[00:01:46] I'm attempting to change the lavender here do a dark grey color. I've been trying to fix it via the skin's css page, but I've had no success. Any suggestions on what to do here? [00:01:58] [1/4] ```css [00:01:58] [2/4] .client-darkmode .infobox-header element.style{ [00:01:59] [3/4] background-color: #555555; [00:01:59] [4/4] }``` [03:36:38] <.lanefrost> Is it possible to change the link to my wiki without removing anythinf [05:23:13] [1/2] I forgot. Is it possible to view what accounts are attached to an IP address when accessing private data in the abuse log, or only possible to view what IP addresses are attached to an account? [05:23:14] [2/2] I don't currently have access to the `(abusefilter-privatedetails)` permission on any sites, so I can't answer my own question. [05:27:30] We can do the first one using check user [05:28:24] I'm talking about `(abusefilter-privatedetails)`, not `(checkuser)`. I know that `(checkuser)` can be used to do both. [05:29:51] I don't believe abuse filter can give you anything other than what's on your screenshot [05:35:15] If users users can trigger abuse filters while logged out, I'm pretty sure it can. [05:35:59] Although it probably doesn't list any accounts attached to the IP address, if the IP address is the one whose data is being accessed. [05:43:26] Yeah you can trigger filters logged out [05:44:05] They are many ways from the private abuse filter log & CU log to find private info and work out more than what's just logged [05:44:13] That's why they are restricted [05:45:48] If it's the IP triggering the filter, there isn't any additional data. [05:47:46] Hey @orduin [05:48:59] @orduin did you ever review the latest discussion on PTW's community portal [06:29:36] I peeked, couldn't come up with a good solution, and forgot about it, tbh. [06:33:18] @orduin can we come up with a solution [06:33:50] _doesn't think any are good but if the close was invalid. It should be nullified. It's a bit frustrating but there's a clear dispute._ [06:34:29] I also think @dmehus should be whacked with a whale [06:34:36] A trout is too small [06:55:38] Well, if it's an election dispute, why not have an endorsement vote? Determine whether or not the user should remain in their elected position by their own merit to hold that position, not based on the validity of the original election. We hold the original election valid unless the endorsement determines otherwise. [06:56:08] Anyway, it's 3am, am go sleep [07:01:23] @orduin say that on wiki [08:11:11] I wonder if we should have a pinned infobox master thread in #support [08:11:24] Half posts are related to infoboxes at this point [08:12:04] Maybe not half... but feels like it :p [08:13:28] Do we not have some pinned guidance about infoboxes [08:17:02] There is one for PI and one for a simplier template on Wikipedia, and posts are all about importing the overcomplicated Wikipedia ones [08:18:10] The support posts are not from users who decided to follow or check the pins I'm afraid [08:18:20] We should encourage that [08:19:27] That is true, but how <:ThinkerMH:912930078646730792> [08:23:15] So it doesn't specify what users are currently editing under the IP address? [08:26:37] No [08:32:53] [1/3] more empathize should be made on Meta FAQ, they should see it clearly, and in FAQ itself - is there a section on infoboxes? must be either added or rewritten [08:32:54] [2/3] I have an idea for an essay kind of guide but idk when I'll write it up [08:32:54] [3/3] would be better for me than typing same stuff here over and over again tho ... [08:40:50] there's, sadly, another problem [08:41:07] idk about you, but happens to me so often, abd you've seen it [08:41:31] no matter how extensively I'll write stuff it feels like person ignores half of it [09:12:19] [1/2] why there are so many pages that haven't been indexed by google <:pro_spheal:1101012664920064010> [09:12:20] [2/2] hmmm, most of them are file/template/user pages... [09:12:43] yeah [09:12:53] it's annoying that google picks them up [09:13:20] even more annoying it considers robot.txt prohibition to be an error [09:14:09] I suspect it works differently for FANDOM wikis [09:15:06] also `index` pages which are - page histories, old versions ... [09:56:13] it's so dumb <:pro_spheal:1101012664920064010> [09:57:02] i think only 100 out of those 2.64k pages really need to be indexed [09:57:09] but the speed is so slow [09:57:33] there were only 3 more pages got indexed after 4 days <:SC_deadge:992430358979162172> [10:04:33] aside from content pages aka articles I only put indexing on some categories (I made the namespace non indexed by default), and handful of project namespace page [10:04:47] it was very slow for me at the very beginning too9 [10:05:15] there's a trick, I can't claim it helped me, but I think it did [10:05:54] vpn + clean or private browsers sessions + try different queries which should show your wiki [10:06:13] click whenever your wiki shows up [10:06:22] but don't do it too often [10:06:53] slowly pages will start crawling higher and then other peoplewill start noticing them [10:08:56] also submit separate pages into indexing queue, but don't submit the same pages several times (unless it gone tru noticeable changes) [10:10:09] obviously the vpn ... trick will work only w/ pages, which are indexed [10:10:12] but it's like [10:10:55] as google notices that already indexed pages get considerable traction, it will start checking/indexing the rest stuff [10:11:59] also navboxes tend to hinder indexing because of excessive amount of links, somehow [10:12:37] I replaced navboxes w/ a link which would lead to navbox looking "topic" page in project namespace [10:13:46] for some time FANDOM staff tried to persuade people to stop using navboxes, probably because of that [10:14:51] [1/2] This is "for money" purposes. [10:14:51] [2/2] Shouldn't be a big problem if you didn't place too many navboxes. [10:15:51] [1/2] my navboxes would be really huge, I only realized they worked because they actually barely had links lol, that time you told me all that stuff before [10:15:51] [2/2] so I've made another thing [10:16:22] You need to optimize your navbox so it didn't visible to crawlers [10:16:54] Like only relevant navbox parts visible [10:17:05] how tho? [10:17:18] like, users should see the entire thing [10:17:31] I have a navbox that collapse parts on different pages [10:18:01] Well, if they like more, they can open other parts of the navbox [10:18:18] wait [10:18:41] so it's all about collapsing? navboxes are usually fully collapsed by default? [10:18:54] like, at least mine were [10:19:09] they are full open by default and that's overwhelming the crawler [10:19:16] 💀 [10:19:51] why it always was the other way around for me, even on Wikipedia lol [10:20:26] [1/2] Wikipedia use different optimizations that is specifically for SEO [10:20:27] [2/2] We don't have that so... [10:20:41] I mean the collapsed default state [10:21:21] well, I'll use that for another wiki then [10:41:31] It's annoying that special pages get picked up [10:42:13] So far my wiki has only one actual wiki page indexed, the rest are user pages and failed special pages [10:42:44] [1/3] Google Search is quite trash [10:42:44] [2/3] It picks any pages it assume having "contents" [10:42:44] [3/3] Also ignore robots.txt quite a lot [10:43:08] Only signaling it with 404 can shoo it away [10:43:08] Meanwhile every other search engine i've tried has the full site indexed and at the top of a vague search term [10:44:23] Bing is actually a good alternative if you didn't use Google [10:44:34] Unfortunately that doesn't work well in Asia [10:45:35] I switched to duckduckgo the other day and it's much more enjoyable to find things [10:46:40] Bing is cool but i find it really slow to load [10:53:19] [1/2] Yep [10:53:19] [2/2] And Bing is indeed quite slow as they aren't very good with web browsers [11:04:54] bing indexed my entire wiki w/o me even getting into its console [11:05:03] when I did I was pleasantly surprised [12:36:52] hello i just made an account and requested a wiki, how will i know if i was accepted or not? [12:37:30] You should get an email if the wiki is approved [12:37:39] alrigthy [15:11:46] Hello [15:54:28] hi [15:54:34] I am goning to do better [15:54:42] Hello Bukkit [16:06:07] wdym? [16:06:41] I caused lots of problems on Miraheze. [16:07:00] It in the past though. Don't worry [16:19:21] @aki1224 I’m going to have to require you to /auth your discord to a Miraheze account. [16:22:07] Can you help? [16:22:47] type /auth [16:22:50] are you banned on Miraheze now tho? [16:34:34] [16:34:42] Hi sammy [16:35:24] Hii [16:35:48] And done! [16:35:53] Thank you [16:36:55] No [16:51:28] Good index means good indexing [18:25:44] Anyone remember me? [18:26:07] I used to be a contributor for a long time [18:26:22] aw, SPCodex is moving [18:26:39] not surprising tho, they relied on cargo so much [18:38:51] anyone know if languege categories of Babel extension can be disabled? [18:45:22] is it possible for mediawiki to detect category when using parser or some sort? [18:46:49] For example if my page have "Category A", I want my page to detect that category and place a value [18:47:23] [1/2] it seems like a patch for that was made just today? [18:47:23] [2/2] [18:49:18] no tbh [18:50:04] Why not? [18:50:37] idk who are you, I hang there since mid 2021 [18:52:01] I joined in September 7, 2018 [18:54:04] You only in this wiki for a while, both 2021 and 2022 [18:54:15] I mean this discord server [18:59:26] upd: there's not a single mention of infoboxes in FAQ [19:01:51] because i have memory loss [19:49:24] Just wondering can I speak to someone here about appealing a denial for a page? [19:49:35] Or is that something I should email about? [19:50:09] what kind of denial [19:52:03] A denial for having a page? Or are you asking what the reason was? [20:00:18] I'm gonna assume it's the second one [20:02:37] This was our denial reason. The first is unclear and we'd like clarification, the second however I'd like to dispute. [20:05:41] ah you requested a wiki and it was denied [20:06:03] and what was the summary? [20:07:02] you can appeal by adding a comment or updating description tho [20:07:06] in the request [20:07:21] Unfortunately, I think thats a non-starter [20:07:30] Anything of that nature involving minors will not be accepted [20:08:15] Completely understandable however ours doesn't involve minors [20:08:21] was the DoL wiki deleted? [20:08:25] It was not. [20:08:55] The person who's trying to make the wiki has all the details, I'm playing ambassador for the group right now. [20:09:40] I remember we had there a mob attack claiming it was, followed by rather hasty closure until admins explained everything (which then lead to first Raidarr resign) [20:09:41] We will not post any of the lewd images onto the wiki, speak explicitly on it and I can assure you there is no minors used or referenced in our game. [20:09:42] Regardless, it would still be considered a wiki on a topic that is already covered by another [20:10:08] Oh is that what the first reason is in mention of? [20:10:11] Yes [20:10:42] I'm gonna state something in regards to that if you'll allow it [20:10:53] What [20:11:25] The wiki we're planning to put up will only cover content that is not in the base game of DOL [20:11:35] And modding wikis do exist on miraheze [20:11:40] so a mod? [20:11:46] There is nothing stopped the current DoL wiki from covering it [20:12:10] And because you are talking about a very vague topic range in regards to any mod [20:12:18] The same section of the policy would apply [20:13:04] A mod with more planned to be added if we were permitted [20:13:23] I wanna clarify before I continue I'm not here to fight or anything, just to state our case and see if we can work something out [20:13:42] Basically it boils down to, DoL wiki that currently exists would have to compete if they wished to cover modding, which means the proposed wiki would make it harder for others [20:14:35] So what permits the hoi4mods wiki but not the DOLmodding wiki? [20:14:47] Just to see if maybe we can qualify like they have [20:15:14] don't we have several Minecraft mods wikis? [20:15:56] But we don’t have an established minecraft wiki, nor HOI4 one as far as I can tell [20:16:25] Thats the difference [20:16:55] Then you have to keep in mind that some wikis may predate certain parts of policy [20:17:05] I gotta agree, unless you are talking about a particularly big mod, that basically turns it into another separate game, it would be far better to have it covered on the main game's wiki. (and a collection of mods in general, most certainly should be on the original wiki [20:17:19] tbh this is the first time I hear of such applience of this policy [20:17:24] You do have a Minecraft wiki but I see your point [20:17:57] Note: I said established, not one that simply exists [20:18:06] Trying to apply new policies to older, preestablished pages would be a pain in terms of consistency [20:19:16] Its more so older wikis were grandfathered in, and new wikis are fully subject [20:19:32] The only thing I would say in regards to this is that the wiki planned to host all mods on the same page [20:19:40] As to not bloat the base game's wiki [20:20:16] But I'm following. [20:20:41] There is no such thing as "bloating" a wiki, as long as a proper structure is added to support it (maybe a seperate namespace even, if needed) [20:20:57] I never ran one, I'm just a writer. [20:20:59] Lol [20:21:07] Not to mention you would be able to exist off the existing SEO that the current wiki has [20:21:21] Rather than having to fight search engines [20:21:33] Is that the "competing" you mentioned before? [20:21:41] Not persay [20:21:58] Its more so of having multiple wikis cover the same topic [20:22:46] See I think, for me, that is a bit off the mark when it comes to what we're doing. It seems that you're pretty set on not giving us the page though, am I right on that? [20:23:33] I’m not convinced that it couldnt be done on the existing wiki, where it wouldnt be an entirely separate wiki for what is essentially the same topic [20:25:01] [1/2] I have to say though Zippix, that I do think it was the wrong point of the CP to cite for that reason though, would probablt have been better to use the "Direct forks of Miraheze wikis where no attempts at mediations are made are not allowed.", which have a (non-numbered) subsection "Wikis with the same or a substantially similar topic to another existing Miraheze wiki are prohibited [20:25:01] [2/2] ." [20:25:19] Im not the one whom handled the request either [20:25:19]