Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Bagumba (talk | contribs) at 20:37, 1 August 2015 (→July 2015: questions to @DeDiep, cmt to @YBG). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 8 as User talk:DePiep/Archive 7 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.

		100000 Edits
		Congratulations on reaching 100000 edits. You have achieved a milestone that very few editors have been able to accomplish. The Misplaced Pages Community thanks you for your continuing efforts. Keep up the good work!

	The Special Barnstar
	For your thoughtful, poetic contribution about learning chemistry, and the value of informative categories in science. You have my respect. Sandbh (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

	The Technical Barnstar
	Thank you so much for all of your amazing work with the Chembox - and for putting up with all of my OSH data requests. :) You're awesome! Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 01:19, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	For creating the 'recent changes' pane for WPMed. Wonderful! LT910001 (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

	The Non-metallic Barnstar for improving the Periodic Table You've done a whole damn lot for our project. You've actually made it better. Please keep up.--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

		What a Brilliant Idea Barnstar
		For turning the trivial names of groups table in the periodic table article into a visual feast for the eyes Sandbh (talk) 13:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

		The Template Barnstar
		For repeated improvements on templates used in phonetics articles. Particularly admirable is the combination of seeking out explicit consensus and dutifully carrying out necessary changes once it is reached. — Ƶ§œš¹ 14:51, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

		The Guidance Barnstar
		You're the hero of the day on this pickle of a problem. Thanks for the insight. VanIsaacWS 23:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	For your amazing work with the graph. It appears now better than what I thought of it to be before! With your learning ability, you're all up to be an awesome graphic designer, in addition to your template skills! Thanks, man R8R Gtrs (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

		The Socratic Barnstar
		Thank you for all your suggestion and opinion (as here or here) which are really very helpful. Tito Dutta (talk) 13:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16

OneClickArchiver

I noticed your archive at talk convert resulting in Template talk:Convert/Archive 1. However there is a problem because the bot follows a remarkably clever system so the current archive is actually Template talk:Convert/Archive May 2015. It looks like OneClickArchiver should not be used at that page. Johnuniq (talk) 08:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Chembox changes breaking infoboxes

Your Chembox changes are breaking infoboxes. Examples: Cacodyl, Thiepine, Hydroperoxyl, Methyl radical, Hydroxyl radical, Cocamidopropyl betaine --Bamyers99 (talk) 19:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

re Bamyers99. Dammit. (Background: in Cacodyl a closing }} was removed unintended, together with |ExactMass=... . Reinserted now ). I'll fix these. Do you have a way to list all of them? -DePiep (talk) 20:05, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That was all that I found in this list of Template without correct end. --Bamyers99 (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

That's it then. Thanks for taking care. -DePiep (talk) 20:16, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Iodine infobox

Hi. I added the comment that Iodine is sometimes considered a metalloid because the metalloid article indicated this. Also, the comment that Phosphorus is sometimes considered a metalloid on that element's infobox seemed to me to legitimise the adding of the same statement to the one in the Iodine article. If you still consider Iodine's inclusion as a metalloid too rare to justify reference in its infobox, I would be glad to hear where you believe the line should be drawn for the info boxes of other rarely recognised 'metalloids'. Aardwolf A380 (talk) 11:33, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes it is mentioned in there. Based on the List of sources I linked to, and by what is stated in metalloid ("very rarely", if at all), I draw the line with the <=5% group. This "rarely, if at all" grade should or can be described in the article text, but does not merit a formalizing in the infobox. We might wan to draw the same line for all <=5% elements. Note: better continue at Talk:metalloid or WT:ELEMENTS, this is not a personal thing. -DePiep (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Accessibility of tables

Hi ! Have you seen my reply at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Accessibility#Complex_tables.2C_accessibility.2C_and_Wikipedia ? Cheers, Dodoïste (talk) 21:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Apparently erroneous edit

Can you please double-check this edit? It appears that you changed the Propadiene article to be about a different topic altogether (i.e., about Proadifen), which resulted in a confused RM request (see Talk:Propadiene). —BarrelProof (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

ISO 15924 codes updated

Hi, the ISO 15924 codes were updated on 7 July. BabelStone (talk) 10:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Using AWB to handle deprecated parameters

Hi! I was referred to you by an admin at the registration for AWB as someone who knows a good deal about what I'm interested in using AWB for. I'm a first-time user of the program, so at the risk of sounding idiotic, I was hoping to run what I plan to use it for by an editor experienced with the program.

I plan to use AWB to help somewhat with replacing deprecated parameters. I believe you're familiar with the situation with Template:Infobox gridiron football person, as you helped me already with creating a category of the articles needing review (thanks, by the way). In particular, I'm planning to do the following:

If the article does not contain "<br>" OR "<br/>" OR "</br>" OR .... (I'll put in all the spacing possibilities, etc, here):

Find "playing_years" and replace with "playing_year1". Find "playing_teams" and replace with "playing_team1". And a few other simple find and replace commands with no possibility for accidentally replacing the text in the article.

The idea is to automate the simplest of the replacement by isolating the articles in which new parameters do not need to be added, and then doing a simple replacement of the deprecated parameter with the new parameter. I don't plan to touch the more complicated cases where the parameter values must be split into multiple parameters with AWB; it seems like that would be fairly difficult to do with automation. I'm sure it's possible, but I'd likely spend longer figuring it out than I would if I just manually did them.

I plan to turn general fixes off for this. As a major issue with these articles is the use of <br>, I don't want the general fixes that handle that mark-up to interfere with the articles. It likely would do more harm than good.

Does anything from this jump out at you as something likely to cause a problem? Any general pointers that might help a first-time user (beyond reading the manual, which I've taken a good look at and will read again before starting)? I'd appreciate any time/comments you put in towards helping me get this thing running. ~ Rob 04:05, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob13, it looks like some bot is doing the edits at this moment. A few hours ago there were 6700 pages in the category, now its 5200 5160 and counting down at a rate of 1/sec!

As for AWB: That can work, but it would help only a small number of articles. My general advise is: learn using WP:REGEX in AWB. But even with REGEX, it might be hard, esp when there are nested templates present (as can be). That said, and it that bot is not finishing it all today ;-),you could embark. AWB has lots of options to try (preview without saving). :Later more. -DePiep (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I've actually been working at it using AWB after reading up a lot on it, and have gone through an incredible amount. An insane amount of these meet the criteria I listed; many more than I thought. I'm going at a rate of around 5-10/minute. I think this should take care of at least 2500 of the original 7000, which is way better than expected.

Thanks for the advice! I'll look into REGEX for future use if I ever do this type of work again. ~ Rob 16:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Good action! And switching the general's off, now & then check your edits in wikipedia, etc/. So I was off with the number - good too. Further improvements are not easy to explain here. -DePiep (talk) 17:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob13 Let me tip this too. Before you dive into REGEX, it might be worth getting familiar with the more basic AWB options. I had a lot of use for making the right page lists: from categories (with depth maybe), from "outgoing links on a page", what links here, by SpecialPages, transclusions of a template. Also, using the list Filter button, and especially "turn the list into talkpages" (or "...from talkpages" i.e. into subject-pages), saving a list in file: see the List menu. You also have found the 'skip' options etc. I myself never use the 'general standard edits' because they distract from checking my important edits. Success. -DePiep (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for all the advice! I'll definitely follow up on all that before using AWB for anything advanced. ~ Rob 17:44, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Nah, don't be tooo careful: just pick a slightly advanced AWB job and learn some extra tricks with it. Is rewarding. Hands on, studying only may be boring. Wiki allows for learning by mistakes greatly :-) . -DePiep (talk) 17:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I was surfing around Misplaced Pages and noticed this talk. @BU Rob13: if you want to split playing_years into playing_year1, playing_year2 etc. then you could probably contact @Frietjes:. I think she done something like that for cyclists. If not, then sorry - my bad! --Edgars2007 (talk/contribs) 09:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

In working on replacing these deprecated parameters, I've found that many articles with Template:Infobox gridiron football person utilize small text within the infobox, which violates MOS:FONTSIZE. Most of the articles use it in similar ways, so I can address this with AWB easily enough. I just need a category to pull off of. Would it be possible to create a category of all articles using this template that contain any <small> tags? Failing that, a category that just contains all articles using this infobox would at least let me hit the most obvious uses of small text with AWB, although I couldn't ensure that I had removed it all. Is what I'm looking for possible? Thanks! ~ Rob 02:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

BU Rob13: I'd check the parameters that usually have <small> text added (or other style settings?) stringing them together). I think checking all params would be a bit big. Do you have such a list? -DePiep (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The most common are teams,years,playing_teams,playing_years,coaching_teams,coaching_years,administrating_teams,administrating_years,other_teams, and other_years. ~ Rob 15:03, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

 Done. Let me know if anything is wrong. (btw, these are the deprecated params, so they are in the other cat sure!). Better continue at the template talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 17:46, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

July 2015

Wow! A whole seventy-two hours! That's more that I ever got. I thank Johnuniq and YBG for bringing some sense into this, afterwards. Of course I am considering appealing that speedy speedy undeveloped block by Bagumba, but I need a grip (72 hrs says: it's Big, you know). Still, my first and second reading says Bagumba jumped to the conclusion: "DePiep was wrong before, so he must be wrong this time again". On top of this, I note that no discussion evolved at all. No question was asked at all.

To be clear: I note that complainor Alakzi complains about making irrelevant edits, while crying to the mirror. That admin Bagumba falls for this at first sight is not a compliment for the admin corps. I think the best & quick & clean solution is that Bagumba reverts their block. -DePiep (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Oops, forgot I had it archived: . As you can read, crying accusor Alakzi has a problem with me doing edits, but does not grasp their own edits are just as irrelevant. -DePiep (talk) 22:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Check me, but isn't this the crying BF accusor saying "It's not about the template", and then diving into template technicalities, self-righteously? Then saying "I'm not going personal, but " your message is holier-than-thou nonsense. Isn't there a single second serious admin following this? -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) If you'd like to make an unblock request, you will want to reread the block message and apply the appropriate template to ensure a "second serious admin" sees this. ~ Rob 02:53, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

I know. The point is that I asked the blocking admin to reconsider. -DePiep (talk) 07:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

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

Request reason:

Notes:

• In some cases, you may not in fact be blocked, or your block has already expired. Please check the list of active blocks. If no block is listed, then you have been autoblocked by the automated anti-vandalism systems. Please remove this request and follow these instructions instead for quick attention by an administrator.
• Please read our guide to appealing blocks to make sure that your unblock request will help your case. You may change your request at any time.

If you ask the blocking administrator to comment on this request, replace this template with the following, replacing "blocking administrator" with the name of the blocking admin:

{{Unblock on hold |1=blocking administrator |2=I request unblocking because it appears that the blocking admin made a wrong or bad-informed conclusion. First of all, it is hard to see how a zero-effect edit can be called "disruption", but alas. More important is that the admin failed to recognise that the initial ] correct sequence (the D being at ]), was ''left by the other editor'' by going back editing. Quite simply, ''this'' is the start of an edit war. Also, the reporting editor resorted to personal attacks in the original report: "The editor appears to think that it's OK to revert any edits which hurt his personal sensibilities" (and even ), which is plain bad faith and injection. I thought it wise not to take that bait, but the blocking admin did and went along with it: "DePiep appears more intent to defiantly hold on to their code than to explain why it should stay". That is both incorrect (I did explain both in es and talk) and a personal valued judgement about a non-personal text. Finally I note that the blocking admin reasoned to block me ''because of'' previous blocks (which, of course, only adds size to the misjudgement without being a new argument). This way, someone might be blocked ''because'' he was blocked before: unbeatable logic.<br/> I know I am supposed to write here like "Won't do it again", but as explained I do not see exactly ''what'' I'm not supposed to do again. Next time I should take the bait and engage in PAs and BFs at first call? When my opponent leaves the BRD and starts an editwar, I am supposed to do ... what? How do I even prevent a "previous blocks" argument? As advised, I've asked the blocking admin to clarify (see above), to no effect. ] (]) 11:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC) |3 = ~~~~}}

If you decline the unblock request, replace this template with the following code, substituting {{subst:Decline reason here}} with a specific rationale. Leaving the decline reason unchanged will result in display of a default reason, explaining why the request was declined.

{{unblock reviewed |1=I request unblocking because it appears that the blocking admin made a wrong or bad-informed conclusion. First of all, it is hard to see how a zero-effect edit can be called "disruption", but alas. More important is that the admin failed to recognise that the initial ] correct sequence (the D being at ]), was ''left by the other editor'' by going back editing. Quite simply, ''this'' is the start of an edit war. Also, the reporting editor resorted to personal attacks in the original report: "The editor appears to think that it's OK to revert any edits which hurt his personal sensibilities" (and even ), which is plain bad faith and injection. I thought it wise not to take that bait, but the blocking admin did and went along with it: "DePiep appears more intent to defiantly hold on to their code than to explain why it should stay". That is both incorrect (I did explain both in es and talk) and a personal valued judgement about a non-personal text. Finally I note that the blocking admin reasoned to block me ''because of'' previous blocks (which, of course, only adds size to the misjudgement without being a new argument). This way, someone might be blocked ''because'' he was blocked before: unbeatable logic.<br/> I know I am supposed to write here like "Won't do it again", but as explained I do not see exactly ''what'' I'm not supposed to do again. Next time I should take the bait and engage in PAs and BFs at first call? When my opponent leaves the BRD and starts an editwar, I am supposed to do ... what? How do I even prevent a "previous blocks" argument? As advised, I've asked the blocking admin to clarify (see above), to no effect. ] (]) 11:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC) |decline = {{subst:Decline reason here}} ~~~~}}

If you accept the unblock request, replace this template with the following, substituting Accept reason here with your rationale:

{{unblock reviewed |1=I request unblocking because it appears that the blocking admin made a wrong or bad-informed conclusion. First of all, it is hard to see how a zero-effect edit can be called "disruption", but alas. More important is that the admin failed to recognise that the initial ] correct sequence (the D being at ]), was ''left by the other editor'' by going back editing. Quite simply, ''this'' is the start of an edit war. Also, the reporting editor resorted to personal attacks in the original report: "The editor appears to think that it's OK to revert any edits which hurt his personal sensibilities" (and even ), which is plain bad faith and injection. I thought it wise not to take that bait, but the blocking admin did and went along with it: "DePiep appears more intent to defiantly hold on to their code than to explain why it should stay". That is both incorrect (I did explain both in es and talk) and a personal valued judgement about a non-personal text. Finally I note that the blocking admin reasoned to block me ''because of'' previous blocks (which, of course, only adds size to the misjudgement without being a new argument). This way, someone might be blocked ''because'' he was blocked before: unbeatable logic.<br/> I know I am supposed to write here like "Won't do it again", but as explained I do not see exactly ''what'' I'm not supposed to do again. Next time I should take the bait and engage in PAs and BFs at first call? When my opponent leaves the BRD and starts an editwar, I am supposed to do ... what? How do I even prevent a "previous blocks" argument? As advised, I've asked the blocking admin to clarify (see above), to no effect. ] (]) 11:45, 1 August 2015 (UTC) |accept = accept reason here ~~~~}}

• Fore reasons mentioned in the request above, I do not want Alakzi to write on my talkpage. -DePiep (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
• Note to reviewer of unblock request: Extended discussion since the block can also be viewed at Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:DePiep_reported_by_User:Alakzi_.28Result:_72_hours.29. There is no need to consult me, the blocking admin, with any action decided.—Bagumba (talk)
• "I've asked the blocking admin to clarify (see above), to no effect." @DePiep: I do not see a specific question to me above. You can feel free to ask me, or you may also choose to address it directly with the uninvolved admin that will review your unblock request.—Bagumba (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Here's an expanded timeline (with edit summaries in parenthesized italics):

• 17:44, 29 July 2015 DePiep added a maintenance category with a link to the talk page discussion in the edit summary
• 17:55, 29 July 2015 (B) Alakzi removed some of DePiep's edit (We don't need pattern matching for that)
• 18:17, 29 July 2015 (R) DePiep restored it (... nor idle edits)
• 18:20, 29 July 2015 (D) Alakzi asked on DP talk page "why would you revert this" (new section)
• 18:25, 29 July 2015 (D) DePiep: As I said in the es: your edit was immaterial ()
• 18:43, 29 July 2015 (D) Alakzi: So you've reverted an "immaterial" edit (in truth, a minor improvement) for no apparent reason. (re)
• 21:32, 29 July 2015 Alakzi repeated removal (rm unnecessary escape character for the second time)
• 23:49, 30 July 2015 DePiep repeated restoration (rv vapour edit again (the editor knowing its idleness).)
• 23:55, 30 July 2015 Alakzi third removal (Cut the crap.)
• 23:57, 30 July 2015 DePiep third restoration (stop making idle edits.)
• 00:25, 31 July 2015 Alakzi initiated block discussion (new section)
• 00:25, 31 July 2015 Alakzi notified DP talk page re block discussion (new section)
• 01:41, 31 July 2015 Bagumba notified DP talk page re block conclusion (You have been blocked from editing for disruptive editing.)

Here's where I was in this. I saw the BRD discussion on DP's talk page (because it was auto-watchlisted when we interacted a long time ago). I looked at the template edits and reversions and realized it was way above my pay grade. I suspect that the next thing I saw was the notice of the discussion and the conclusion -- I don't think I checked my watchlist during the brief 76 minute discussion. I did add a comment after the conclusion was reached.

Rather than ask what someone else could have done differently, I ask "What could I have done differently?"

I wish I had watchlisted the template page. Then I might have seen Alakzi's second removal sometime in the 26 hours before DePiep's second restoration. Then I could have assumed good faith on all parties and asked whether they thought that "the discussion has improved understanding .. ... a new edit ... may be acceptable to all participants in the discussion". If DePiep had answered in the negative, then I myself would have reverted the template change.

I also wish I had gotten more involved by requesting the opinion of others who are knowledgeable about templates.

So that's what I could have done to have improved the collaboration on WP. YBG (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks YBG. The timeline is an excellent reference for others who may have not recreated it already. I'd also add that Diep edited edited Template talk:Infobox gridiron football person at 21:08, 29 July 2015, and presumably saw the 18:43 on their talk page from Alkazi, but did not respond to the assertion that the "minor improvement" was removed "for no apparent reason". As your timeline shows, Alakzi then reverted at 21:32, with exit summary: "rm unnecessary escape character for the second time"—Bagumba (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

@DeDiep: If you look back now at your decision to revert on 23:49, 30 July 2015, would you still repeat that edit? If not, what would you do differently? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

• Requests for unblock