Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

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.

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 I keep things on my talk page until they've been addressed, so stuff tends to be out of date order.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)

Messages below please

You have been nominated for membership to the Association of Assistants to Established Editors

By nature or nurture, not all of us are cut out to be Established Editors. That's why I'd like to invite you to serve as an assistant to an Established Editor (to be determined later, by the Established Editor, using a line-up of all assistants; some assistants may not be chosen). If you accept, please create a sub-page under this explaining why you are fit to be an assistant. Once again, congratulations. Outriggr (talk) 09:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. And exactly what would one assist with? To be honest, there's some question as to whether or not I am "fit", let alone "fit to be an assistant". Probably not a good fit for me, but thank you for the invitation. Risker (talk) 15:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Please excuse Outriggr. In his haste to feel included and to create an association which everyone might be a part of, he clearly forgot that no Arbitrator could ever be a mere "assistant". He mumbled something about "content", but what I say unto you now is that all editors are valuable and "established" the moment they edit in good faith. Outriggr will be in his room for just over a week, and I have ensured that the Association will be wound down in such a way as to avoid any need for arbitration or hurt feelings. Sincerely, Godriggr (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Note to self

Frank Dux

More abusive account names

They're back -- please check my block log and do what you think is appropriate. Thanks, NawlinWiki (talk) 18:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Argh. Sorry, I missed this message last night. I'll ask someone to look into it ASAP. Thanks. Risker (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Now there are more -- please check again. NawlinWiki (talk) 15:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Wow, I must have done something really good. I have got a guardian angel with a machine gun watching over me. :-) Thanks for taking care of the annoyed user page vandal. No idea what the critter wanted. Perhaps it was just hungry for bytes. Asgard Loki was hungry for bytes, so I set him on a race against fire. Fire won. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Always a pleasure, Utgard Loki. Those vandals are sometimes hard to predict. Risker (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Audit_Subcommittee

I left a message on the talk page - any idea when we might see elections, and in what form? --Joopercoopers (talk) 20:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joopercoopers, nice to see you in these parts. I think Thatcher's response on the page is about as thorough as we're going to be able to get for now; unless I've missed something, the Arbitration Committee has not come to any conclusions about timing or process yet. Risker (talk) 03:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you too Risker. I'm afraid I've been rather absent dealing with RL stuff for quite a while. I'm deeply saddened to see Bish has left, to my mind, she was the 'Sixth Pillar'. I'm glad though to see the Audit Subcommittee take its baby steps, this is very welcome. I'd like to add a suggestion to the deliberations; If I understand it correctly, there's currently there's a 3-3 split between ArbCom and lay-members on the committee - what's the rationale for this? Wouldn't it make more sense for there to be a majority of elected members? --Joopercoopers (talk) 12:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Notability (people)#Porn Awards

Of interest? Power.corrupts (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

• I propose to roll back the too bold change - comments? Power.corrupts (talk) 21:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

DreamHost AfD

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/DreamHost (2nd nomination) just closed as keep.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection of California State Route 186

Hold on a minute, you've protected it, even after I made non-issue edit to the article? The last edit was to expand the article to where the issue is not. I don't know why, but we stopped that stupid edit war about 12 hours ago.Mitch/HC32 13:12, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

I have reverted your unilateral edits. Please discuss before doing further actions. Cerejota (talk) 01:03, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Removal of simulated RFA section on the Civility Poll

I’m sorry if I offend you. But I don’t swear just for the hell of it. You see, I figure that language is a poor enough means of communication as it is. So we ought to use all the words we’ve got. Besides, there are damned few words that everybody understands.

— From Inherit the Wind,
by Jerome Lawrence and Robert E. Lee

I find your removal of this entire section totally innappropriate. If you cannot find any more support for this unilateral action other than your own view of what civility is and agreement from Giano and Merridew of all people, then I strongly suggest you reverse your action. MickMacNee (talk) 12:42, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh I don't find it inappropriate at all, I'm sure Tinkerbell and Wendy would agree too. Giano (talk) 12:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee, I find the tone and personal attacks in your comment rude and uncivil. It is especially ironic since you are on the Civility poll page preaching to others about civility . On the other hand, I think your comment is an excellent example of how to be uncivil without ever using one of the "forbidden seven". - Josette (talk) 01:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

The removed section certainly stands out as a particularly baited question compared to the rest of the debate. What was the point of that section? Chillum 01:43, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I believe it was about a pot calling a purported kettle black. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

@Josette: Still looking for that special barnstar; you've earned it. re irony: in his own case, he may be right about too much leniency. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

@MacNee: If you don't like Giano's or my views over there, you should note that Tznkai and Cas supported this, too, and it seems like none of the biguns have rallied to your tribe over there. Jack Merridew 02:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi everyone: Glad to see that a majority of posters agree with my interpretation of that thread; there is so much more to civility than refraining from cursing. MickMacNee, my edit had been reversed hours before and then subsequently reinstated by another editor. Haven't looked to see the state of play at this point yet, but I am sure it is a lively discussion. It really is very nice to see such a diverse group finding common ground on an important issue. Risker (talk) 02:35, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

There certainly is more to civility than George Carlin's Seven Words. I don't see it as about specific words at all as I can have a perfectly civil and friendly discussion while using them. It is about the toxic personalities that are not dealt with appropriately. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

@Risker: (w/ec) Since I'll be lighting up your message notice with this, I'll offer a bit of suggested reading:

• Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes
• Review of Cyberchiefs: Autonomy and Authority in Online Tribes

I got the actual book after reading the review; it's very interesting and not really the small bit about Durova. You're quoted ;) Recommended for all biguns. Cheers, Jack Merridew 02:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

"You're quoted"? you're kidding! Holy cow. Must reserve this at the library... Risker (talk) 02:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

yup. I'll review it again and let you know. I don't have the book with me at the moment. Cheers, Jack Merridew 03:09, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for emailing me the snippet; it helps explain certain things. I'll consider ordering the book, it's not all that easy to come by up here. Risker (talk) 14:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Can I please get a serious response here Risker? Or are we pretending that the section was yanked a few minutes after I had posted it, with nobody else commenting on it, and the others not having seen it? Let's not get into your temporal difficulties here Merridew. MickMacNee (talk) 12:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'll focus on our other threads; you might find the above book interesting ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

MacNee: (<- ironic effect, not how I would normally address someone) His userid is Jack Merridew. Not Merridew. Address him by his userid, or if you are on a friendly first name basis (which I suspect you are not), by a more familiar term, please. If you want respect, you need to give respect... More generally, I think your tone here leaves a lot to be desired, and is in serious need of increased collegiality-ization. The irony of a pro-civility crusader agitating for strict enforcement of an effectively unenforcable policy, to the point of being uncivil about it, is not lost on me (either). It would be even more ironic if your over the top behaviour earned you a block. Oh, and Risker gave you a serious response, in my view. ++Lar: t/c 12:52, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

MickMacNee, I have responded up above. I do not think it is a bad thing that people aren't reading that section, because whether you realise it or not, it was an exercise in humiliating the editors who were involved in a specific, and now much over-discussed, incident. Instead of looking at a general principle, it was targeted to use that one example and turn it into an internal meme. I did then, and do now, believe it was uncivil. You haven't, however, paid attention. Since I removed that section, it was reinstated, and then subsequently removed by others. The comments on both this page, and on the talk page of the civility poll, favour my interpretation more than yours. I am fine with leaving a link to it. I still hold that not recognizing the degree of incivility involved in the titling and premise of the thread is a sign that we have civility issues that are not, and cannot, be addressed by a policy that acts as a checklist for what to avoid. Risker (talk) 12:54, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You haven't responded to me, you have merely repeated yourself. I don't need to read the same reply twice, I am not dumb as well as malicious. Perhaps if I attempted to insert a historical link to the page, you would maybe see how what came after your unilateral action is ultimately irrelevant. You preferred to yank an entire section rather than request a refactoring or otherwise take issue with it, a section that multiple people had already accepted as a legitimate discussion exercise, posted with the best of intentions, and not as you seem to think, as a purposely attacking meme, posted with the worst of motives, or a product of some sort of collective incompetence. The few people who belatedly agree with the various inherent issues with that, do not outweigh the view of the actual original participants, in any sense at all. MickMacNee (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right, that is what I did. I hear your complaint, and I disagree with you. I do not think my actions were inappropriate. I am sorry that you cannot see how harmful it was to have such an uncivil thread in a discussion about civility. It is unfortunate that it took so long for this to be pointed out. The fact that people blithely commented there is a symptom of how pervasive such incivility has become, that people don't even recognize it. When I removed the offending section, I left a link so that others could read it if they wished; I see there are links available now on the talk page. The posts are still available. I will not be discussing this further with you, as I believe there is nothing I can say that will satisfy your complaint, short of recanting against my own principles. That is not going to happen. Risker (talk) 13:57, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Malicious, are you? ;) Please let go of the idea that people offering a view, especially a dissenting one, and participating in the melee, er, discussion, legitimises whatever the impetus was; I already commented to that effect to you elsewhere and I'm sure many of the others have similar views (to mine;). Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay folks, enough on this topic please, from all sides. MickMacNee is entitled to hold a different view, and I don't want there to be a pile-on here. I thank those who agreed with my action for letting me know, but I don't object to MickMacNee having raised his objections with me here either. Risker (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oversight-l

Hi. I just forwarded a note from OTRS to oversight-l but apparently it is moderated? Since you're a list admin would you mind adding a few OTRS addresses to the non-member filters list? info-en@, info-en-o, and info-en-q all @wikimedia.org. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:45, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

All taken care of, Rjd0060. Thanks for the message, everything should get through now, regardless of length. Risker (talk) 02:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi

Hi,please check your emailAlsoam (talk) 20:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Alsoam - Well, I have checked me email, but with over 100 messages a day coming in from individuals and various mailing lists, I'm not entirely sure what I should be looking for here, and your username doesn't show up in any of them. My "Email this user" feature is enabled; if there is something that you need to send to me, you might want to try that, putting your username in the title line, so I will be able to respond. Risker (talk) 12:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably the last policy idea I'll ever offer

I just got tired of watching the fire drill. I kept thinking, "Sheesh, there are ways, if only someone asks" and "Why does no one consider this logically" and "Why can no one think in terms other than power?" User_talk:Geogre#How_to_get_and_structure_an_advisory_council

It will do no good, as I am a known criminal and all. Geogre (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Aw Geogre, at least you're an intelligent criminal. None of that grubby break-and-enter or kidnapping or arson for you. I've not ignored what you've written, I've just been trying to absorb it all. The one question I have for you would be, just how much do you really think will get done in a month? Many of the issues that come up can take 3-6 months to develop a workable plan. On the other hand, I think you have a better idea of what an advisory council ought to be doing than is reflected in many of the other commentaries I've read. I'm glad you're still thinking about these sorts of things. Risker (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope ...

...that this shows that I have perhaps better understood the position on BLP from our last discussion regarding "octomom" on WP:ANI. Forgive me for the rude language in the post I have linked to. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you've got it, Bwilkins. THanks for letting me know, you put a smile on my face. Risker (talk) 04:37, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Frank Dux

Thanks, I was unaware that a WP:BLP restriction had been placed. On the same vein, however, it seems unusual to categorically remove any well-sourced controversy that meets the standards of WP:RS simply b/c blocked sock-puppets have been complaining. (I'm sure that wasn't the intent of WP:BLP.) What would you consider to be an equitable solution? Djma12 13:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I invite OLEnglish and Risker to actually explain their whole-scale deletions to this article. WP:BLP is not simply catch-phrase, I think you need to justify HOW the article actually violates this when there is a long-standing section that has numerous reliable sources per WP:RS. Deleting a sourced "Controversy" section was never the intent of WP:BLP, especially when the only objections to the section came from sock-puppet attacks.

Please actually respond to WHY you feel this article violates WP:BLP, otherwise I am reverting the article in two days Djma12 22:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry folks for my tardiness, I have been largely off-wiki for a few days. I will respond tomorrow at the talk page of the article. Thanks for letting me know that there are concerns. Risker (talk) 04:17, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Rjd0060

To confirm. Risker (talk) 04:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Geogre_and_Risker

A request for arbitration has been filed. You may wish to make a statement. Durova 02:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)