Misplaced Pages

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 I keep things on my talk page until they've been addressed, so stuff tends to be out of date order.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

That sounds like a challenge, you know. E.g.

1. Risker: the world is consistently failing to pay me according to my value.
2. Risker, Afghanistan is getting to be a real mess. Can you sort that out for us?
3. You know, international capitalism continues to foster inhumanity and immorality. What is the proper balance of collective ethical values (encoded as law and regulation) and anarchic and amoral gambling (as marketplaces)?

I have now ensured that my message will last forever! Geogre (talk) 12:47, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Ha! The first two are easy:

1. I have determined that you are correct and you are not being paid in accordance with your value. Having looked at the overall situation, my accounts indicate that you currently owe the world $3,436.47 (US dollars). Given the fact it will cost more to collect that amount than to ignore it, however, I think we can call it even.  ;-)
2. Afghanistan is indeed getting to be a real mess. We've got the Canadian Armed Forces working on it, though.
3. This is the tough one. Some guy came up with an idea about 2000 years ago that might work here. I think it goes "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Works for me, how about you?

Risker (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Build the web

Well, you asked for what guideline supported my statements, and it used to be Misplaced Pages:Build the web, which predates even the distinction between "policy" and "guideline". Unfortunately, a new edit war has erupted over its existence. -- 08:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Kendrick7; I see that the 'merging' of this page is now the subject of debate. Risker (talk) 17:01, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

My question at WT:Arbitration Committee

Hi, because that page has gotten cluttered, you may have missed my question there. I'll copy it for your convenience below:

• To Risker: Meanwhile, even as we speak, Tennis Expert and Locke Cole keep adding text and diffs and text and diffs to the Evidence page, making it fatter and fatter and fatter. Your clerk Ryan Postlethwaite did make one removal, of text provided by Lightmouse. He has not excised any of the miles and miles of text put in by Tennis Expert, Locke Cole or their confederates to date. But he has edit-warred with Greg L and blocked Greg L. Why has your clerk not enforced the instruction clearly set out at the top of that page, namely to limit submissions to 1000 words and 100 diffs? Why have you arbitrators not reminded the clerk of his obligation?--Goodmorningworld (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Goodmorningworld, for some reason the yellow bar didn't light up for me and I missed your question entirely! My sincere apologies. Much to my surprise, my talk page has largely fallen silent in recent weeks so without the bar I don't pop in here very often.

I think the most honest answer to your question is that, after the discombobulation of that night, I personally saw no point in continuing to try to bring order to the pages in question; the response to the attempt to do so was evidence on its own of the nature and extent of the problematic behaviour. I've read the evidence and the workshop proposals, and I expect to see a proposed decision within the next 72 hours, on which I will vote. Perhaps if I and other arbitrators had been aggressive right from the beginning, we wouldn't have a novel-sized RFAR in front of us, but we are where we are and the clock doesn't go backward. Risker (talk) 08:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Mother Jones

Thank you for your fast action. David in DC (talk) 05:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy to help, David in DC. Risker (talk) 06:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

revision deletion

I love it! being able to see when a revision was selectively deleted! --Rocksanddirt (talk) 18:57, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

One of the reasons that oversight is used so sparingly is that it damages the database and is nearly impossible to correct if an error is made. It's explicitly not transparent. When reverting deletions, it's clear that something has been done, not just to the few oversighters, but to every user who checks out the history. To me, that's a lot more transparent. Glad you're finding this to be a net positive. Risker (talk) 19:01, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not an admin, and never going to be an admin, but in order to helpfully participate in various fora here being able to know that admin actions have been taken (I almost never need to know what they are) is helpful. The allegations of abuse of oversight and selective deletion and restoration are much easier to deal with if it is known when and if stuff has happened. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 19:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, when you do a rev-delete, do you have an option to not necessarily hide it from admins? If so, what happens if you don't check the box? (I'm assuming it's a box) Does the edit show up under Special:Undelete? J.delanoy_adds 20:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi J.Delanoy. Here's what I see. When I look at a page history, beside each edit appears an option "(show/hide)" (it looks just like that, except it is a blue link). By clicking on that option, I'm taken to a page titled "Delete/Undelete revisions". I have four options, the first three of which can be selected individually or in combination:

• Hide revision text
• Hide edit comments
• Hide editor's username/IP
• Apply these restrictions to administrators and lock this interface

After that comes a place for me to enter the log comment, and the "Apply" button. The first three of these actions will show up in the deletion log of that particular page, and in my personal log, although you might want to look at my own log and the deletion log of this page to see if you can see them or if only those with oversight permission can see them. (I am assuming that any editor can see the deletions in my log, and any admin can see the full page deletion log.) The only one that I am not sure is the same is the one where I apply restrictions to administrators and lock the interface; as there was an issue that was only recently cleared up, oversighters have continued to use the "old" oversight process for most edits that would qualify under that existing policy, instead of using the newer process. As to username issues, if there is a nasty username I am more inclined to ask a bureaucrat to rename the account rather than use this process at this stage, because it is an existing practice that has met with community acceptance already. Hope this is helpful. Risker (talk) 21:05, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The following is what the regular editor sees in the history (from risker's talk page)

"(cur) (prev) 05:54, 19 February 2009 65.73.2.135 (Talk) (comment removed) "

for a revision that has been deleted, with the comment deleted, but the username left in. I can't tell if it was an 'oversight' style (restricted from admins) or regular admin type. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

a revision deletion request....

These contributions seem like good candidates for redaction. Found them trolling around various discussions of the revision deletion discussions. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 01:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Quite correct, Rocksanddirt. If you click on "logs" on the toolbox for this page, you should be able to see what revision hiding I did. One of the things to watch for is not just the edit itself, but the reversion, which may contain parts of the attacking commentary. As a general practice, it's probably better to email such findings to Oversight-L, rather than leaving them on one person's talk page; they're likely to be addressed more quickly, and it's good damage control. Thanks for pointing these out. Risker (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the IP

That IP was spamming A***talk.com, and at the time, was open on port 8080. I tested it again, and AFAIK, it is no longer open, so I unblocked. J.delanoy_adds 15:05, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, excellent work, J.delanoy. The extended block was appropriate at the time, and your review of the extended block was also appropriate. We do have to be careful with these long blocks, as they can have some significant collateral damage, but certainly there are situations where they are quite appropriate. Thanks for taking the time to look into it. Risker (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Welcomes

Hi R, we discussed elsewhere welcome templates. Are you aware of this? I've only looked at a bit of it but it looks pretty awesome. One of those commercial-but-free works and still needs some polishing but it looks like a pretty good intro. Of course, it's missing the "Welcome to ANI" chapter and "So now you're going to ArbCom". :) Franamax (talk) 07:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

mail

You have mail- well you did at the weekend.:) Just checking you received it? Sticky Parkin 01:05, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I did indeed, and apologise for the delay in responding. It will likely take me another day or two, I regret to say. Nonetheless, your sentiments are entirely appreciated. Thanks for the reminder. Risker (talk) 05:09, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind how long it takes.:) I wasn't expecting any particular reply, except maybe to say you've received it, so your thoughts would be a bonus.:) I know you've not online that much at the mo. Glad you didn't mind my mail.:) Sticky Parkin 23:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Query...

Hopefully I've not been the cause of this. If I have, please find a 2X4 and clue me in! Ealdgyth - Talk 02:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh geez Ealdgyth! Never, not even once, have I seen you be even the slightest bit snarky; you've always been forthright and helpful, and I've not once seen you personalize your critique. Please, rest easy that you are not in the group that causes me concern; I have a feeling most people would be able to list them given a few minutes of thought. Risker (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

One is always the last to see ones own faults (grins) Better to be safe than sorry. Ealdgyth - Talk 02:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio at Glide SDI

You removed the G12 tag I put on Glide SDI, and I'm not sure you're right. I've put up a demonstration of the issues at the article's talk page, and I'd like to get your opinion on it. Thanks in advance, Dori (Talk • Contribs) 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dori, I have responded on the talk page of the article. Risker (talk) 19:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not assume bad faith

Regarding the Restoration comedy FAR, please do not assume bad faith on my part without sufficient evidence. Why do you assume bad faith toward me, without cause? There is no reason for you to think that my comment was made with other than the intent to help another innocent editor. On the other hand, this comment by Giano is clearly a personal attack against me, and I am asking you to warn the editor who made it accordingly and not take sides against me. Thank you. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Note, this comment edited at 1600 UTC on March 17, 2009. Mattisse, I would really appreciate it if you would stop editing your comments on this page. If you want to add further information, please do so in a separate edit. We have had this discussion before, and you are well aware that it is considered poor form. As to bad faith, making a comment about other editors that does not even address the purpose of the FAR is simply not on, and is not acceptable practice. Risker (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about editing the comment on your page. I did not realize is was wrong to do so. I should not have made the comment on the FAR page. I just wanted to save that editor the confusion and grief I went through, but I should have left well enough alone. I struck through the comment on the page. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

There is now a discussion here about the the above editor here. Quite frankly, I have tired of her behaviour. Yet again the pattern repeats itself, appolagies, the next is "Poor little Mattisseeee no one loves me, where can I turn, where can I go" It can only be a matter of time before someone tells her. Giano (talk) 18:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, I'm trying to slowly go through and rework every Battle in Afghanistan - most of them were written callously by a single user, typically one with a very strong POV (and NPOV is perhaps my forte, where AGF is not). Although I must say the article is much better before they deleted the image of the war-dead as "harmful to the families to have pictures of war-dead", it just reeks of sanitization since the image is as important and relevant as File:Bodies of Rwandan refugees DF-ST-02-03035.jpg, File:My Lai massacre.jpg, File:Deadvietcong2.jpg and File:Execution of Poles by German Einsatzkomanndo Oktober1939.jpg. The loss of that image still ranks as one of the greatest crimes against WMF in my opinion. Sherurcij 02:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

FAR template

User:YellowMonkey has nominated Risker for a featured article review here on the following grounds:poor templating skills. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes it works, {{FARMessage|ARTICLE NAME|nominator|reasoning}} REverting it for the time being. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

1. "Articles are typically reviewed" -- passive voice. Suggested: "Reviews typically last two weeks."
2. "substantial concerns are not addressed...will be moved" -- passive and catty and begging the question. "If the review shows substantial, unaddressed problems, the article will go on to the Featured Article Removal Candidates (FARC) list."
3. "where editors may declare..." -- ick! Suggested: "At FARC, reviewers and editors will seek consensus to keep or remove the article from Featured Article status."
4. "The instructions for the review..." -- Imperious. Suggested: "If you would like to participate, please look over the guidelines at Misplaced Pages:Featured article review."
5. The lack of agency: The #1 problem is that the sombitch who thinks there is a problem with the article never owns up. The present change is far better than the old form, but a closing sentence indicating that a person is interested in hearing from the other editors why this may be incorrect or peremptory would be nice. Suggested: "If, after reviewing the guidelines, you feel that I have made a mistake, please feel free to contact me."

That's me, anyway. I hate the creepy "it has been determined by the Law that thou art a sinner" feeling of those nasty passives. I think they were intended to be creepy, too. Utgard Loki (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You said on WT:FAR that Geogre had made comments on the template. Are you saying Utgard Loki is Geogre? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The last person who ranted on my page about the passive voice was Geogre, who regularly rants about it; to be honest, I didn't really look at the signature and just assumed... Risker (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I figured he was, and dropped Geogre a suitably cryptic note in that connection about two years ago . Given the response I decided that (a) I was probably mistaken and (b) I really didn't care that much. Mackensen (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)