Test Wiki:Community portal: Difference between revisions

From Test Wiki
Latest comment: 19 April 2022 by Arcversin in topic Lift protection on MediaWiki:Common.css
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
Chrs (talk | contribs)
Chrs (talk | contribs)
Line 54: Line 54:
----
----
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it</b>. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' </div>
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive. <b style="color:red">Please do not modify it</b>. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.'' </div>

== Lift protection on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]] ==

Could the steward-only create protection on [[MediaWiki:Common.css]] be removed? I'm trying to deploy some styles to get the {{tl|mbox}} series of templates properly working. —&nbsp;<span style="font-variant: small-caps">[[User:Arcversin|Arcversin]] ([[User talk:Arcversin|talk]])</span> 01:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:11, 19 April 2022

The community portal is Test Wiki's village pump and noticeboards, two-in-one.

Archives: 123456789101112


Mind if I suggest something?

Instead of having your access to the admin tools after 1 month goes by without activity, why not just have it be 3 months instead? I'd say that 1 month is a bit too short, and I'm not sure how one month would be enough of a reason. --DarkMatterMan4500 (talk) (contribs) 13:51, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Supports

 Support I like this idea, and can't see any drawbacks to it. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 16:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
 Support I think it should be extended. LisafBia (talk) 16:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
 Support Per nom. I am one (as you are three) 23:13, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
 Support I absolutely agree with that! AlPaD (talk) 14:19, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oppose

 Oppose We're giving out adminship and 'cratship as if they were candies. Isn't that good enough? NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
It's definitely good but it would save bureaucrats some work by not having to re-add user rights so often and also save everyone else the hassle of having to ask for the rights again after just a short one-month hiatus. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 12:32, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

CheckUser request

These 2 users are blocked intefinite on Chinese Wikipedia and locked on Wikimedia foundation, this action is suspected and 想舞花 had approved 七海娜娜米's request for adminship even though another bureaucrat had rejected it. Thanks! AlPaD (talk) 16:37, 17 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Special:AbuseFilter/52

The third line should have been & !page_id == 702. Currently it's checking for spam edits on TW:RFP... NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 10:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Pinging @Dmehus. NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh (talk) 10:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Can't admins edit the filters themselves? I know that on another wiki that was possible. Just saying. Sei (My changes here | Drop me a line) 19:25, 18 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
Filters with restricted actions (namely, blocking) can only be edited by Stewards. — Arcversin (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply
It would actually be page_id != 702, since this is an equality check. Also, it's generally good practice to surround any negation that isn't a single function with parentheses, like so: !('x' in y) — Arcversin (talk) 01:05, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

In regards to User:Seiyena.

Lift protection on MediaWiki:Common.css

Could the steward-only create protection on MediaWiki:Common.css be removed? I'm trying to deploy some styles to get the {{mbox}} series of templates properly working. — Arcversin (talk) 01:11, 19 April 2022 (UTC)Reply