A user on a wiki of mine is globally blocked and has two known alt accounts (not intended to mislead the community), and has been editing under those alt accounts. Is this allowed?
37,702
pages
ALL POSTS
All posts by Bwburke94
You have 15 edits there, none of which are visible. This shows that your edits were to deleted pages.
The only reason a Logopedia page would be deleted is if it were a hoax, which supports your claim. And your block reason was primarily for fake logos.
But you haven't yet explained why your block for fake logos was illegitimate.
(Edited by Bwburke94)
Copper9's block was officially for being "undesirable", but unofficially for impersonating another user.
(Edited by Bwburke94)
The newly-proposed header is much better than the initial plan, but I'm still wondering whether SVG wordmarks are possible. 250x65 will effectively become less and less space as the years go on, because of higher screen resolutions.
(Edited by Bwburke94)
I'd still be interested in larger wordmarks, at the very least. 250x65 isn't enough.
(Edited by Bwburke94)
Kirkburn wrote:
...and we're not currently planning on enabling this test concept on more wikis. Look out for an update soon.
...and we're not currently planning on enabling this test concept on more wikis. Look out for an update soon.
Typo?
(Edited by Bwburke94)
Absolutely.
The existence of the mobile site shouldn't detract from the experience on desktop browsers.
(Edited by Bwburke94)
EndBadwikiasToday wrote:
I do understand; however there are a few problems with consulting within the community, one of which being a suspicion that the bureaucrat has created several alternate accounts (not yet confirmed, but obvious enough), and another being biased community members. In the event of which I add evidence to support my claim, the bureaucrat can simply fib justifications.
I do understand; however there are a few problems with consulting within the community, one of which being a suspicion that the bureaucrat has created several alternate accounts (not yet confirmed, but obvious enough), and another being biased community members. In the event of which I add evidence to support my claim, the bureaucrat can simply fib justifications.
If sockpuppetry is involved, use Special:Contact, not the forums.
Also, be aware that you just accused a wiki's sole bureaucrat of sockpuppetry. I wouldn't be surprised if a retaliation block comes your way.
(Edited by Bwburke94)
Actually, I have a better question for the original poster.
What were the contents of your proposed edits?
(Edited by Bwburke94)
OnceUponATimeFan3 wrote:
No. The majority of them aren't protected. And yes. One admin message me saying that before I make any changes to pages that I need to ask them first. The admin told me that I should wait for an admin's approval before making the changes 'cause it's a big change for the Wikia.
No. The majority of them aren't protected. And yes. One admin message me saying that before I make any changes to pages that I need to ask them first. The admin told me that I should wait for an admin's approval before making the changes 'cause it's a big change for the Wikia.
The better question is: if the admins don't want the pages changed, why leave them unprotected?
(Edited by Bwburke94)
KurwaAntics wrote:
Having a new menu is ok, but please allow us to use wordmarks in different resolutions and in SVG format so that they are scaled automatically.
Having a new menu is ok, but please allow us to use wordmarks in different resolutions and in SVG format so that they are scaled automatically.
I agree with this. I always create my wordmarks in much higher resolutions and then scale them down, which means I have to maintain two versions of them - one 250x65 image as the wordmark itself, and one larger image for when it needs to be placed in a template.
(Edited by Bwburke94)
LordTBT wrote:
Menu font size is a bit too large. That should be customizable - key word here.
Menu font size is a bit too large. That should be customizable - key word here.
Also, I think moving the wordmark to the center creates too much white space - it should be an option to keep the wordmark to the left and use this nav.
Absolutely. Many wikis depend on minimizing white space, and the changes the last few years have done the opposite.
(Edited by Bwburke94)
It used to be possible with verbatim tags, but they have since been disabled.
(Edited by Bwburke94)
250x65px simply isn't large enough for the wiki wordmark, and if it's moved to top-center of the page there's no reason to keep the 250px width limit.
(Edited by Bwburke94)
This definitely makes sense, but are we taking too much away from the editors by standardizing everything?
(Edited by Bwburke94)
Alright, now for the harder question:
Is such evasion grounds for the alt accounts to be globally blocked as well? (If so, I'll use Special:Contact to name the accounts in question.)
(Edited by Bwburke94)