User talk:DePiep/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions with User:DePiep. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

WP:ALUM

Hi, please be aware that WP:ALUM applies only to the element, not the aluminium alloy/aluminum alloy that aircraft are constructed from. WP:ENGVAR always denotes the use of aluminum for American aircraft. If the link is just to aluminium then I would suggest changing it to aluminium alloy. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:04, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:ALUM (1) is about all the substance, not limited to the "element". All material Al is covered, alloys & and compounds &tc. (An exception might be "alimunium texture painting", ie not the material -- still, not even that is certain). And (2) MOS:ALUM explicitly states that it overrules ENGVAR. DePiep (talk) 20:10, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

The wording is These spellings should be used in all chemistry-related articles on English Wikipedia, even if they conflict with the other national spelling varieties used in the article. Aircraft articles are very clearly not chemistry related. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by) 20:21, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I came here to say this. Any changes to non-chemistry-related pages using American English should be reverted, along with any other non-chemistry-related pages not specifically using British English, per MOS:RETAIN. --Vossanova ^o< 20:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

As I said: it is about the material, so chemistry. DePiep (talk) 21:15, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Nimbus, Vossanova, Epicgenius, and Revirvlkodlaku: OK, disputations make sense.

I have reverted (back into US "aluminum") when:

US/Canadian: {Use American English}, {Use Canadian English}, US/CAN company, location, ties (coins).

Kept British/IUPAC "aluminium" when

explicitly: having {{Chembox}}, {Use British English}, location or company Europe/Asia/Africa, ties, art.

otherwise (indecisive)

This implies that a small grey area still exists (interpretation; also typo-like misss). Did not research article history for ENGVAR.

Affected: initial edits: ca 200 (incidentally, articles starting 0-9, A, Z mostly; includes "aero..." ;-) ), selfreverted ca. 100. Will apply this if and when I check other articles for alum.

-DePiep (talk) 08:36, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation; that makes sense. I was puzzled when you changed "aluminum" to "aluminium" on the 28 Liberty Street article, since that is not at all related to chemistry. As far as I know (and similarly to the use of aluminum in aircraft), aluminum as a building material is an alloy, rather than the element aluminum. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

As you write. (I did not touch 28 LSt of course any more). My original thought: every substance aluminium is the chemical stuff. Including alloys, allotropes, material used in architecture, planes, .. But will not compete over it. {chembox} is a main indicator. DePiep (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Oh but unresolved: categories now named

Category:Aluminium sculptures in Indiana

Category:Aluminum sculptures in Indiana

Category:Aluminum smelters

Category:Aluminium smelters (international, so no engvar applies)

DePiep (talk) 14:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Your recent contributions to Template:X32

This is your only warning; if you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Template:X32, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Min-Seo O'Connor (talk) 11:19, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Litre symbol

FWIW, a "script small l" is an allograph of ⟨l⟩ that just happens to have its own code-point (U+2113 ℓ SCRIPT SMALL L) but it could be an element of some arbitrary script-style typeface and be encoded as U+006C l LATIN SMALL LETTER L. So I declare that it complies with the SI spec. Or are you telling me that I can't use this l (because it has a curved foot)?

Yes, I know, far too pedantic a point to add to the main discussion, but just saying. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I know, but it's just not in SI so not in sight. Luckily it is not prescribed in countries either. You know Talk:Convert for problems already existing. Hard enough to get a useful MOS result. -DePiep (talk) 19:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Template talk:Punctuation marks#Scope creep

I have opened a discussion at Template talk:Punctuation marks#Scope creep. You might want to comment.

(BTW, how/when did it get back to being a side-bar rather than a nav-bar?) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 19:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.10mmsocket (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

DeP, I realise it will be difficult but I strongly advise that you don't rise to this bait. It reads to me as an attempt to provoke you into an uncivil response, which will get you blocked. I really can't see this complaint being taken seriously. Let it ride for 24 hours. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks JMF. Good to hear from people who can keep a cool head. Re the bait: yes I noticed that. But maybe some errors there need fixing & clarification, lest the ANI process bolts. You are welcome to add further thoughts here. DePiep (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

April 2023

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 month for persistently making disruptive edits. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, could you explain why you have cut short my window to reply? For example, I note that you invoke ground here that was not even mentioned. -DePiep (talk) 13:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Because as an uninvolved administrator I determined that you violated your editing restriction. As to your second sentence, I'm not sure what you're trying to say. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Why not allowing the discussion to complete? re #2: Here you say "disruptive edits", which was not brought forward. DePiep (talk) 13:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Editing in violation of a community placed editing restriction is disruptive editing, and the reason provided block log covers that, Disruptive editing, violation of editing restriction. The discussion was heading in this direction, and additional ANI threads are not necessary to enforce a sanction the community placed on your editing. If you feel there is something you can add to the ANI thread you can post it here and it can be copied over. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:34, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Btw, so your "to allow for further discussion about ..." is supposed to continue without allowing me to contribute then. Hard to see that being careful process. DePiep (talk) 13:37, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, request for WP:BUNGEE re EEng in that thread. DePiep (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

You want what? For me to block EEng for their two responses in a thread they didn't start? I suggest you read the advice given below. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

No it does not mean "do block", it is about performing independent scrutiny. The question to you is only to transfer per your suggestion, not to perform. And I agree with the two of you that it better be done by others. DePiep (talk) 14:25, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Take five

DeP, you know I have your back, so please consider this advice from a friend though I don't expect you to like it. But I hope you will give it more consideration than you did to my earlier advice.

There is a useful maxim "if you are in a hole, stop digging". There is really nothing that you can say that will make this "sentence" lighter but if you persist in what is certainly a fruitless argument, it could certainly get heavier. The last time you got a block, it was for three months; tbh I was surprised that it is just one month this time. Take your frustration out on a punch-ball at the gym or something but just let it go. Take some Zen time. When you return, please stop wasting your time and talent on the kind of incidental detail that got you into this situation. If it happens again, it could be a year or more. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

CBan proposal

In case you weren't aware, I have posted a proposal for you to be CBanned here. As a courtesy, if you have a !vote or a comment you wish to post on the thread, I will copy and paste it from here to there - just ping me, as I do not watch this page. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Siteban

I have closed the thread with consensus to CBan, and extended your current block to indefinite as a result. You may appeal this ban in a year, with eligibility to appeal renewing every six months thereafter. Further instructions can be found at WP:UNBAN. Good luck with wherever life takes you next. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Astatine decay characteristics

Template:Astatine decay characteristics has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:35, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your valuable contributions to the template space! Sorry to see you go. 123957a (talk) 06:16, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Please return when you can!

Okay, so you and I have had ups and downs over the years; however, I've always considered you to be a good template editor, actually sometimes astounding, and have learned much from you. I've seen you help inexperienced editors quite a lot, as well. Just wanted you to know that you will be missed, and that I would heartily support your return to WP as soon as possible! P.I. Ellsworth , ed. ^{put'er there} 01:45, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Page reports/request

Template:Page reports/request has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Q 𝟤 𝟪 20:52, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Module:External links list

Module:External links list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 17:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:External links list

Template:External links list has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 17:46, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Page reports

Template:Page reports has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. CLYDE ^{TALK TO ME}/_{STUFF DONE} (please mention me on reply) 05:10, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Page reports

A tag has been placed on Category:Page reports indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Gonnym (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2023 (UTC)