We cannot say without being able to inspect the example ourselves. There can lots of different ways to get the same visual appearance as well as "invisiable" elements. All of these details may factor into the reason. That said, my initial guess would be one of the following:
The header is enclosed in some other element such as a table or a div tag that hides the overflow.
There is some other CSS that is overriding the 5px width for the bottom and right borders.
It isn't a selectivity issue. I tested it without img and it works just fine. I would recommend keeping the lower-selectivity version so that the classes can be used for things other than just images if they so desire.
How long did you wait before deciding it didn't work? Sometimes, CSS updates are delayed in being reflecting on the page. This is mentioned in this section of the CSS/JS help page. By the way, I have updated my previous reply here with a more condensed version. Not sure why I didn't being it up in the older thread.
The issue is that your CSS isn't valid. I am not sure where you got it from but, as one of the participants in the thread you linked to, I know it isn't what we posted there. What you want is the following.
.theme-fandomdesktop-light .dark-only,
.theme-fandomdesktop-dark .light-only {
display: none;
}
If you don't mind me asking, where did you get this snippet of "CSS"?
According to Help:Template_types, this type of template is expected to be at the start/end or a page/section. It even goes as far as to compare it to a hatnote. The implication here being that it is intended to be visually separated from surrounding text. So, yes, I would say this is intentional.
Thanks. Am I correct in assuming it is Flarecool Flareon that is not working correctly? If so, that is because it needs to be written as Flarecool_Flareon with an underscore instead of a space.
Your issue is not clear from what you have posted. What differences are we supposed to see between the two sets of images? Can you give us a link to the actual wiki and tell us the actual usernames with the issue? What you have provided so far amounts to "I want it to look one way but it doesn't. Please help." There isn't much we can do without knowing more about what specifically you want and how you are trying to do it.
This is not a standard template. We can try to explain technically what the snippet you screenshotted is trying to do but we won't be able to actually help you unless you provide more context. Usually it is best to provide links to where you are copying from, where you are copying to, and an example of the issue.
No
The two are not directly related. Sockpuppetting, as has already been explained, is when a particular person attempts to use a different account to bypass a block or otherwise misportray themselves as a different person. An autoblock happens when admins have blocked a user and checked the option to also block the associated IP address. When enabled, this option blocks the current IP address for 24 hours at the time the block is initiated. Should the blocked account access the wiki using a different IP address, that other IP address is blocked for 24 hours from the time the account attempted to access the wiki using that IP address.
In other words, an autoblock means that a particular account has tried to access the wiki from a different IP address. So in that sense, it couldn't possibly be sockpuppetting. In order for the wiki to detect and block the IP address, the user has to be using the blocked account. In contrast, sockpuppetting requires that they use a different account.
That said, HumansCanWinElves is correct in that that the autoblock feature is meant to deter sockpuppetting. The logic behind it is that if multiple accounts are using the same IP address, there is a decent chance those accounts are being used by the same person. So by blocking the blocked account's IP addresses, the blocked person will be less successful at circumventing the block by simply creating new accounts.
That said, having the same IP address does not guarantee they are the same person. This is especially so if they are using anything besides a home network. Mobile data networks, public networks, some work networks, and school networks usually re-assign IP addresses on a regular basis. This means that the IP address the blocked person has today could be held by someone else tomorrow. In the case of a public network, maybe even in just a few hours. VPNs intentionally change IP addresses frequently to "protect your privacy on the internet and allow you to access content not available in your country".
As such, a blocked person can still commit sockpuppetry by using one of these networks to change their IP address. On the flip side, anyone else using one of these networks could be unknowingly assigned the IP address previously used by the blocked person. The latter is the reason why an autoblock is only 24 hours and not the full length of the block against the account.
It isn't really a bug so much as a lack of a feature. So no, it hasn't been "fixed". When you type, Fandom's scripts are constantly monitoring what you type. When you type "@" in the formal flow of typing, it triggers the script to open the mentions pop-up. The script then continues to monitor your typing and dynamically suggest users based on what you are typing and who has been active on the wiki. Once you select and option from the pop-up, it replaces your plain text with a link and adds special metadata (data not visible to the user) to the post. It is this metadata that allows the mentions to work.
However, if you just keep on typing without making a selection or, in your case, paste the mention as part of a larger copy-paste, the script assumes you meant it as just plain text. Therefore, the pop-up is not opened and the necessary metadata is not associated with the post. If you want to ping someone using mentions, you need to re-type the mention after pasting the rest of the post content.
Assuming you mean "original content", "original character", or something else along those lines when you say "OC", then yes. However, as the others have already said, you need to make sure it still adheres to Fandom's policies. Please read the full policies but there are a few points I would like to highlight since they are, from what I can tell, the most-frequent issues the OC wikis tend to run into.
You are not allowed to restrict editing on most pages of the wiki. While Fandom does allow for edit restricting some pages as a means to deal with vandals and/or protect important content such as local wiki policies, it is a global policy that the majority of pages should be open for editing to the majority of registered users (if not also anonymous users). I have seen this sometimes become an issue when an OC creator decides they want only themselves and their closest friends to be able to edit the wiki content.
You are not allowed to prevent others from redistributing your content either in its original form or modified. All new wikis (and most old wikis) are created under the CC-by-SA license which allows anyone free reign to redistribute (with or without modification) the content posted to the wiki provided that they credit the wiki as the source of the content. Along these lines, you cannot demand compensation for such uses of the wiki content. There have been cases where OC creators want to retain full rights and control over their content believe that they can monetize it at a later date. However, this approach is not permitted on Fandom.
OC wikis are still subject to Fandom's wiki closure process. Although Fandom does not share the exact criteria with users, the company regularly checks for small inactive wikis and deletes them as part of ongoing server maintenance. After all, Fandom is a for-profit company out to make money; not a charity or crowd-funded creators' space. There have been incidences of OC creators writing 10, 20, or even 30 pages, taking a few months' break for one reason or the other, and then returning to find that the wiki has been deleted. In some cases, they have been successful in getting the wiki restored but, in others, they have had to restart from scratch.
It depends on how those links have been added which we cannot tell by looking at just a screenshot. However, assuming the wiki has followed the standard practice, you should be able to have up to 10 entries. If the submenu was generated using one of the magic words, it may not update correctly. The magic words have been buggy for quite a long time now. If they have not been generated by a magic word and you simply just aren't aware of how to edit the navigation, see Help:Navigation.
Possibly from a Gamepedia wiki? I am pretty sure Gamepedia had that feature and kept it for a while after the acquisition. Not enabled anymore but Gamepedia wikis would have been the ones to most recently have that feature enabled.
Edit:
For anyone who is curious, I searched to see if I could find when the feature was disabled on Fandom. I found the following 2 wiki-style forum pages and 1 blog. Seems like the feature was disabled late February or early March in 2014. Also sounds like it might have been an opt-in feature? If so, that would be different from Gamepedia where it was an opt-out feature from what I can tell following the user database merge.
No, local admins cannot see "connected" accounts. Only Fandom staff and SOAP can see them.
It also depends on what you mean by "connected". Unless the suspected troll openly admits it, none of the data provided for an account is definitive evidence that it is the same person. People often think that you can identify "connected" accounts using the registered email or the IP address. While this is mostly true, it is far from guaranteed. Both emails and IP addresses can be easily changed and/or shared by multiple individuals. So it is not 100% certain an account from the same IP address is the same person nor is it 100% certain that all accounts used by the same troll will use the same IP address.
Edit: All that said, closing a wiki because the admin cannot identify the troll is, usually, more than over dramatic. If they are having issues with what they suspect is a repeat offender, they can contact either SOAP or Fandom staff for help. However, please note that, due to the nature of the internet, it is impossible for even Fandom to 100% block returning trolls. While SOAP and Fandom have tools to help implement stronger protection against trolls, there is still a chance they will be able to return.
I am curious to know how you using a global template but in a context where you want to use local templates. If you have to setup the local templates on each wiki, what is the purpose of the global template?