| Revision as of 21:24, 5 January 2009 editSDJ (talk | contribs)4,730 edits →Easy question: shoot← Previous edit | Revision as of 22:19, 5 January 2009 edit undoMattisse (talk | contribs)78,542 edits →Heads up: reply to Karanacs re [[Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3) that it has gawn live.Next edit → | ||
| Line 95: | Line 95: | ||
| :::::Hi Risker. I would do as you suggest and examine and improve my behavior if the RFC had been presented in good faith aimed at encouraging this. But the RFC is so revengeful and ugly, meant to demean and destroy me, not to promote my improvement. They posted my every mistake, going back for over a year; even typos from FAC articles are listed. A few succinct recent examples would have done the job, if their intent was not to destroy. Clearly two people are seeking to drive me away from FAC. Reading the postings by ''']''' and ''']''' give a different view of two indictments against me and present a more realistic picture. The same could be done for most of the other "evidence", as has been indicated on the talk page by other editors. I admit that I was not always tactful and could definitely improve, but this massive piling on, by a new arbcom member and the the FAC delegate I can only see as a lynch mob mentality. The energy that went into collecting so many mostly petty diffs belies any desire for the RFC to accomplish positive change. I misjudged the hate directed at me by these two people. Now I know I have two extremely vengeful enemies on a level I had not imagined before. Regards, —] (]) 10:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | :::::Hi Risker. I would do as you suggest and examine and improve my behavior if the RFC had been presented in good faith aimed at encouraging this. But the RFC is so revengeful and ugly, meant to demean and destroy me, not to promote my improvement. They posted my every mistake, going back for over a year; even typos from FAC articles are listed. A few succinct recent examples would have done the job, if their intent was not to destroy. Clearly two people are seeking to drive me away from FAC. Reading the postings by ''']''' and ''']''' give a different view of two indictments against me and present a more realistic picture. The same could be done for most of the other "evidence", as has been indicated on the talk page by other editors. I admit that I was not always tactful and could definitely improve, but this massive piling on, by a new arbcom member and the the FAC delegate I can only see as a lynch mob mentality. The energy that went into collecting so many mostly petty diffs belies any desire for the RFC to accomplish positive change. I misjudged the hate directed at me by these two people. Now I know I have two extremely vengeful enemies on a level I had not imagined before. Regards, —] (]) 10:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| ::::::Unfortunately, Mattisse, this is the exact type of commentary that the RfC is trying to resolve. If you believe the diffs given are inaccurate or taken out of context, please say so (with supporting diffs) in the response section. Your point of view needs to be included for a balanced weighing, but diatribes and further accusations against Sandy (who did not certify the dispute) are not all that useful. ] (]) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | ::::::Unfortunately, Mattisse, this is the exact type of commentary that the RfC is trying to resolve. If you believe the diffs given are inaccurate or taken out of context, please say so (with supporting diffs) in the response section. Your point of view needs to be included for a balanced weighing, but diatribes and further accusations against Sandy (who did not certify the dispute) are not all that useful. ] (]) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :::::::Karanacs, it is unfortunate but I have no store house of diffs to pull out at the appropriate momments such as this. Those actually reading the information on the RFC can see for themselves that much of it is simply ridiculous, is not related to the subject, and is there to show me in the poorest light possible. Yes, I have made disparaging remarks about FAC, mostly because of my treatment there by Sandy and because of Sandy's many disparaging remarks about GAN. I admit that I made snippy remarks and am willing, as a consequence, not to participate in FAC any more. But am I really expected to account for my typos in FAC articles? | |||
| This RFC is not in good faith. When a confusing issue that occurred over 2 1/2 years ago and lasted a month or two, not to be repeated since (and did not involve any of the editors publishing this RFC that is is meant to be helpful) is brought up as a '''Cause of concern''', AGF is hard to maintain. AGF is not maintained in the RFC itself, as Durova shows in his/her analysis of the ] FAR. Motives are attributed to me by reading my mind, alluding that I am paranoid, when I was threatened with a block for a joking remark, similar but less serious in nature, that I made to Casliber on my user page, which he admitted was a joke. Nonetheless, ] said I should be blocked without warning (AN/I thought differently and that a block was totally unwarranted.) | |||
| Similarly with the ] incident, SandyGeorgia attributes my motive to her somehow. Actually, I was in the midst of giving a requested second opinion for GAN when the article was promoted to GA in an edit conflict. I asked another editor, ], what to do and he suggested, since the article was so bad, immediate GAR. I think the results of the GAR proved my judgment correct. ]. | |||
| As for all my bad behavior in the ], both ] who participated in the ] FAC and witnessed all that happened during it, and ] who read the whole FAC through and awarded me a Barnstar for my work during that FAC, have completely vindicated my behavior during the FAC and on the article itself. | |||
| Is the fact that when another editor made a nasty remark to me, and I said I would withdraw {as the diffs indicate) proof of my horrible character? SandyGeorgia has blamed me for the Zeraph/Slim Virgin incident. evem though I warmly supported her in the resulting Arbitration. It was Slim Virgin who unblocked Zeraph (blocked because Zeraph's reverts of an article I was working on). Recently, SanyGeorgia tried to get another admin to punish me and gave that admin links to my archives as evidence (]) who ignored Sandy's suggestion. This RFC is at Sandy's instigation (almost all the diffs are from her diff collection) with the aid of Casliber who is distressed that his MDD article had to be rewritten to pass FAC. It will be supported by the little group who depend on Sandy for their FACs. | |||
| Perhaps you can show me a way of gathering evidence, as I have not been collecting diffs and roaming around in other's archives as Sandy does? How do I do this? I firmly believe that this RFC is by a few FAC people, dominated by Sandy who are behind this. Karanacs, I respect you, and I respect ], but few others of the FAC crowd. I can try to defend myself, but as demonstrated by this RFC against me, no one reads diffs anyway. So I expect a pile on now, because SandyGeorgia is powerful. If I leave Misplaced Pages, so what? As many point out, the leaving of one editor is unimportant. Regards, —] (]) 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC) | |||
| == Easy question == | == Easy question == | ||
Revision as of 22:19, 5 January 2009
If you're here to respond to a comment I posted on your talk page, feel free to reply on your talk page so the question and answer are together. I tend to watch talk pages I've posted comments to for a few weeks after my initial post. If you leave me a message, I'll respond here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else. --Risker (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
|
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. Open cases
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases). Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open. Arbitrator motions
Arbitration Committee proceedings
Currently, there are no requests for arbitration. Open cases
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases). Clarification and Amendment requestsCurrently, no requests for clarification or amendment are open. Arbitrator motions
|
Column-generating template families
The templates listed here are not interchangeable. For example, using {{col-float}} with {{col-end}} instead of {{col-float-end}} would leave a <div>...</div> open, potentially harming any subsequent formatting.
| Type | Family | Handles wiki table code? |
Responsive/ mobile suited |
Start template | Column divider | End template |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Float | "col-float" | Yes | Yes | {{col-float}} | {{col-float-break}} | {{col-float-end}} |
| "columns-start" | Yes | Yes | {{columns-start}} | {{column}} | {{columns-end}} | |
| Columns | "div col" | Yes | Yes | {{div col}} | – | {{div col end}} |
| "columns-list" | No | Yes | {{columns-list}} (wraps div col) | – | – | |
| Flexbox | "flex columns" | No | Yes | {{flex columns}} | – | – |
| Table | "col" | Yes | No | {{col-begin}}, {{col-begin-fixed}} or {{col-begin-small}} |
{{col-break}} or {{col-2}} .. {{col-5}} |
{{col-end}} |
Can template handle the basic wiki markup {| | || |- |} used to create tables? If not, special templates that produce these elements (such as {{(!}}, {{!}}, {{!!}}, {{!-}}, {{!)}})—or HTML tags (<table>...</table>, <tr>...</tr>, etc.)—need to be used instead.
My talk page is also my "to-do" list
No really, I do read all my messages in a timely manner. I also archive fairly regularly once the subject of the message has been resolved. I keep things on my talk page until they've been addressed, so stuff tends to be out of date order. Consider the top half of this page my to-do list. Some things just take time. See also User:Risker/Copyedit Requests. Risker (talk)
Happy New Year
and Ring in the new.
Happy New Year!
From FloNight
Happy New Year
Hope 2009 is a great year for you!--MONGO 15:39, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
Dear Risker,
Wishing you a happy new year, and very best wishes for 2009. Whether we were friends or not in the past year, I hope 2009 will be better for us both.
Kind regards,
Majorly talk 21:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
Happy New Year!
|
Dear Risker, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ Blnguyen (bananabucket) 05:59, 2 January 2008 (UTC) |
|
Thanks for your message Risker. I don't think much of my comments made any impact, maybe my blog or my interview with the Indian newspaper?
Happy New Year!
Not that I want to make a habit of sending slightly screwy illustrations of holiday greetings, but here's another. Also, here's wishing you as trouble-free and vexless a new year as an arbitrator is likely to get (and congrats on that if I didn't congratulate you already, and if I did, well, double congrats). Now some say Mrs. 2009 could've made a better match than with the recently deceased Mr. 2008, but the estate lawyer, after pocketing his cut, thinks the December-January match worked out just fine (despite Mr. 2008's economic reversals). I'll leave it to others to decipher the look on his face and hers, but I do notice the old guy doesn't appear to have had much sleep the night before and his beard is strangely messy ... but never mind. RIP, Mr. 2008. -- Noroton (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
Heads up
Hi, just letting you know (as you edited Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mattisse 3) that it has gawn live. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- "Gawn live"? Is that some kind of Aussie term? ;-) I noticed it had gone live, indeed. Despite the somewhat odd exchanges I've had with her in recent months (some of which have been noted in the RFC), I'm very hesitant to participate in RFCs. (And yes, I know that several of my faithful readers came to know me because of an outside view I posted in a certain RFC...) It is my sincere hope that Mattisse will take this to heart, and to understand that her behaviour sometimes causes as much harm as good. I know editors who won't go near FAC or FAR because she seems to take a disproportionate interest in any article they may comment upon; those editors know who they are, and I will leave it to them to detail their concerns. As to her comments directed to me, I prefer to simply correct her when she is in error, and to provide her with links to the information she has difficulty finding. We've agreed on some things and disagreed on others, and in that sense our "working relationship" is similar to that which I have with many other editors of all stripes and experience. I think I'll just AGF that she will find it in herself to understand the concerns being identified. Risker (talk) 04:50, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- True, the whole point of an RfC is it isn't supposed to be a lynch mob, and others are allowed to place outside points of view (which they have) with a different tone, and people can then comment there as well. I agree I hate these things too, but I felt it was necessary this time as previous requests have had no effect. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I truly thank you for this view, Risker. This RFC is very much like the allegations from two years ago, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mattisse, which turned out to have been filed by a pack of sock puppets of Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Ekajati. It is hard to see this current RFC as other than a lynch mob; why are such old allegations presented in an attempt to improve my attitude now? That a lynch mob has bothered to try to drag up every failing, even typos, does not seem to designed to promote good will in me but rather to drive me away. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Mattisse. I do hope that you *are* taking the comments at the RFC to heart, because there are some genuine concerns being expressed, and some very good suggestions for dealing with difficult situations. I do not see any editors commenting there who could possibly be accused of being sockpuppets, and I'm not seeing concerns expressed that predate your last RFC; links to prior RFCs are standard, and you aren't being singled out because of them. You continue to make many valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, but if one editor decides not to nominate an article for FAC, or chooses not to defend a FAR nomination because he or she finds your behaviour chilling, then it's the encyclopedia that loses: not me, not you, not that editor - the encyclopedia. We're all volunteers here, none more or less important than the other, but each of us have our own areas of specialisation. You've got a better than average skills set, so if you're finding one area stressful, you have the ability to work on other tasks where your contributions will continue to make a difference. When one area becomes onerous, I do encourage you to find a breath of fresh air in one of your other areas of skill; it will be no less valuable to the encyclopedia, and I hope it will help you to find a more positive frame of mind to continue your participation. Risker (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Risker. I would do as you suggest and examine and improve my behavior if the RFC had been presented in good faith aimed at encouraging this. But the RFC is so revengeful and ugly, meant to demean and destroy me, not to promote my improvement. They posted my every mistake, going back for over a year; even typos from FAC articles are listed. A few succinct recent examples would have done the job, if their intent was not to destroy. Clearly two people are seeking to drive me away from FAC. Reading the postings by Outside view by Snowman and Outside view by Durova give a different view of two indictments against me and present a more realistic picture. The same could be done for most of the other "evidence", as has been indicated on the talk page by other editors. I admit that I was not always tactful and could definitely improve, but this massive piling on, by a new arbcom member and the the FAC delegate I can only see as a lynch mob mentality. The energy that went into collecting so many mostly petty diffs belies any desire for the RFC to accomplish positive change. I misjudged the hate directed at me by these two people. Now I know I have two extremely vengeful enemies on a level I had not imagined before. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 10:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, Mattisse, this is the exact type of commentary that the RfC is trying to resolve. If you believe the diffs given are inaccurate or taken out of context, please say so (with supporting diffs) in the response section. Your point of view needs to be included for a balanced weighing, but diatribes and further accusations against Sandy (who did not certify the dispute) are not all that useful. Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Karanacs, it is unfortunate but I have no store house of diffs to pull out at the appropriate momments such as this. Those actually reading the information on the RFC can see for themselves that much of it is simply ridiculous, is not related to the subject, and is there to show me in the poorest light possible. Yes, I have made disparaging remarks about FAC, mostly because of my treatment there by Sandy and because of Sandy's many disparaging remarks about GAN. I admit that I made snippy remarks and am willing, as a consequence, not to participate in FAC any more. But am I really expected to account for my typos in FAC articles?
- Unfortunately, Mattisse, this is the exact type of commentary that the RfC is trying to resolve. If you believe the diffs given are inaccurate or taken out of context, please say so (with supporting diffs) in the response section. Your point of view needs to be included for a balanced weighing, but diatribes and further accusations against Sandy (who did not certify the dispute) are not all that useful. Karanacs (talk) 21:05, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Risker. I would do as you suggest and examine and improve my behavior if the RFC had been presented in good faith aimed at encouraging this. But the RFC is so revengeful and ugly, meant to demean and destroy me, not to promote my improvement. They posted my every mistake, going back for over a year; even typos from FAC articles are listed. A few succinct recent examples would have done the job, if their intent was not to destroy. Clearly two people are seeking to drive me away from FAC. Reading the postings by Outside view by Snowman and Outside view by Durova give a different view of two indictments against me and present a more realistic picture. The same could be done for most of the other "evidence", as has been indicated on the talk page by other editors. I admit that I was not always tactful and could definitely improve, but this massive piling on, by a new arbcom member and the the FAC delegate I can only see as a lynch mob mentality. The energy that went into collecting so many mostly petty diffs belies any desire for the RFC to accomplish positive change. I misjudged the hate directed at me by these two people. Now I know I have two extremely vengeful enemies on a level I had not imagined before. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 10:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Hi Mattisse. I do hope that you *are* taking the comments at the RFC to heart, because there are some genuine concerns being expressed, and some very good suggestions for dealing with difficult situations. I do not see any editors commenting there who could possibly be accused of being sockpuppets, and I'm not seeing concerns expressed that predate your last RFC; links to prior RFCs are standard, and you aren't being singled out because of them. You continue to make many valuable contributions to the encyclopedia, but if one editor decides not to nominate an article for FAC, or chooses not to defend a FAR nomination because he or she finds your behaviour chilling, then it's the encyclopedia that loses: not me, not you, not that editor - the encyclopedia. We're all volunteers here, none more or less important than the other, but each of us have our own areas of specialisation. You've got a better than average skills set, so if you're finding one area stressful, you have the ability to work on other tasks where your contributions will continue to make a difference. When one area becomes onerous, I do encourage you to find a breath of fresh air in one of your other areas of skill; it will be no less valuable to the encyclopedia, and I hope it will help you to find a more positive frame of mind to continue your participation. Risker (talk) 06:12, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- I truly thank you for this view, Risker. This RFC is very much like the allegations from two years ago, Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Mattisse, which turned out to have been filed by a pack of sock puppets of Category:Misplaced Pages sockpuppets of Ekajati. It is hard to see this current RFC as other than a lynch mob; why are such old allegations presented in an attempt to improve my attitude now? That a lynch mob has bothered to try to drag up every failing, even typos, does not seem to designed to promote good will in me but rather to drive me away. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 05:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- True, the whole point of an RfC is it isn't supposed to be a lynch mob, and others are allowed to place outside points of view (which they have) with a different tone, and people can then comment there as well. I agree I hate these things too, but I felt it was necessary this time as previous requests have had no effect. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
This RFC is not in good faith. When a confusing issue that occurred over 2 1/2 years ago and lasted a month or two, not to be repeated since (and did not involve any of the editors publishing this RFC that is is meant to be helpful) is brought up as a Cause of concern, AGF is hard to maintain. AGF is not maintained in the RFC itself, as Durova shows in his/her analysis of the Augustan literature FAR. Motives are attributed to me by reading my mind, alluding that I am paranoid, when I was threatened with a block for a joking remark, similar but less serious in nature, that I made to Casliber on my user page, which he admitted was a joke. Nonetheless, User:Dweller said I should be blocked without warning (AN/I thought differently and that a block was totally unwarranted.)
Similarly with the Attachment therapy incident, SandyGeorgia attributes my motive to her somehow. Actually, I was in the midst of giving a requested second opinion for GAN when the article was promoted to GA in an edit conflict. I asked another editor, User:Malleus Fatuorum, what to do and he suggested, since the article was so bad, immediate GAR. I think the results of the GAR proved my judgment correct. Misplaced Pages:Good article reassessment/Attachment therapy/1.
As for all my bad behavior in the Major depressive disorder, both User:Snowmanradio who participated in the Major depressive disorder FAC and witnessed all that happened during it, and User:SilkTork who read the whole FAC through and awarded me a Barnstar for my work during that FAC, have completely vindicated my behavior during the FAC and on the article itself.
Is the fact that when another editor made a nasty remark to me, and I said I would withdraw {as the diffs indicate) proof of my horrible character? SandyGeorgia has blamed me for the Zeraph/Slim Virgin incident. evem though I warmly supported her in the resulting Arbitration. It was Slim Virgin who unblocked Zeraph (blocked because Zeraph's reverts of an article I was working on). Recently, SanyGeorgia tried to get another admin to punish me and gave that admin links to my archives as evidence (User:Jennavecia) who ignored Sandy's suggestion. This RFC is at Sandy's instigation (almost all the diffs are from her diff collection) with the aid of Casliber who is distressed that his MDD article had to be rewritten to pass FAC. It will be supported by the little group who depend on Sandy for their FACs.
Perhaps you can show me a way of gathering evidence, as I have not been collecting diffs and roaming around in other's archives as Sandy does? How do I do this? I firmly believe that this RFC is by a few FAC people, dominated by Sandy who are behind this. Karanacs, I respect you, and I respect User:Awadewit, but few others of the FAC crowd. I can try to defend myself, but as demonstrated by this RFC against me, no one reads diffs anyway. So I expect a pile on now, because SandyGeorgia is powerful. If I leave Misplaced Pages, so what? As many point out, the leaving of one editor is unimportant. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Easy question
How do I get account creator permissions? I'm setting up a project for my students, and need to create quite a few accounts. As our school IP is blocked (we have a few persistent vandals), the students can not create the accounts themselves. Thanks for all you do (and put up with). You're a WikiSaint, for certain. SDJ 12:14, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Aww, you flatter me. You've got a valid reason for requesting account creator permission, and I don't see any issues in your logs. I'm not in a position to grant that permission from the computer I'm using right now, but will be able to do it later on this evening if one of the itinerant talk page watchers doesn't beat me to it (hint, hint). Risker (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks then, and could you point me where to go to get up to speed on best practices for useage of the AC tool? SDJ 15:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- ✓ Done – iridescent 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Would you mind pointing me toward a tutorial on how to go about using the AC permission/tool? SDJ 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can't help there, I'm afraid... I never understood it. – iridescent 21:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Well shoot. Perhaps Risker or one of her other TPWers can help me with that. SDJ 21:24, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Can't help there, I'm afraid... I never understood it. – iridescent 21:22, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Would you mind pointing me toward a tutorial on how to go about using the AC permission/tool? SDJ 21:20, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- ✓ Done – iridescent 21:17, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks then, and could you point me where to go to get up to speed on best practices for useage of the AC tool? SDJ 15:00, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
- Aww, you flatter me. You've got a valid reason for requesting account creator permission, and I don't see any issues in your logs. I'm not in a position to grant that permission from the computer I'm using right now, but will be able to do it later on this evening if one of the itinerant talk page watchers doesn't beat me to it (hint, hint). Risker (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)