→Copyvio at Glide SDI: responded on article talk page |
→Please do not assume bad faith: new section |
||
Line 136: | Line 136: | ||
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 [[Talk:Glide SDI|the article's talk page]], and I'd like to get your opinion on it. Thanks in advance, [[User:DoriSmith|Dori]] ([[User talk:DoriSmith|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DoriSmith|Contribs]]) 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
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 [[Talk:Glide SDI|the article's talk page]], and I'd like to get your opinion on it. Thanks in advance, [[User:DoriSmith|Dori]] ([[User talk:DoriSmith|Talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/DoriSmith|Contribs]]) 19:45, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
||
:Hi Dori, I have responded on the talk page of the article. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker#top|talk]]) 19:52, 15 March 2009 (UTC) |
:Hi Dori, I have responded on the talk page of the article. [[User:Risker|Risker]] ([[User talk:Risker#top|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[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Restoration_comedy&diff=277596206&oldid=277569756] is clearly a personal attack against me, and I am asking you to warn the editor who made it accordingly. Thank you. —[[User:Mattisse|<font color="navy">'''Mattisse'''</font>]] ([[User talk:Mattisse|Talk]]) 14:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:44, 16 March 2009
|
|
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)
- That sounds like a challenge, you know. E.g.
- Risker: the world is consistently failing to pay me according to my value.
- Risker, Afghanistan is getting to be a real mess. Can you sort that out for us?
- 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:
- 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. ;-)
- Afghanistan is indeed getting to be a real mess. We've got the Canadian Armed Forces working on it, though.[1]
- 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)
Wikipedia:Build the web
Well, you asked for what guideline supported my statements, and it used to be Wikipedia: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)
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.delanoygabsadds 20:14, 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)
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 [hides the entire text of the edit, just like deletion does]
- Hide edit comments [hides the edit comment only, leaves the text (if any) in place]
- Hide editor's username/IP [hides the username/IP only, leaves text and edit summary in place]
- Apply these restrictions to administrators and lock this interface [applied at the same time as any or all of the three above, roughly the equivalent of Oversight]
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) [deleted]"
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.delanoygabsadds 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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[2] is clearly a personal attack against me, and I am asking you to warn the editor who made it accordingly. Thank you. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)