User talk:DePiep/Archive 3

CJK

Thanks for the cleanup. The pages look much better with the template. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

-).

Re: merge

Yes, I see that a merge is quite fine. However, make sure you either replace the contents of the page with "#REDIRECT ..." or request for an admin to merge the page histories, so that the edit history for the original page is not lost. Don't forget to apply the "moved page history" template to the talk page(s).

Another thing though - why have all the CJK list pages become templates? Is it really necessary for them to become templates? A template is for a sample of code that is intended to be truncated onto one or many other pages (for example, Template:Unreferenced, Template:Infobox, Template:Chinese, Template:JapanEmpireNavbox). These CJK pages are very unlikely to be embedded into another article (as they are obviously too big); it defies the purpose of a template. Why not leave them be as their own article? If the issue is uniformity, then I'd say that the other existing "template" pages should be reconverted into "List of" articles; they are merely repositories of information, and aren't necessarily supposed to be included as a section of another article (many of the CJK pages are 60,000 bytes+, and pages on Wikipedia cannot exceed 100KB). -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 10:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

1. Yes, it will be a REDIRECT, so history and versions will be saved. This is why a more heavy AfD is not necessary.

2. Why templates? I wanted to use the setup for all charts. I changed a some of these Category:Unicode chart templates into templates, as there were a lot of them already. Now they are all together, 177. Names are made alike too. Indeed these CJK templates are huge, and would not be used in an article. But that's only these twelve or so. The smaller Unicode charts are usefully transcluded into regular articles: Unicode mathematical operators and symbols, Chess symbols in Unicode. I agree it could be different, but this is how it went. -DePiep (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC) oops, linkfix needed. Confusing indeed -

Template:Young Circumnavigator

Tagged for speedy deletion. It makes no sense to have two templates containing identical information. Although I disagree (but not strongly), if you feel that the sectioning should not be in the template, change the original, but do remember to update all the pages which link to it. –Moondyne 03:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You're right. -DePiep (talk) 09:08, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You mean there is no letter by Gazan students?

What the hell are you talking about in your edit summary? Breein1007 (talk) 20:19, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

You could reply on the article talk-page (and you are not a novice). Writing "the hell" is too offensive above that. Please delete it, or I'll flush it from here. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)-DePiep (talk) 21:20, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Skype

You might note that at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Length between perpendiculars, also introduced some extraneous text around some numerical characters. This may be due to a combination of your browser and Skype trying to identify and highlight telephone numbers. Thank you.--Rumping (talk) 23:14, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have discovered, and I think it is solved since a few weeks. I turned it off. -DePiep (talk) 02:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DePiep. You have new messages at Cerejota's talk page.
Message added 05:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cerejota (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment at Talk:Anat_Kamm#Requested_Move

Hey dude, You may be interested to comment at Talk:Anat_Kamm#Requested_Move. Again, sorry we can't see eye-to-eye on this one. I'm just really not convinced that Kamm is notable outside this incident. You still haven't really given me an argument as to why you think she is WP:NOTABLE outside the context of the espeinoge case. Perhaps once you've done so, we can work to make a bio page together. Re my "compromise" comment; I'm just a little frustrated by what seems to be your intractable position. NickCT (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, DePiep. You have new messages at Od Mishehu's talk page.
Message added 15:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And for your information, to link to a category, please use [[:Category:name]], not [[Category:name]]. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you know Urgenine?

Hey DePiep, You ever worked with Urgenine before? NickCT (talk) 17:24, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey DePiep. Hopefully, I've got this wrong. But I think you might be a sock. I have filed a notification. Apologies if I am in error. NickCT (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

No, don't "apologize" with the smear. Just don't smear in the first place. Bad Faith in a gift paper? -DePiep (talk) 22:26, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

DePiep - Did you look at the contribution history? Please look at this and tell me it doesn't look suspisous. NickCT (talk) 23:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Did not look at the link. Suspicion is no proof. Prove it or shut up. -DePiep (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude, what would proof be? The fact is, you editted for ten minutes, stopped editting, User:Urgenine editted immediately afterwards for 10 minutes (articles which were similar to the ones you editted), stopped, then you started editting immediately afterward again. You can't forgive me for that raising my eyebrow at that? Let's drop the "shut up" language. NickCT (talk) 23:13, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Point to a confirmation by an admin, or drop it. And take care of your language. -DePiep (talk) 23:17, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Dude. I was asking an admin for confirmation when you started all this "shut up" nonsense. NickCT (talk) 00:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The presiding admin said the edits that made me raise an eyebrow were not a reason for suspision. While the timing of the edits still seems pretty remarkably coincidental to me, I accept the judgement. Please accept my apology. NickCT (talk) 00:12, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

• I can and will delete this pile of brown stuff by NickCT whenever I want. -DePiep (talk) 23:34, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

CSS tables

Hi DePiep,

Please don't adjust gross formatting in the CSS tables for C's & V's. That's done in the template shells, {{Consonants}} and {{Vowels}}. Changing the CSS tables tends to mess up the formatting of any article that transcludes it. — kwami (talk) 10:51, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

I saw your reverts. Could you point out where the formatting gets messed up? I checked: the C-tables are transcluded into the 100%-width-template, so my edits do not influence anything outside of the wrapper template. -DePiep (talk) 10:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry, the editsummary 'not' was mistake, it is a question not a statement.)-DePiep (talk) 11:01, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Continued at Template talk:CSS IPA consonant chart#Layout improvement here is harmless. -DePiep (talk) 13:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Your Recent Edit

You recently made an edit to a closed discussion on a category. Chances are, the people you are trying to send the message to won't read it. Please post your message at the category's talk page or in a deletion review. --Quinxorin (talk) 01:52, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this message. I know mine was an after-closure comment. I did not intend to change the (closed) discussion. Will try you advice. -DePiep (talk) 02:46, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

The CfD tag is not in the page history because the page has been deleted (that's how categories have to be moved, a new one made and the old deleted by a bot). --Quinxorin (talk) 22:00, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Aha. All clear now. -DePiep (talk) 07:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Table

 Done

• Template:Template:IPA consonant chart/sandbox2
• Template:IPA consonant chart/sandbox2

Can you confirm that the first is not needed? Rich Farmbrough, 17:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC).

Confirm and blanked. Added {{db-user}} for clarity. Curiously, how did you find this one? ;-) -DePiep (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Should be and now is {{db-blank}}. One editor, but not my userspace. -DePiep (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I was clearing up Template:Tempalte:.... it's a relatively common error. Rich Farmbrough, 22:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC).

Next - Template:IPASound

Hi there,

How wbout a template IPASound, similar to IPASym, that maps IPA symbols (and numbers) to sound files? That way, infobox IPA will need one less argument.

Also, the same mapping (currently hard-coded in each usage) can be reused by other templates. For instance, a template that just shows the playable sound: {{IPASoundBox|p}} would yield something like It would simply be written as [[File:{{IPASound|{{{1}}}}}|120px|noicon|alt=Sound sample]].

What do you think? 114.146.108.208 (talk) 06:48, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(But let's keep {{Audio-IPA}}, {{Audio}} and {{Listen}} in mind.) 114.146.108.208 (talk) 06:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Created Template:IPAsound(edit talk links history) (undercase s, as in IPAsym). First, using the {{IPAsound/sandbox}} Talk continues in the template talkpage there Template talk:IPAsound (not the sandbox-talk). -DePiep (talk) 09:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Two vowel charts

I'm not sure I understand the why both {{IPA vowel chart}} and {{Vowels}} are used in each vowel article. Even if they weren't identical (which they currently are), isn't one enough? — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 15:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Your question is very to the point.

- First. They're not the same. {{Vowels}} is a Navbox, that envelopes the chart. It has more links (in the blue background, in my screen).

- Second. {{Vowels}} is a true "Navbox" (Wikipedia Navigation box). A Navbox is thought to be for internal Wiki navigation only (my thoughts could be different, but I'm not involved in that discussion/decision). So the Navbox is not visible in a wiki "Printable version" page. Also, a Navbox should appear at top-right of a page (next to the intro, a small one), or at the bottom. And, a navbox is usually supposed to be collapsible.

- 3rd: In IPA and phonetics, the vowel-trapezium is iconic, so we can't do without it to guide readers through the IPA-world (I know you know about IPA, much more than I do). No need to be collapsible, it is part of the text. As it is now.

- 4rd: We discovered (in talkpages) that the trapezium should be available upon itself, i.e. without navbox-effects. See for example usage in (random) Mid central vowel. I call this "in-line", as opposite to a "Navbox" that should be a footer/sider. In-line can also be 'right aligned': it means "in the article".

- Of course you're right in that they look so much alike. But that is because the schema is so iconic, we couldn't do one of two without navigation or IPA/phonetics. Explaining the position of a vowel in the scheme (in-text) asks for the trapezium, navigation at the footer also. To me that's how wiki looks. Here I prefer double info to a constructed separation.

- 5th: Recent history: Originally indeed I! proposed to merge these two (21 June). From editors, more IPA-savy than me, I learned that they have different functions: in-line illustration and footer/sider-navigation. I canceled my merge-proposal (13 July), and assured the two-stage situation: the trapezium for in-line usage, and an enveloping navbox for footer/sider usage.

- 6th: not coincidentally, I can note that with Consonants we currently have the parallel situation: IPA-table(s) and enveloping navbox.

- relevant templates etc:

• {{Vowels}} {{IPA vowel chart}} Mid central vowel. On merging: Template_talk:IPA_vowel_chart#Merger_proposal
• {{Consonants}} {{IPA consonant chart}} Consonant. On merging: Template_talk:IPA_consonant_chart#Merger_proposal

- If this is unclear or unconvincing to you, please keep writing. I've seen your name a lot in the right places. -DePiep (talk) 23:58, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, something tells me WP:IAR is waiting in the green room. I see now the difference between the two, but they're so similar and I'm not sure what benefit having two nearly identical templates is. That the navbox doesn't show up when printing seems like a silly justification. This is an electronic encyclopedia and presentation choices shouldn't be made for printing to the bane of browsing.

It also seems clear to me that IVC is intended for navigation since it has the comparative links to other vowels. That it has three fewer links and is uncollapsable doesn't remove it from being useful as such (especially with the real navigation table being in an out-of-the-way corner)

One thing to do is have the navbox combine with the stats at the top so that we have a sort of infobox+navigation setup. We should also make sure that the default setting is on uncollapsed. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 03:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You write silly justification? By whom? For what? I pointed you to discussions above, and here, and here, and now adding this with results, & you knew about because I read this, and my invitation above was If this is unclear or unconvincing to you, please keep writing. Then writing silly as a judgement, clearly, is directing to a non-discussion (Because it's not rational. If you can laugh about it, is it because you don't understand it?). What is your route? -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Now on the serious things you mention. We both see that there are two main functions involved: using the chart as part of the article-text, and using it for navigation. Currently, they are in two templates, with overlapping (actually copied/transcluded) content. I understand you propose one combined template, usable for both in-text and navigation.

• My line of thinking here was and is: since the chart is so iconic, indeed it should & can be usable in both ways. In-line text should be, well, an in-line illustration etc. on the vowel(s). I think the current template does a good job in that (and improvements are possible). Navigation, as it is described and used here at WP, is for navigation only. Navigation in general has some conventions at WP. Most are applied in {{navbox}}-templates, and also preferred usage like "There are two basic layouts: * On the right side of page * Footer boxes", says Wikipedia:Navigation templates. All this comes with the concept of "navigation" at WP. Hence the placement as footer or sidebar, hence that guidelines on what and what not to include, and hence the decision that since a navbox is an internal wiki-thing, than part of the article content (e.g. like the toolbox-menu), and therefor does not print. My point is not that it is not printed, my point is that WP-guidelines says "navigation boxes do not belong to the text".
• So now we have two templates, each doing a non-compromised job for it's own task. The only effect is that words, the chart indeed, is repeated in text and navbox. That repetition is the outcome I can accept, and the only 'rule' to be broken. But is that a rule at all? Such a repetition is not uncommon. Even quite expectable, because the article and the navbox should have the same area of interest. The article Boeing 747 has navbox template {{Boeing airliners}}, and both have the word Boeing. Only this time it's the chart, not just words.
• Merging the two into one would give a compromised solution whichever way. The compromises are on "how much navigation should be in it", and about illustrative & descriptive usability. Since this is arbitrarily, I foresee long and undecisive discussions (not because editors may be one-angled, but because the input question asks for it).

-DePiep (talk) 10:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

note: the topic of cooperation of the vowel chart and the vowel {{infobox IPA}}, such as at Mid central vowel is continued here. It is a separate topic. -DePiep (talk) 16:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean "silly justification" for keeping two nearly identical templates in the vowel articles. I understand that there are other justifications for having navboxes be separate from article text conceptually, but you mentioned printing and I responded to printing. If you didn't mention it as a justification (whether your own or someone else's), then I'm not sure why you mentioned it at all.

It seems that you're saying in your Boeing example that having the word "Boeing" twice in an article is akin to having two identical vowel charts. Should I elaborate about how incongruous this is or is calling attention to it sufficient to convey the apples-oranges disparity? Are you trying to say something different? Is this just a bad example?

I agree that the chart is iconic, the navigation box should use the chart, and the chart should be present in each vowel's article. The issue here is whether a navbox can exclusively provide an encyclopedic function, especially to avoid repetition of a particular image or chart. This is the "rule" I was referring to, as I assumed from your stated position that WP:NAV said something to the effect of, "Navigation boxes should not be relied on to provide content otherwise not found in the article." However, I don't find anything of the sort there. Indeed, navigation boxes seem to be justified primarily as a method of making "see also" sections more meaningful by shortening them. If this rule is implied there and I'm just not seeing it, then I say we break it. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 00:48, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I literally wrote: So the Navbox is not visible in a wiki "Printable version" page. That's an illustration (namely of "WP says navigation is not part of the text". The non-printing itself is not a justification, it's the concept behind navigation that asks for it.

The Boeing example is not just about a word, but about a link. So the navbox there introduces a second link in the article. Actually, 747-subtypes are even linked three times each: in text, in the infobox and in the navbox. With good reason, and there is no need to prevent a second link at all costs. In this, it is a good parallel with the chart. Clearly, it is good practice to repeat links in this situation. Is see no problem in expanding from 'link' to 'chart'.

... whether a navbox can exclusively provide an encyclopedic function -- I understand you mean a navigation box being the only mentioning of the chart in encyclopedic text (if not pls explain). Is indeed where it's about. To me, using a single mentioning as a navbox-cum-illustration would put too much unrelated stuff in the text like references to the IPA (association) and X-SAMPA, that does not belong there for reasons of legibility of an encyclopedic article. These rules I prefer not to break (no navigation stuff in the main text). Also because we'd have to compromise on that always (what nav stuff to include, how should the chart/navbox be used in different articles). Compared to the minor sin of repeating the whole chart - I perfer breaking this minor rule. So we can tailor each to the preferred usage.

Anyway, as you might have seen I've pulled the two wider from each other: more navigation (to be used as a footer only), and the bare chart free for use everywhere. You think this is a bad route? (Maybe you've commented elsewhere - I'll see). -DePiep (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we're understanding each other. I still think a link vs. a chart is apples-oranges; though I see your point that there is a general tendency to avoid duplicating a link; I think that having such a repetition is not as offputting as having a chart twice. What makes this duplication less appropriate is that the chart itself is linked (hence navigational). Moving the two charts further away from each other, especially in a stub article, doesn't make it any more appropriate.

I don't agree with "no navigation stuff in the main text." That would imply no wikilinks. Per WP:OVERLINK, such wikilinks themselves offer a navigational use. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 13:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in the process of moving, so I don't have a lot of internet time slated in the near future, but I like your use of the navigation template that includes consonants. A wonderful compromise. — Ƶ§œš¹ _{[aɪm ˈfɹ̠ˤʷɛ̃ɾ̃ˡi]} 16:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice to read this, thank you. Have a good time moving. -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: CSS and such

No problem. It's one the things on here that I feel qualified to fix. And I won't have to fix it after you in the future, as you appear to have taken notice of it. Win-win, for me. --Izno (talk) 22:12, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Dear DePiep,

Thanks for letting me know about my foolish error with a category on one of my user pages. And sorry! Best wishes, (Msrasnw (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC))

Dear DePiep, something like the version below might be even more polite - and I guess it would normally be an error... also there might be a problem where you say This can be done by adding a semicolon as I think you might just mean colon. Also it might be nice to sign it. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2010 (UTC))

 Dear Msrasnw, your userpage User:Msrasnw/EconomistLettersList has a category, and so appears in Category:Musical groups established in 1962.
If this was an error you might wish to know that you can edit the page to prevent the category being activated. This can be done by adding a colon (:) before the word Category, like this: [[:Category:Musical groups established in 1962]]. If it was deliberate you might wish to check with guideline on userpages which suggest this is undesired. Best wishes.

August 2010

Ouch! You've used a template to send a message to an experienced editor. Please review Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars or maybe listen to a little advice. Doesn't this feel cold, impersonal, and canned? It's meant in good humor. Best wishes. (I'm only kidding ;) )Pilif12p :  Yo  01:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

So what am I supposed to do now? -DePiep (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Give them a friendly, hand-written note, instead of a cold, templated one. (X! · talk)  · @135  ·  02:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Not quite feasible. And handtyping these links correct? -- not me. It's not about policy or a dispute. Don't template the regulars reads like it's about something else than this template. And I get templates regularly, eg in XfDs. That's part of the workings here. btw, why should only regulars get a handwritten note? Why would this friendliness not be extended to new Wikipedians? And, overall, what exactly did I do wrong? -DePiep (talk) 02:31, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

RGB/HEX

Hello, DePiep. You have new messages at Template talk:Hex2rgb.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 21:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Please stop this [1] for two reasons: (1) what you are writing is incorrect, and (2) it is seriously distracting to continuously fix it while I am actively trying to work on the template. If you insist on continuing, I will just stop working on it for the day and go do something else. Thank you. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:21, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I guess you couldn't stop even for a few minutes. Let me know when you actually want me to help add this new feature, and are willing to stop arguing. Othewise, I have lost all desire to help. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 23:40, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

You did not clarify "(1) what you are writing is incorrect", as asked on your Talk. So what? -DePiep (talk) 23:59, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

My User Page

Thanks for pointing out whatever it was I'd done on my user page (I actually haven't got a clue - I was just fooling around one day, adding picture of the day, quote of the day etc). Hopefully my User Page isn't now making any unwanted appearances in any Cats. where it shouldn't be. (If it is, please feel free to do whatever you need to change that). Regards. Scoop100 (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear this. You cleaned it up well, and I have no need to do anything else. Fooling around is quite OK.

But actually, that message is under discussion: should an editor edit your userpage and then leave the note, or just notify (as I did). See Userwarnings talk. -DePiep (talk) 14:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

church disambig update

FYI, I noticed a Yobot changing a bunch of church disambiguation pages and challenged what was going on. Upon review, it seems okay though. Short discussion is at User talk:Yobot#church disambig (with link to past TFD discussion in which you participated). Speak up if you think anything is amiss, but i think this is okay/good. Thanks! I left a note like this also at User talk:Carlaude. --doncram (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't blank pages if you don't want them deleted

Regarding those template sandboxes, the reason I tagged them with G7 is because you blanked them. Blanking of pages by the author is seen as an implied deletion request. If you don't want them deleted, just make a note on the page ("intentionally blank", etc.) — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 01:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

OK. I probably misread the "Author" thing. -DePiep (talk) 01:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. T. Canens (talk) 03:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't appreciate your "Thank you" here. What did I do to deserve that? -DePiep (talk) 03:18, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Per the above discussion, your recent edits to User talk:Timotheus Canens, and Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions, I would advise you that should you post any further regarding T. Canens closure of the DRV, or on T. Canens talkpage except where requested on any matter, that you will be sanctioned for harassment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This prevents me from writing on the ANI. -DePiep (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You can acknowledge or complain about my warning there, but you may no longer comment regarding T. Canens DRV closure. LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Notice

As a result of an arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee has acknowledged long-term and persistent problems in the editing of articles related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, broadly understood. As a result, the Committee has enacted broad editing restrictions, described here and below.

• Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project.
• Prior to any sanctions being imposed, the editor in question shall be given a warning with a link to this decision; and, where appropriate, should be counseled on specific steps that he or she can take to improve his or her editing in accordance with relevant policies and guidelines.
• Discretionary sanctions imposed under the provisions of this decision may be appealed to the imposing administrator, the appropriate administrators' noticeboard (currently WP:AE), or the Committee.

These editing restrictions may be applied to any editor for cause, provided the editor has been previously informed of the case. This message is to so inform you. This message does not necessarily mean that your current editing has been deemed a problem; this is a template message crafted to make it easier to notify any user who has edited the topic of the existence of these sanctions.

Generally, the next step, if an administrator feels your conduct on pages in this topic area is disruptive, would be a warning, to be followed by the imposition of sanctions (although in cases of serious disruption, the warning may be omitted). Hopefully no such action will be necessary.

This notice is only effective if given by an uninvolved administrator and logged here.LessHeard vanU (talk) 03:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Megaphone Desktop Tool

Very well, I guess it stays then. This account is old, but rarely used, that's probably why I was able to pull off an AFD, which I discovered last week when an article I wrote got very quickly deleted because it was an Internet thingy with the only references to it were from the Internet, something that seems to describe Megaphone, especially since the Jpost link was broken.
For future reference, how exactly would you go about finding source material that something is "not notable"? The OR that you refer to seems to be my comments that searches on Google turn up nothing relevant. I'm not sure how else you would go about showing that. Also, what exactly do you mean "I turned 180 on the topic"?
Yserbius (talk) 06:03, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

``

As I wrote and linked in the AFD: elsewhere you deleted RS when writing the article had no RS. -DePiep (talk) 09:38, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Catmore

See Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 September 10 and Template talk:Cat main. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I am the one to say thanks. Is what I do. -DePiep (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

UTF-9

Thanks for your note to SB, we (those of us that do a lot of work with it) are aware that the case insensitive DEFAULTSORT applied unevenly across a category can cause sorting problems. Plans are afoot to ameliorate or fix this, meanwhiel if you see any O3's (Out Of Orders) please let me know and I will fix them on a category by category basis. Rich Farmbrough, 14:44, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Manually checking & warning ... To work correct, a user or bot should apply this logic: if the Defaultsort of an article is changed this way, every cat wherein that article sits should be sweeped too in this respect: both the defaultsort capitalisation and the rule "sweep every cat" (yep. it might get large). -DePiep (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes.... it would include (checking) every article. Which is what I planned to do some time ago, but there was a user who got a bee in his bonnet about DEFAULTSORT and I just couldn't deal with banging my head against a brick wall at that time. These days I must enjoy it I think. Rich Farmbrough, 14:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

Oh BTW one of them has character 65536 on it, AWB will do funny things with that. Rich Farmbrough, 14:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC).

eh, "one of them"? You mean there is a page with U+65536 (is not a valid Unicode character), (or just 65536_decimal = U+10000, LINEAR B SYLLABLE B008 A, plane 1=SMP)? Would be an interesting bug. -DePiep (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello, DePiep. You have new messages at JamesBWatson's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JamesBWatson (talk) 08:24, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes the character as an HTML code. May been been 65535. Rich Farmbrough, 23:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC).

Nomination of Yaakov Teitel for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Yaakov Teitel, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yaakov Teitel until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Joe407 (talk) 09:31, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Template:Unicode chart Counting Rod Numerals

I've reverted your recent change to Template:Unicode chart Counting Rod Numerals for the following reasons:

1. Unicode chart templates should use a consistent format, and they all use text to represent Unicode characters, not images;

2. One of the useful features of the template is that users can copy and paste characters from the template to documents they are working on, which they can't do if they are dealing with images

3. The templates are a good test of the display capabilities of the user's browser for the particular script

4. Although for many or most people the characters will not render correctly, replacing them with images is a retrograde step, and hinders the acceptance of Unicode

5 If the user cannot see the Unicode characters, there is a link to the Unicode pdf code charts at the top of the table which they can use to see what the characters look like

Changing the representation of Unicode characters in the Unicode chart templates from text to images is a major change, and should be discussed first, and only done if there is broad consensus for such a change. Thanks. BabelStone (talk) 09:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I suggest adding 0.: Wikipedia should show the information first and foremost.

re 1. This is a derived reason, and no "should" is explained. If the format does not function, "consistency" is no reason to maintain bad information. Showing information is a more leading principle at WP, and should prevail.

re 2. Useful indeed, but not the main function of Wikipedia. It is not a technical resource in the first place. If the consequence is: to provide technical assistance we drop the requirement of showing, the priority is dead wrong.

re 3. A test? Are we testing in main space? Testing should be done elsewhere. And anyway: the test failed on my two mainstream browsers. What do we do when a test fails?

re 4. Showing an image is retrograde? Hinders acceptance? We are not here to promote "acceptance" of Unicode. We are here to describe Unicode. And anyway, not showing a character is not helping anything.

re 5. Linking to the Unicode chart is external. It is a source. There is no reason for WP to say "we have the images, but you should look outside of WP".

Round up: 1. is only a chosen route of thinking, my statement to "show the information" is as good or even better.

2. 3. 4. 5. are technical and non-WP reasons. Opposing reasons in these are just as good. They should be trumped by 0 (or maybe even 1.).

Introducing 6.: shall we or shall we not add the <class="Unicode"> to these templates? Seems quite obvious to do, for me. See {{unicode}}. -DePiep (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I want to add, your negative judgement in the es is not inviting nor stimulating. Since you did start this Talk, you could have left that out. -DePiep (talk) 10:07, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I apologise if you thought the edit summary was unduly negative, it was not intended to be. Whilst I agree that a primary objective of Wikipedia is to be useful, and templates that show boxes instead of characters are not very helpful, I feel strongly that changing text to images in the chart templates is the wrong solution. Many other blocks have the same issues as Counting Rods, but using images for blocks with hundreds or even thousands of characters would: a) make the page load very slowly; and b) hinder maintainability of the templates, as someone would have to create new images whenever a block had new characters added to it. If for a particular article, you feel that images of the character glyphs is neccesary, then I would prefer the images to be done separately from the Unicode chart template.

I too was thinking that it would be useful to wrap characters up in a {{unicode}} template or use <class="Unicode">, so I would support that option (although a quick test shows that Counting Rod characters were still not rendering on my system). It could be an idea to create a new unicode template for SMP characters that includes Code2001 instead of Code2000. BabelStone (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Apology understood and accepted with a gracious bow. Will react later re content. -DePiep (talk)

Ok. So. I really don't know what "code 2001" is about. No new template please, I object. I suggest every chart (not BMP) gets the class-"unicode" addition. That is what the template {{unicode}} is about. -DePiep (talk) 01:22, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle to adding class="Unicode" to the templates. The only problem is that the Unicode font list puts "Microsoft Sans Serif" at the top of the list, and so if you have that font installed it will be used whether or not it covers the Unicode characters in the template, and "Microsoft Sans Serif" does not have really good Unicode coverage, and no coverage beyond the BMP. So for most users the Unicode class is effectively useless for SMP characters, which is why I suggested a separate Unicode template for SMP characters that only lists fonts such as Code2001 that have good SMP coverage. BabelStone (talk) 15:49, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

So the template is not doing what it's supposed to do, basically. Then a second template for non-BMP characters sounds like a working compromise (a compromise it is). Or change the fonts (sequence) in the first one? By now, after many more years of development, there might be a better covering font to put in the first position. Is an improvement proposal viable? -DePiep (talk) 16:26, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

To be clear: I'd say go ahead with the second {{unicode}}, for use in planes 1-16 (=non-BMP). Especially if you know which fonts to put in. In the future, when fonts are full Unicode, it can always merge with {{unicode}}. For a name, I cannot think of anything better than {{unicode2}}, so your idea can beat me easily on this. Can you create the class too? That would be great in the chart templates, skipping the template. -DePiep (talk) 19:31, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

wtf

"Adding my view, and a new note too: RF does not do sandboxing. Every experiment is in main space and real time. "One more 30 trials by BAG for BRFA please" - go ahead. "Oops, I the bot something botched it". I don't get why this admin-bot-loner is cared for in our community this way"

wtf? Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 8 October 2010 (UTC).

Yes, is what I wrote. -DePiep (talk) 00:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Show me where where I said "One more 30 trials by BAG for BRFA please" ? Show me that I do not "do sandboxing". Sure I might not take hundreds of edits to get a sandbox template right - but I have over 170 template sandbox edits in the last few months, I also have over 100 private pages for testing things and I use other test wikis (and live wikis - I have made thousands of templates, here and elsewhere). And show me that, for example, the sand-boxing you do means you never make a mistake in a live template? Or even that you have a lower error rate? Rich Farmbrough, 10:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

This BRFA is is an intermediate development, and asks for another 50 edits. In general, more BFRAs for your bots have this pattern. It is not getting more stable over time. Also, it refers to an unintended effect too (bug). This I refered to in the broader thread about your bots and your bothandling. Interaction with other editors was substantial part of that thread's topic. Next, sandboxing is not needed to raise editcounter and such claims, but to prevent errors in mainspace. Sandboxing too prevents stumbling along. Of course, were my sandboxing account relevant (quod non), then it surely shows I have prevented enough mainspace errors. Which is good and supports my statement. -DePiep (talk) 11:05, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

No it is not an intermediate development. No it does not ask for more edits. Yes I have nothing against you (or anyone) using sandboxes. I use them myself, a lot, despite what you say. I also work on new templates which don't need sandboxes, because the only use is testing, until they go "live". So please don't make accusations that are false - especially in a heated ANI - take the time look at some background - as far as I remember I have never "asked for more edits" - the trial has always been successful enough for approval. Rich Farmbrough, 17:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC).

Unicode 6.0

Just to let you know, Unicode 6.0 has just been released today, and so I will be updating a lot of the Unicode code chart templates to Unicode 6.0 this evening (in some cases they haven't been updated to 5.2 yet). BabelStone (talk) 22:23, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Great. Could you leave the pages with "As of version 6.0" or so? Would be a huge quality boost of Unicode-pages. -DePiep (talk) 22:27, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Where the pages already have an "As of" template I've updated it. I'll also try adding an "as of" note to the code chart templates. BabelStone (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Like this: Template:Unicode chart Arabic ? BabelStone (talk) 22:48, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

This all sounds & looks good to me. Come to think of it, the link to the external chart could be moved to the note(s) too. I guess you'll use exact Unicode spelling in the new block/chart names ;-). I'm updating {{Unicode blocks}}. -DePiep (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, but I won't do that at present. For new templates I'll use exact Unicode spellings. I'll leave {{Unicode blocks}} and {{Scripts in Unicode}} to you as I haven't prepared them. BabelStone (talk) 23:08, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

All right. -DePiep (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Hm. New block: "Miscellaneous Symbols And Pictographs" Exisiting block: "Cuneiform Numbers and Punctuation"

And "Transport And Map Symbols" -- something to add to your Unicode anomaly page ? But typos in block names can be changed ("Cyrillic Supplement" was "Cyrillic Supplementary" when it was introduced in 3.2). BabelStone (talk) 23:25, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

yes, and they'll read it there ;-) Will have to check for changes. I don't have it automated. -DePiep (talk) 23:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I've asked a question about the anomalous casing of "and" on the UTC mailing list. It is something I should have picked up a long time ago, but the human eye is not good at noticing these sorts of mistakes. BabelStone (talk) 23:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

And this: our Category:Unicode chart templates has 176 charts now. 6.0 has 209, eg in {{Unicode blocks}} (12 new). That would leave 21 charts (already in 5.2) absent. Sure we don't need PUA 3x, Surrogate BMP 3x. That leaves 15 absent. If you have automated it, can you check? Or else, I'll take a look later on. -DePiep (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm adding in all the missing templates as I go along (done some already), although in a few cases one template covers several blocks (e.g. Template:Unicode chart Hangul Jamo). BabelStone (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It will be OK then. Great. To add to the script/ancient lists I'll have to check the booktext (which is ancient). Later. -DePiep (talk) 00:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

The news back from the Unicode Technical Committee is that the "And" may well be changed to "and" in the next version as it does not affect the stability policy for block names (as block names are explicitly not case sensitive) -- the pdf code charts already use "and" (e.g. Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs). So I plan to create Template:Unicode chart Miscellaneous Symbols and Pictographs and Template:Unicode chart Transport and Map Symbols. BabelStone (talk) 00:38, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Some Unicode chart templates have been deleted (e.g. Template:Unicode chart Cypriot Syllabary), but I am recreating them on the basis that such templates are easier to maintain. BabelStone (talk) 00:48, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

And some (e.g. Template:Unicode chart Miscellaneous Symbols) were there but did not have the parent category. BabelStone (talk) 00:58, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I've updated most of the templates, but it is late now, and so I'll do the rest tomorrow. BabelStone (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

It will be OK. I corrected myself at {{ISO 15924 script codes and Unicode}}. Hrkt (Alias="Hiragana_Or_Katakana") is not named in Unicode, but the two individual scripts are (Kana, Hira in 4alpha code). Earlier, you had the new numbers already there (300K+91H). Probably the only script name Alias Unicode has provided while not using it. Qaai for Inherited is dropped, now its Zinh. -DePiep (talk) 09:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Did you see the changed book cover at the Unicode main page? The big "5.0" has disappeared. Should we adopt that with fair use and so? -DePiep (talk) 09:16, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

I have seen it now. There is less of a rationale for using it under fair use than the 5.0 book cover because the new picture is not linked to something specific, but is more like a logo. But you could always try and see what happens. Anyhow, sooner or later someone is going to remove the current 5.0 picture as it is out of date. BabelStone (talk) 21:31, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Ask User:Evertype? He put up the 5.0 one. -DePiep (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I've finished updating and adding templates under Category:Unicode chart templates (208 in total now), but we should now try and make sure that they are used in all the articles that they should be used in. There are some editors that don't like them, and will propose them for deletion on sight (e.g. Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 3#Template:Unicode chart Phaistos Disc). However, I believe they are very useful as they help maintainability of the charts when Unicode is updated, and help ensure that all Unicode character tables have a uniform format. BabelStone (talk) 22:59, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Good we covered 6.0 this early & thorough. Some individual pages might need an update further along the way (e.g., the chapters on the new scripts are not online, so {{Scripts in Unicode}} (and the Ancient ones) is not fully sourced 6.0 and so. Over time it will be OK).

Yes, these templates should be all over, in the future. But I'd say we need a uniform and flexible layout first. Another chart handcrafted in the article: argh, you were there already, Mathematical alphanumeric symbols. Notable layout elements to think about from there: headers, left-column hex values 0-F now missing; related to column header like "0004x" (not "00041"; standard background color for holes (reserved cp). I like the pink additions, looks very useful to me. Could be a standard sub-template (linking to the right page). And the second image-show. Question now: Where to do the discuss & test this?

By the way, the discussion on Unicode block names (into Unicode capitalized names), should I "relist" it for more discussion (more editors)? I'd like to have a tough outcome, to ward off future doubts. Will also come back in the large charts-array of templates, and elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There are so many Unicode-related articles (and templates) that it might be useful to start a Unicode wikiproject so that there is a central place to discuss these issues. I know a few editors who are involved in Unicode and character encoding who I think might wish to participate in such a project. BabelStone (talk) 08:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'm thinking about that too. A lot of ideas are around. Won't start today. -DePiep (talk) 09:14, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Character property (Unicode)

Given I was moving the article back to the previous title (the one that was employed pre-Oct 6) I really don't see that as improper. The first move was what was improper, once again employing disambiguation qualifiers when they aren't needed. Any future ones I pick up I'll post to WP:RM, but not this one.--Labattblueboy (talk) 22:19, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

You are right, I did move it from the plural to the singular... That's an error on my part. I'll input the move to Unicode character properties as uncontested under WP:RM. That would then leave the article in position for you to request a move to Character property (Unicode), if you still wish to do so. As I said earlier, I'll post anything related to unicode to WP:RM in the future. I hope this resolves the current conflict and prevents any others in the future.--Labattblueboy (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

No no, not splitting. I'm stepping away from this one and leaving it be from hereon in. I was simply saying that if ever in the future I come across one relating to unicode I'll be sure to post it at WP:RM.--Labattblueboy (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm am perfectly fine with the article at Unicode character property, I was of the impression you prefered Unicode character properties. Either way, I'm not spending day more time worrying about the naming of that page. All the best.--Labattblueboy (talk) 14:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)