -DePiep (talk) 20:24, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I speedy deleted the “module” as nonsense. As you know, there is no such thing as “claiming” a template or module, so it was nonsensical to create that page. I sincerely hope this is the end of this bizzarre incident. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:33, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Sure. It would have ended earlier & simpler did not all those admins behave like pavlov's dogs shutting down and shouting down. What happened to their "solving issues" potential? -DePiep (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Legal status in chemboxes

Hi there. I have come across a couple of compounds like cantharidin and 2,4-dinitrophenol which have chemboxes not drugboxes as they are nasty toxic chemicals which aren't used as drugs (also some precursors like N-Phenethyl-4-piperidinone), however in some jurisdictions they are controlled under drug law to try and dissuade silly people from consuming them or offering them for sale. Is there a way to add legal status to the chembox? Cheers Meodipt (talk) 10:28, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, add section Template:Chembox Pharmacology (see its documentation). Most of its input options are exactly the same, and taken from {{Infobox drug}} (using same subtemplate). Do come back if you experience issues.

Zooming out, and re your opening line: in general, we've added pharma input options to {{Chembox}} exactly for these situations (and vice versa). This is to prevent editor's wars, about such single input parameters, on which infobox to use in those articles. -DePiep (talk) 11:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, will give it a try. Meodipt (talk) 11:31, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent Changes in Anatomy

Long time no speak - thanks for creating our recent changes list, my feeling is that it's used by myself and other editors multiple times a week. I was going to update the list seeing as it's been a couple of years and our articles have ballooned from 12,000 to more than 20,000 (including redirects) but I can't remember how to get the list :(. Would you be able to?--Tom (LT) (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• (The list is here Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Lists of pages/Articles) --Tom (LT) (talk) 03:35, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
• (if you could update Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Lists of pages about how you make the list I can do it myself in the future)

Will do. -DePiep (talk) 11:46, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done

Tom (LT) See Wikipedia:WikiProject Anatomy/Lists of pages#Update the list, for the process of updating (it is WP:PETSCAN). Come back here when something is unclear. - DePiep (talk) 19:59, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks DePiep, appreciated. Will do it myself next time. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:09, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Your WP:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop request

Hello, DePiep. A reply to your request at the Illustration workshop has been made. You may view your reply here.
If you are satisfied, please copy/paste the following code and add it to your request: {{resolved|1=~~~~}}

Regards, --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 13:03, 7 January 2018 (UTC).

You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{GL Illustration reply}} template.

Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017

Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017 A new bibliographical landscape At the beginning of December, Wikidata items on individual scientific articles passed the 10 million mark. This figure contrasts with the state of play in early summer, when there were around half a million. In the big picture, Wikidata is now documenting the scientific literature at a rate that is about eight times as fast as papers are published. As 2017 ends, progress is quite evident. Behind this achievement are a technical advance (fatameh), and bots that do the lifting. Much more than dry migration of metadata is potentially involved, however. If paper A cites paper B, both papers having an item, a link can be created on Wikidata, and the information presented to both human readers, and machines. This cross-linking is one of the most significant aspects of the scientific literature, and now a long-sought open version is rapidly being built up. The effort for the lifting of copyright restrictions on citation data of this kind has had real momentum behind it during 2017. WikiCite and the I4OC have been pushing hard, with the result that on CrossRef over 50% of the citation data is open. Now the holdout publishers are being lobbied to release rights on citations. But all that is just the beginning. Topics of papers are identified, authors disambiguated, with significant progress on the use of the four million ORCID IDs for researchers, and proposals formulated to identify methodology in a machine-readable way. P4510 on Wikidata has been introduced so that methodology can sit comfortably on items about papers. More is on the way. OABot applies the unpaywall principle to Wikipedia referencing. It has been proposed that Wikidata could assist WorldCat in compiling the global history of book translation. Watch this space. And make promoting #1lib1ref one of your New Year's resolutions. Happy holidays, all! November 2017 map of geolocated Wikidata items, made by Addshore Links WikidataCon: Giving more people more access to more knowledge, report by Peter Kraker of Open Knowledge Maps This is a story of my knowledge adventure in New Zealand moths via Wikicommons, Wikipedia and Wikidata, @SiobhanLeachman Wikidata and Arabic dialects, research paper, DOI: 10.1109/AICCSA.2017.115 c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/georeferencing status, Mechanical Curator project on Commons hits 50K maps milestone Historical dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text: Who wrote this?, by Tilman Bayer, WMF blogpost "Anyone can edit", not everyone does: Wikipedia and the gender gap (PDF), journal paper, Heather Ford and Judy Wajcman Alpha Zero’s "Alien" Chess Shows the Power, and the Peculiarity, of AI, MIT Technology Review, by Will Knight, December 8, 2017 To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018

Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018 Metadata on the March From the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing. Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by sadads, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost. SVG pedestrian crosses road Zebra crossing/crosswalk, Singapore Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata. For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met. Links 1lib1ref campaign starts today, see m:The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref: also #1lib1ref introductory video by Felix Nartey Funders should mandate open citations, article 9 January 2018 in Nature by David Shotton From snowflake to avalanche: Possibilities of using free citation data in libraries, translation from the German original of Annette Klein, Mannheim University Library outreach:GLAM/Newsletter/December 2017/Contents/WMF GLAM report Why Mickey Mouse’s 1998 copyright extension probably won't happen again: Copyrights from the 1920s will start expiring next year if Congress doesn't act, Timothy B. Lee, 8 January 2018, Arstechnica To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ChemElem

Module:ChemElem has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the module's entry on the Templates for discussion page. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Infobox drug question

Hi DePiep. Since you seem to be most active in maintaining {{infobox drug}}, can I ask you to have a look at the discussion I have started at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#3D_model_(JSmol)? Thank you. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Advice on convictions

I've found that it's often useful to periodically reassess one's convictions. Not doing so while ignoring valid points made by many others will make it very difficult for people to take you seriously.   ~ Tom.Reding ((talk ⋅dgaf)  15:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)|talk]] ⋅dgaf)  15:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I have read this post. It has a nasty smell. Why did not the author communicate about this before? Why does not the author refer to that ugly, WP:PA, trolling smear of "trolling"? Why does this author not post a straight question while on someone else's talkspage? Why not self-evaluated their own contributions? Questions, question all around. And a nasty smell. -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tom.Reding. I just tried starting to click & read you post links, but I discovered that your "three" links in "Not doing so" above are actually four links. My question is this: did we ever met before, and if so, is there a reason that you are this nasty dishonest communicator? Is there any reason for you to be this indirect and suggestive? Anything you really want to ask me, as in: "open"? -DePiep (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

My only interaction with you, as far as I can recall atm, was during those linked discussions. I've provided my constructive criticism based on my observations there, since I saw this theme persist for about a month (as opposed to a temporarily-heated debate, which I wouldn't have necessarily commented on here). As with any advice, feel free to ignore it, as you wish.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:53, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

No. Your OP here is paternalistic and selective. It's just that you agreed beforehand with (passive-agressive talk attitide) headbomb all along, and so you did not see my reasonings. I changed my "conviction" (actually: intentions & angles) multiple times. You could have read them (e.g., see below). Also, I can point out my contributions that "enwiki" (headbomb) implemented without attribution -- that was their attitude & approach all along: don't give in, bark against, and then in practice silently admit by implementing those ideas. In short: your "constructive criticism based on my observations" coould use a check themselves. You did not convince me there & then, let alone here & now. - DePiep (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

• (ce) 2/ Tom.Reding I left that discussion right after I replied to someone who called me "trolling". Of course you will recognise that point (it was headbomb, and I don't recall you standing up against that PA. Thanks Tom.Reding!). Did not read or follow anything there since. Now you come back here to give "advice" on "convictions"?

Actually, these are the links you should read first, know, and only then maybe link to:

1. #Deploy_auto-categorization

2. #Let's_define_and_create_a_new_category

3. #CAT:infobox_templates

4. 5#RFC:_Autopopulate_Category:Infobox_templates_when_we_can

Then, after reading & understanding these, you may ask me open questions (not give paternalistic "advice"). Expect that I may ask counterquestions. (Such as: why did you link that selective? Why don't you mention the "trolling" PA? Why did you not see the various changes in my reasoning?). Only then, Tom.Reding. - DePiep (talk) 01:03, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

template issue

Template:USS is not working (see USS Enterprise (CVN-65)). I see you recently edited it. Do you know what's going on? Can you fix it? This is affecting every ship article right now. Thanks - ^theWOLFchild 19:10, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for acting. Thewolfchild. A mistake, now fixed. - DePiep (talk) 19:27, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Update: Whatever you did has been undone which has fixed the problem for now. But above where I had put "see" Enterprise as an example, with the template it looked like this: USS Enterprise (#if:CVN-65)|#if:|{{{3}}}}}|up=}} (linked to page not found). FYI - ^theWOLFchild 19:30, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes is was devastating. (What I tried to do to {{USS}}: 1. allow |up= to function, and 2. remove the subst option. In the process I removed {{ brackets, which is not a good way to keep templates working). It has been done correctly now. - DePiep (talk) 19:35, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost issue 4 – 29 March 2018

• Op-ed: Death knell for The Signpost?

• News and notes: Wiki Conference roundup and new appointments.

• Arbitration report: Ironing out issues in infoboxes; not sure yet about New Jersey; and an administrator who probably wasn't uncivil to a sockpuppet.

• In the media: The media on Wikipedia's workings: the good and not-so-good

• Traffic report: Real sports, real women and an imaginary country: what's on top for Wikipedia readers

• Featured content: Animals, Ships, and Songs

• Technology report: Timeless skin review by Force Radical.

• Special report: ACTRIAL wrap-up.

• Humour: WikiWorld Reruns

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks (re my "Anchor" template miscodings)

Many thanks for catching and correcting my miscodings in the "Anchor" template. Apologies for having created so many incorrect uses of it—and for your patience in correcting each. I'm truly grateful. Lesson learned! Timbuk-2 (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

No need to apologise, this is wikipedia! BTW, I used this tools. -DePiep (talk) 20:22, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

IPA fixes

You're doing it again – stop "correcting" IPA templates with invalid parameters unless you are 100% certain what the intended input was. Otherwise you are practically vandalizing articles. Nardog (talk) 20:37, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

You really mean to say that the input was *intentionally* invisible and useless? Quite simple, this is how Wikipedia works: every edit that is an improvement is OK. -DePiep (talk)

You are hurting the quality of articles, not improving it. For example, as for this diff, whoever instated it clearly meant, by {{IPA|/d/|/dˤ/}}, just {{IPA|/d/}}, not {{IPA|/d/ or /dˤ/}} as you "corrected" it, because {{IPA|/d/|/dˤ/}} just yields the same as {{IPA|/d/}}. The editor inadvertently left |/dˤ/ and never meant that /dˤ/ was an alternative, and didn't even notice it was there because it's invisible in preview. Likewise, you have to examine each instance with the context in mind before you make a "correction", or you would be indeed hurting Wikipedia. Nardog (talk) 20:55, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

"Hurting" is associated with BF. No editor is required to be "100% certain" for an edit, is not how WP works. -DePiep (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Name culture/main1

Template:Name culture/main1 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 16:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

February 2018

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at WP:VPT. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. If you have a problem with someone else's comment about you, then you can bring it up at the appropriate venue, like WP:ANI, but there was no reason to make that last comment. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see and reply [7]. -DePiep (talk) 01:36, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Oh you even did this: [8]. Whatever. All you admins kiss each others ass, but criticising behaviour is not allowed. Got it. BTW, to be clear: Focquenbeam did PA. -DePiep (talk) 01:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

And to be clear: Deacon Vorbis}, I strongly request you revert the VPT deletion you made (i.e., re-install my post). -DePiep (talk) 01:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, and I'm not kissing any of their asses here. I thought Floquenbeam's post was a bit heavy-handed, but based on your subsequent behavior, I understand the reason behind it (people were trying hard to help you, yet you refused to provide details when asked for clarification). On the other hand, you decided to come back just to engage in name-calling. Under no circumstances is that okay. As I said above, if you think Floquenbeam's comment about you wasn't kosher, then there are ways to address that, but calling names isn't one of those ways. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 01:53, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I thought Floquenbeam's post was a bit heavy-handed -- a nice way to say it. I say: a PA. Whether you are admin or not: you reverted deleted and choose F's side. Please revert that VPT thing [9], and don't ever come back promoting F's ass. It was a PA, but you will survive because I am not an admin. - DePiep (talk) 01:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I haven't chosen anyone's side. There are no sides here. You posted a pure personal attack (after the conversation was basically over, which made it especially bad, as it served no purpose but to fan flames), and I reverted it. I'm not going to put it back. I highly suggest you WP:DROPTHESTICK and walk away. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes you did: Instead of deleting, you could have asked me consideration. But you choose to delete true criticism. You first judged 'Floquenbeam' was OK, then judged my reply was not OK. Note that you *deleted*, not discussed. Deacon Vorbis-DePiep (talk) 02:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

So: instead of asking & starting a talk, you deleted and did no talk. You delete a discussion? Really? -DePiep (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Milkshake frapped up

Your edit produced an error: a frappe (/[invalid input: '/fɹæˈpeɪ/']/ frap-PAY) or "frap" — wbm1058 (talk) 20:30, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

also this edit left an error too. wbm1058 (talk) 20:32, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

... and this one too. wbm1058 (talk) 20:34, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Wbm1058 That turned out really bad, yes. Glad you solved it (keeping {{IPAc-en}} etc ;-) ), thanks. -DePiep (talk) 21:52, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, I'm the one who corrected them, not Wbm1058—but that's not what's relevant. In fact I had to review every one of your "fixes" regarding IPA templates and almost all of them had to be fixed or improved in some way or another. A lot of them were simple mistakes like leaving slashes inside an IPA-xx template, which automatically adds brackets. Please be careful when doing such a mass edit. Nardog (talk) 17:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

That is what we do: improve this wiki, step by step. -DePiep (talk)

The Signpost: 20 February 2018

• News and notes: The future is Swedish with a lack of administrators

• Recent research: Politically diverse editors write better articles; Reddit and Stack Overflow benefit from Wikipedia but don't give back

• Arbitration report: Arbitration committee prepares to examine two new cases

• Traffic report: Addicted to sports and pain

• Featured content: Entertainment, sports and history

• Technology report: Paragraph-based edit conflict screen; broken thanks

• Humour: Impossible and unexplained traffic report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 February 2018

• Op-ed: Do editors have the right to be forgotten?

• Featured content: Wars, sieges, disasters and everything black possible

• Recent research: Automated Q&A from Wikipedia articles; Who succeeds in talk page discussions?

• Blog: New monthly dataset shows where people fall into Wikipedia rabbit holes

• Interview: Interview with The Rambling Man, Wikipedia's top contributor of Featured Lists

• Traffic report: TV, death, sports, and doodles

• Special report: Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative

• Arbitration report: New cases requested for inter-editor hostility and other collaboration issues

• In the media: Solving crime; editing out violence allegations

• Humour: You really are in Wonderland

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2018

• News and notes: Communication is key

• In the media: The Paris Review, British Crown and British Media

• Featured content: History, gaming and multifarious topics

• Interview: Interview with Ser Amantio di Nicolao, the top contributor to English Wikipedia by edit count

• Technology report: Dedicated Wikidata database servers

• Humour: Why don't we have an article about _________?

• Arbitration report: Mister Wiki is first arbitration committee decision of 2018

• Traffic report: The best and worst of 2017

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Your last edit

I can understand the notion on overlinking. But what's wrong with articles?--R8R (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I think you refer to lead. All elements have that similar opening sentence. In there, symbol is such a common word, there is no need to link it. That it is a chemical symbol is clear from context. -DePiep (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That is clear and not argued with. But the sentence was

"Lead is a chemical element with the symbol Pb (from the Latin plumbum) and the atomic number 82"

and now is

"Lead is a chemical element with symbol Pb (from the Latin plumbum) and atomic number 82."

What was wrong with the removed "the"s? Maybe you can explain that grammatically but I'd love to be sure that the very first sentence of an article is correct, so in that case, please do.--R8R (talk) 11:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I can not describe (prove) it gramatically, but I have the impression that "the" is not needed in there. -DePiep (talk) 11:41, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I've reformatted R8R's note above so that I can easily read and compare them. They both read well to my en:us ears. But I think either of them would be better without the "the" before "Latin". YBG (talk) 16:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Do you know the grammatical background to add/remove the the? -DePiep (talk) 16:27, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Ooh, that's good to know. I cannot decide which one seems right and I am not sure about grammar behind this, so that's a relief to know both seem okay to you. If you know which is not only okay but right, please let us know.--R8R (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I learned a new term today: the "zero article" which is when English does not use any article (a/an/the) in front of a noun. On this web page, it says When we use a noun with a preposition we often do not use an article (that is, we just use the noun on its own). In the above lede sentences, the preposition "with" governs both "symbol" and "atomic number". Note that the reference says we often do not, so it seems to me that we are free to use either the definite article or the zero article. Always nice to learn something new! YBG (talk) 23:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting. I can actually recall the concept of the zero article. I can't say I am familiar with it, but after I read these words from you, I remembered how my teacher tried to explain it to us when I was around the age of ten, which in all honesty she should not have even tried: we were children learning a foreign language, not a bunch of linguists. In the end, we came to a consensus: it didn't really matter and we could think of no article rather than a zero article if we wished (which we did).

Thank you for tackling the problem! It's great to know we can use both.

P.S. I am really fascinated by the ambiguity of the English grammar: you can do this or you can do that. I remember wondering why nobody or nothing ever taught me the English punctuation, for instance, and when I tried to learn that myself, I found out that you have to put a comma between two adjectives (which makes sense) but you don't have to if the two are short and you don't really feel like it. After the strict grammar/punctuation rules of my native language, that seemed very bizarre. I tried to find out what adjectives are even short but it seems I am left to my own thinking. It took me some time to get used to the idea that some grammar or punctuation was up to my judgment. :) --R8R (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is interesting to me - for quite a number of reasons, starting with the fact this is a term and concept that I, a native speaker, had never heard before - and you, an L2 speaker, learnt when you were so young. There are probably many factors that contribute to the ascendency of descriptive linguistics over prescriptive linguistics in English. For one, when English was becoming an international lingua franca in the late 1800s, neither the US nor the UK had a clear claim to be the owner of the language. Related to this is the conspicuous absence of English in the list of language regulators. And finally, there is way English indiscriminately and promiscuously borrows from every language it has come into contact with. YBG (talk) 04:43, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

I fully understand that. I remember once seeing a book on Russian as a foreign language and that gave me a new perspective on the language. I remember being genuinely surprised foreigners are taught things that I've never been. By the way, even as much as I use it, English is still foreign to me rather than L2. That doesn't cover up for my mistakes, which I make not because I can't speak/write correctly but rather because I am too easily carried away before the moment it takes to formulate your ideas in words and then can't pay enough attention to spot them. I remember being surprised when I was five or fifteen that people confused "it's" and "its"; now I understand knowing grammar well still does not prevent you from making mistakes.

The U.S.-UK argument is a little strange to me. They surely could have established a National/Royal Academy of the English language in the United States and the United Kingdom, accordingly, to govern the language as it was used within their countries. As I can see from the list of regulators you've suggested, French has one regulator in France and one in Quebec (and none in Western and Central Africa). On the other hand, could it be that the countries just don't want to regulate anything they can? For instance, it would take a strong governmental policy to finally introduce the metric system to the United States, and nobody has done it yet :)

Yes, I've had the feeling that after having English as my first foreign language it would be easier to learn basically any other Western European language (and it did help me with German, though this is not quite as notable as it could be for French).--R8R (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

• R8R, YBG Fellows, do you mind If I copy/paste this to WT:ELEMENTS? (or top parts?) I'd like to have a sound result, because it appears in all element articles. And, stressful to me, the ugly form also in Wikidata d:Q623. -DePiep (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

  I suggest the following

  1. Copy this section through my edit of 23:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC) or through R8R's of 01:24, 2 December 2017 (UTC) to a new section of WP:ELEM (=="The" in lede sentence== perhaps?) with a suitable header saying it was copied from special:permalink/813128402#Your last edit or special:permalink/813142948#Your last edit respectively.
  2. Continue the discussion at WP:ELEM, with the suggestion that the same change be made in all element articles
  3. Archive this section to remove it from this talk page
  4. Add a copy of the section to my talk page (or R8R's) if one or the other of us wishes to continue our rambling, again, with a suitable header referencing the source.

  I'd do this myself, but want to ask for input from others first. Thanks, DePiep, for hosting our rambling discussion. By the way, it wasn't immediately clear what was stressful to you; at first I thought it might be that R8R and I were carrying on a tangential discussion on your talk page, but after looking a second time at the wikidata reference, I now think it is the presence of the superfluous definite article that is causing you stress. In either case, I trust you can find relief from your stress in a way that is not dependent on the actions of others, be they rambling fellow editors or the fickleness of consensus. YBG (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Nah, "stressful" is ;-) referring to me having trouble getting to work WD with this wiki (re elements). Will do along lines you mention. - DePiep (talk) 15:30, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Personally, I do not mind at all. YBG's plan seems great.--R8R (talk) 17:21, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Wayward abbr=on

That's me not checking Word edits adequately, apologies. Keith-264 (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey Keith-264, I'm only doing a technical a cross-check. No need to apologise! (But please act when I get something wrong). -DePiep (talk)

I know but it's galling to put work on other people. Regards ;O) Keith-264 (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Aargh, missed another one. ;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals/Lists of pages/Articles

Does this page (and others like it) have any purpose? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 13:12, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

@Headbomb: As its parent page describes: used in {{Recent changes in Academic Journals}} (more similar in Category:Recent changes boxes (9)). I guess you'll recognise the usefulness, and the drawbacks. -DePiep (talk) 21:18, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

The pages are so massive they pretty much can't load and produce a crap ton of 'what links here' results. I remember there's a better way of getting a recent change list, which can be updated live. I'll try to recall it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

See this discussion. My solution works well, but only in the talk namespaces. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Good. Note that the page size in bytes is no issue in actual usage (the page is not loaded into the browser, it stays on the server side). Manual update is biggest issue (especially because more recent articles are most interesting). I don't see the issue with WLH. I did the talk/nontalk completing using WP:AWB. Big WikiProjects (like WP:MEDICNE, 15k+ articles) not only need a split for page size reason (<1 megabytes), also the edits per day exceeds 500, so even a daily check (1x/24h) would miss many edits.

I remember last December there was a invitation to list desired technical improvements (for the 2017 budget or so), where an expanded Related Changes was mentioned. -DePiep (talk) 08:08, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Page size is an issue in that these pages take forever to load. As for the WLH clutter, I do cleanup on a lot of journal citations, and I'll update links from bad spellings to proper spellings, and I can land on those pages several times per day by accident. It's particularly bad if on my laptop. It'll freeze for a minute or two before I can do anything else. Desktop only freezes for a few seconds (which is still annoying AF). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:55, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

That's bad, esp the accidental freezing. Sure mw could make better options (while today, the newest RC Special page can be slow anyway, IMO). For now, I'd say not enough reason to delete these. -DePiep (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Yeah not for now, but if that ticket gets adopted/rolled out and better RC support, then we can get rid of those pages. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:04, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, what does this page provide that a category couldn't provide? YBG (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

1. Both talkpage and subjectpage, showing all activity. 2. All in one list (RC can read only one page to process). (and 3. Tailored when needed eg subset in larsge projects like WP:MEDICINE). -DePiep (talk) 05:44, 5 November 2017 (UTC) YBG -DePiep (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Reverts

If you want to engage in an edit war regarding rare-earth stuff, at least do not revert legitimate edits, as you did here and here. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 04:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The factual assumption you make here is not correct, and so your opinion is not correct either. Nor is the tone. -DePiep (talk) 08:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2017

• News and notes: Money! WMF fundraising, Wikimedia strategy, WMF new office!

• Featured content: Don, Marcel, Emily, Jessica and other notables

• Humour: Guys named Ralph

• In focus: Offline Wikipedia developed at OFF.NETWORK Content Hackathon

• Blog: The future of offline access to Wikipedia: The Kiwix example

• In the media: Facebook and poetry

• Special report: Working with GLAMs in the UK

• Traffic report: Death, disaster, and entertainment

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Here's a pic we somehow missed in the last element-naming last year

File:Molar volumes of liquid and solid phase of elements.jpg: could I humbly ask you for another demonstration of your excellent standards of vectorisation and element-symbol replacing for ₁₁₃Nh, ₁₁₅Mc, ₁₁₇Ts, and ₁₁₈Og? Thank you! ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 03:14, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Great graph, wonderful!-DePiep (talk) 23:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017

Facto Post – Issue 6 – 15 November 2017 WikidataCon Berlin 28–9 October 2017 WikidataCon 2017 group photo Under the heading rerum causas cognescere, the first ever Wikidata conference got under way in the Tagesspiegel building with two keynotes, One was on YAGO, about how a knowledge base conceived ten years ago if you assume automatic compilation from Wikipedia. The other was from manager Lydia Pintscher, on the "state of the data". Interesting rumours flourished: the mix'n'match tool and its 600+ datasets, mostly in digital humanities, to be taken off the hands of its author Magnus Manske by the WMF; a Wikibase incubator site is on its way. Announcements came in talks: structured data on Wikimedia Commons is scheduled to make substantive progress by 2019. The lexeme development on Wikidata is now not expected to make the Wiktionary sites redundant, but may facilitate automated compilation of dictionaries. WD-FIST explained And so it went, with five strands of talks and workshops, through to 11 pm on Saturday. Wikidata applies to GLAM work via metadata. It may be used in education, raises issues such as author disambiguation, and lends itself to different types of graphical display and reuse. Many millions of SPARQL queries are run on the site every day. Over the summer a large open science bibliography has come into existence there. Wikidata's fifth birthday party on the Sunday brought matters to a close. See a dozen and more reports by other hands. Links Wikidata statistics I4OC progress in its first year, with 47% of scientific citation data now open (announced two days ago) The flowering ORCID, Magnus Manske blogpost on identifying authors of scientific papers @querybook, a Twitter feed devoted to SPARQL queries Massive progress on Wikidata coverage of the UK parliament Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018

Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018 m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look. Wikidata as Hub One way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites. Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8. Wikipedia:External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by maxlath takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL. Links What galleries, libraries, archives, and museums can teach us about multimedia metadata on Wikimedia Commons, Wikimedia Foundation blogpost, 29 January 2018, by Jonathan Morgan and Sandra Fauconnier m:The Wikipedia Library/1Lib1Ref/Connect, 2018 institutional participation in the #1lib1ref campaign Newspeak House queries, created at 3 February 2018 event in London led by Magnus Manske Cochrane–Wikipedia Initiative, Wikipedia Signpost special report 5 February 2018, by JenOttowa What is the Last Question?, 5 February 2018 To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below. Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 November 2017

• News and notes: Cons, cons, cons

• Arbitration report: Administrator desysoped; How to deal with crosswiki issues; Mister Wiki case likely

• Technology report: Searching and surveying

• Interview: A featured article centurion

• WikiProject report: Recommendations for WikiProjects

• In the media: Open knowledge platform as a media institution

• Traffic report: Strange and inappropriate

• Featured content: We will remember them

• Recent research: Who wrote this? New dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text

• Humour: Good faith (but still incomprehensible)

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

off topic cats? Suggestion

Did I misread, or are you perhaps not familiar with conflict resources?.

The article spends a fair amount of time on cobalt and its chemical characteristics, yes. That is, as it sits right now, its primary topic. However, the production of cobalt and cotran in the DR Congo is NOT at all a routine chemical process, and did yes, involve well-documented use of slave and child labor. And was intimately involved in the slaughter of the Tutsis by the Hutus lo these many times also, btw. Yes it did and yes it was. Now, I had been on another page for a little bit, titled ethics and mining of cobalt in the DRC (or something to that effect). It needs a lot of work too and may be a POV fork but once I deal with those problems it will be a nice subtopic page for a see also, perhaps. I don't want to load the page down with a TON of horror stories from history and the current supply chain. This is a top-level survey page.

Anyway, but.

What I am trying to say is yo dude, I am actively working on the thing *right now*, and tho I would have been nice if you had noticed that, ok, fine, I can see how some of those categories might not have seemed yet to be belong. Can you please give this a little space rather than biting my ankles? I am working on both coltran and cobalt so I am not sure what is on which page without looking, and I am already spending way too much time on this post, but I guarantee you that when I am done there will be a substantive and extremely well-referenced discussion of child labor and unfree work in the production of these minerals that justifies the categories I am about to revert, OR just a summary with the substantive discussion and category on a subpage. Egad. I promise, Mommy.

I can see why the categories would look odd if you were just breezing through doing a recent changes patrol, so when I revert you I will make sure to say I am reverting a good faith edit, but I am going to revert you, my friend, unless you want to give me a good reason why I shouldn't. But you don't seem like a discuss-the-change kinda guy... oh well. Trying to model appropriate behaviour for you.

As for both cobalt and cobalt production as category, yes they *are* both on-topic, mira:

• Cobalt is this stuff (chemical discussion/definition goes here; not going to touch theuse sections for substance, although I will do (have done?) a copy edit and added some wikilinks.
• it has always been subject to shortages but since the conflict Elon Musk came along with electric cars, whose batteries require the stuff (reason one for notability - economics)
• cobalt and coltran were furthermore used to finance genocidal war crimes in DR Congo.(reason 2 for notability besides its chemistry) It's not me saying this, btw, I was looking up the quote from the United Nations report when I noticed stuff seemed to be missing and saw your changes. Is the way the stuff is magicked into our iPhones not a characteristic of the stuff itself? It definitely should be discussed. And if any substantive discussion is on the page, more than say, five paragraphs, it's not as ridiculous as you make it sound to use both categories. If the stuff gets to our iPhones by means of child labor then this too is an Important Thing (TM) deserving of substantive discussion, attribution and follow-up. And a category so people reading up on child labor can FIND the sustantive discussion If this substantive discussion gets moved to a subpage then I promise to move the category there rather than leave it on the summary, k?
• Lord's Army, ever hear of them? That militia was running some of the mines, and it was absolutely kidnapping civilians (especially children), mostly for work in the mines but also for sex slaves and child soldiers (reason #3 for notability), questions about measures to be taken therefore.

These are all things that need to be in a what-is-coltran or what-is-cobalt article. And the categories should reflect the page, no?

All these true and important and to-be-referenced statements about these minerals *do* belong in a top-level discussion of what is coltran or what is cobalt. Possiby some stuff will need to be reorganized and some of it may need to move to a sub-page or two but.... dude, either help me with this or let me do without explaining to you every five minutes what I am doing. The article didn't discuss important aspects of its topic for who knows how many years so including this stuff at all is an improvement.

I understand why you thought it looked wrong, but I have explained now, and suggested a good way to collaborate if you aren't sure what I am doing. Let me *do* it and *then* I will be happy to discuss -- whatever. If you are concerned about these articles then check back on them in a day or so, is my suggestion -- make that request -- and we can then talk any concerns or desires to reorganize that you may have. But honest, I am an very experienced editor who mainly works on de-gibberishing articles about corruption in the third world. I am in my area of expertise and have spent the last several days editing the articles that cover the history of this. Now I want to fix the social science/business angles of the topic. My main concern is the best way to break the material up if it gets long, which it may well. Possibly I will be looking for suggestions in a couple of days about that. Or at least be open to them.

Meanwhile, sorry not sorry, but I *really* think you read too fast and assumed some things that are not so. Also, I am, as you see, right here. You might have asked a question on the talk page hmm, rather than assuming I would be all smitten with the obvious correctness of your actions. But Ok. Fine. Nice to meet you and btw, I am serious, I would welcome some (helpful? respectful?) help. Otherwise please go away and come back in a couple of days, ta, thanks Elinruby (talk) 01:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

You editsummary mentions "good faith" but in this I had to strike some appalling personal judgements. Also, some nonwiki like attitudes wrt my behaviour (to be clear: I don't need prior permission from you to maker this edit). This hindred me reading this all, because I'm not willing to do the work for you of eliminating your bad faith that crept in. I don't feel invited to discuss or explain. -DePiep (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox ethnic group

Hi,

In March you edited Template:Infobox ethnic group to include <pre></pre> at the top (before the infobox). The effect this has is the appearance of an empty box for preformatted text, i.e.

on the top of any pages which transclude this infobox – see for example Gaels. I assume this was not your intention. Could you please fix this? Would've done it myself, but I don't have template editor rights.--Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 20:51, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I'm sorry. Hope it is OK now. - DePiep (talk) 20:56, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't appear you've made any changes? The issue is definitely still there. --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 22:28, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox ethnic group

Hi DePiep. Did you mean to put the <pre></pre> tags at the top of that infobox? It bumps everything down when it renders on an article and it seems like an odd placement considering there is nothing in the tags. --Majora (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Majora No, that was bad. Undid it. - DePiep (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! --Majora (talk) 23:16, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Next time: be bold & do it yourself ;-) - DePiep (talk) 23:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Would if I could but I can't. It is template protected. Thought I'd come to the source instead of filing an edit request. Seems to have worked out nicely (and probably much quicker). --Majora (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

OK - DePiep (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

OOPS, right above I was warned about the same issue ... - DePiep (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Glad it's sorted now! :D --Newbiepedian (talk · C · X! · L) 01:10, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Border protests

You violated 1RR on 2018 Gaza border protests. Please self-revert or I will have to report you. No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 00:08, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:DYKbox

Is it possible that you've been as active as you are and still unaware of WP:3RR? With your fourth revert on DYKbox today, you are now in violation of it. Just so you can't say you weren't warned when you keep this up and get blocked for it:

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. 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 your 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.

—David Eppstein (talk) 04:13, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:DePiep and DYK. Vanamonde (talk) 11:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

if something's

going on, take care of yourself. This is a very stressful hobby. You are a valued contributor, but the aberrations are troubling. Hell, I took three years off, came back refreshed. (hopefully it won't take you that long. Just sayin')-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Temporary topic ban

Hi, this is a notice that you have been temporarily topic banned from making or proposing edits outside of mainspace and user space pending further discussion and your participation in the AN/I thread, based on the consensus emerged from this discussion.

This editing restriction has been logged here. Alex Shih (talk) 03:39, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

May 2018

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for I think it is pretty clear that your sudden absence from the project is intended to dodge discussing the issues brought up at ANI. I also note that when you have been blocked in the past, you may complain about it but generally do not file actual unblock requests and instead just ride out the block and return when it expires, eventually repeating some or all of the same problematic behaviors. This block is intended to interrupt that pattern and force you to actually address the issues instead of hiding and dodging. Any admin may unblock without feeling obligated to consult me iff this user agrees that the ANI thread about their behavior will be re-opened, no matter how long it has been, and they will actively particiate in discussion there so that a reasonable conclusion may be reached..

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 ~~~~}}.  Beeblebrox (talk) 18:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

DePiep (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I hereby request unblocking for the reason as Beeblebrox described above (flesh out the ANI thread). That is, I intend to edit only in the ANI thread until that is solved. I do note that my absence was not "dodging"; instead, as I wrote, I was not able to read & reply in a serious and cmplicatred thread and so postponed replying until that limit was solved. - DePiep (talk) 19:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Accept reason:

I have unblocked you to participate in the ANI discussion. Please remember that the community-imposed topic ban remains in effect until that discussion is resolved. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 May 2018

• From the editor: Another issue meets the deadline

• Op-ed: Has the wind gone out of the AdminShip's sails?

• Opinion: Integrating my many lives on Wikipedia

• WikiProject report: WikiProject Portals

• Discussion report: User rights, infoboxes, and more discussion on portals

• Featured content: Featured content selected by the community

• Arbitration report: Managing difficult topics

• News and notes: Lots of Wikimedia

• In the media: Wikipedia in Turkish politics; COI politics in Wikipedia; most cited work

• Traffic report: We love our superheroes

• Technology report: A trove of contributor and developer goodies

• Blog: Why I write about women on Wikipedia

• Recent research: Why people don't contribute to Wikipedia; using Wikipedia to teach statistics, technical writing, and controversial issues

• Humour: Play with your food

• Gallery: Wine not?

• From the archives: The Signpost scoops The Signpost

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 24 May 2018 (UTC)