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 I keep things on my talk page until they've been addressed, so stuff tends to be out of date order.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

Check your email

Now would be a good time. :-) Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Read and responded! Thanks very much. :-) Risker (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

TYVM

Thanks for deleting that attack from my talk page. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 01:31, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Always happy to be of service. :-) Risker (talk) 01:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong arbitration

Risker, please don't mind, but I thought you were recused on the Ryulong case. --Mythdon 03:51, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You will recall that the reason for my initial recusal was that I provided personally held evidence relating to Ryulong, not to you, and I have recused from any motions that could affect remedies or sanctions on either of you. This amendment request is essentially paper shuffling, and makes no change in the remedies against any party, and I supported so that this request for amendment would be more likely to be resolved in a timely way. If you feel strongly that I need to recuse from voting on an amendment that essentially says "file this particular paragraph at this point, rather than that point", I will do so. Risker (talk) 05:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do. You'd be better off just making a statement as a regular user. --Mythdon 05:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The only point of my making a statement is as an arbitrator. As an editor, I don't really see why this wasn't addressed as a question to the clerk who did the archiving, asking if might be better in a different place, or if a commment on the applicable remedy (saying it was superseded) would have been sufficient. I shall recuse at your request. Risker (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Mythdon 20:29, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Axxman8

Re: your message, please see this topic, where the ban was reduced to an indef block.— Dædαlus 06:53, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Classic case of indirect ban because no admin will unblock him (which, having dealt with him myself, I think is entirely understandable), but perhaps not a true community ban. Thanks, Daedalus. Risker (talk) 13:13, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Homeopathy

I asked for you to deal with the problem, and it was archived without it being dealt with, despite promises it would be. Shall I resend you the e-mails where the arbcom promised to deal with the situation? You've taken a gross attack on me, which I asked for the Arbcom to look at and make sure it was withdrawn, and, after agreeing I had a point, did nothing and let it stand and be permanently archived.

Seriously, what am I supposed to do? Bain's statement is a blatant distortion of the facts. Arbcom say they're going to deal with it, but let it stand and achive it instead. I believe it was you yourself promised me you'd deal with it. When it isn't deleted, and I simply mark it, you yell at me.

I was trying to keep out of this, and let the arbcom deal with it, without goading you. Instead, you screwed me over. Again. Shoemaker's Holiday 02:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

SH, I'm recused on anything to do with homeopathy, and I don't think I've made any substantive comments about this matter at all. I supported the motion earlier this year, in the (apparently futile) hope that you would be able to move on. It's becoming increasingly clear that you believe the flaws in the process have absolved you of any responsibility in the ultimate decision on that case. Sorry, but no. I followed the case from its inception, before and after the oversights, without commenting on it. The final decision in that case, despite all the procedural problems, was correct. Risker (talk) 02:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)