Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Christian75 (talk | contribs) at 21:56, 25 June 2015 (→Misplaced Pages talk:Chemical infobox: re). 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 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)

again=

• LT910001 still on the list. I propose you:

1. open page WP:AWB
2. Download the current version
3. install it
4. open it (=start it)

OK?

You do not need an AWB permission, because we'll do ReadOnly for those lists. (Every editor can do so).

(However, you might ask for editing permission at WP:AWB. Nice, but irrelevant here)

• Next week's tutorial: "After you've started AWB, how to make a "list of category pages"

-DePiep (talk) 23:50, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	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)

Thank you! And for all the patience you all have put up. -DePiep (talk) 08:51, 24 June 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)

Misplaced Pages talk:Chemical infobox

You are changing the previous comment of the talk page. E.g. you are changing this: "2. When a data page exists that one is linked to OK, but then any regular input for |ExternalSDS=/|ExternalMSDS= is not used & not shown at all. I don't see why that is. I propose to have that input value shown:"

to

"2. When a data page exists that one is linked to OK, but then any regular input for |ExternalSDS=/|ExternalSDS= is not used & not shown at all. I don't see why that is. I propose to have that input value shown:"

Thats not ok. And its not ok that you say "grow up and learn to read" and "Get an editors life instead of tracking and bothering other editors. Create you own edits. And no, no contant changes because it's about par names". Please apologize. Christian75 (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Who's text you're quoting is that anyway? And why should I not point to the "bothering" aspect? -DePiep (talk) 21:44, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Doesnt matter who wrote it, its either WP:TPO or WP:REDACT. Why you shouldnt insult me? - please read WP:TPNO especially "No insults: Do not make ad hominem attacks . Please apologize. Christian75 (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2015 (UTC)