User talk:Risker - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Risker (talk | contribs) at 18:44, 13 September 2009 (→Break: response to WMC). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:44, 13 September 2009 by Risker (talk | contribs) (→Break: response to WMC)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) 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)

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.

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 I keep things on my talk page until they've been addressed, so stuff tends to be out of date order.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

Messages below please

Break
A former arbitrator told me once that too much dispute resolution was soul-destroying. I'm going to be spending a short time clearing off my real-world desks and replenishing my soul, soothing my hopeful heart. It may take me a while to respond to any messages left here. Risker (talk) 00:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, fascinating. I see that the ideal you attempt to live up to in your cartoon is "they care only that the information is correct". And yet you've said your editing and administrator actions in the past few days have been very borderline, which is beneath you . Two of us have asked you to substantiate this apparently unfounded allegation, and indeed I wondered if this was going to be another "slang-and-run". It appears from your banner above that it is. Don't you think it is time to update your cartoon, with something along the lines of "our readers may care, but I really don't care if what I say is correct or not"? William M. Connolley (talk) 13:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Gimme a break. I've been divesting myself of onwiki activities for the past week, and have been listed as "inactive" on the Arbitration Committee list and clerk noticeboard for any new cases. I'm really not that hard to find, you know. Talk page has been here all along, and the email this user button works. I'm sorry I didn't immediately respond to your comment on the talk page, but I took it off my watchlist before you made your comment.

You were edit warring on Heaven and Earth (book) to the point that the page had to be protected, after which you used your administrator permissions to tag the page. In case you had forgotten, administrators are held to something of a higher standard of behaviour, and the Arbitration Committee has desysopped administrators with a history of edit-warring. And using your administrator permissions to make even an innocuous edit on a page that has been protected in part because of your own actions is unacceptable. Keep in mind that a similar innocuous edit is what triggered the case you are answering to right now.

What I said is indeed correct - your editorial and administrative behaviour was beneath you. I rather doubt this sort of nonsense would be considered acceptable in academic circles, either; at least they wouldn't be in the academic circles I am associated with. Risker (talk) 18:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)