TestWiki:Community portal

__NEWSECTIONLINK__

Favicon
Should the favicon of this wiki be the same as the logo instead of the regular miraheze favicon? Naleksuh (talk) 02:56, 7 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It probably should be. Do you happen to know the dimensions of a favicon, so I can resize the image, upload, and set in ManageWiki? Dmehus (talk) 03:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not necessary, just take the same url being used for the logo and use that for the favicon. I did that for dev wiki and it worked out fine. Naleksuh (talk) 04:50, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, I wasn't sure if the favicon would automatically resize, as I know the site logo has to be an exact 135x135 (or 135xx or xx135), so I'll try and make this change now then. Thanks for the good suggestion! Dmehus (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * This seems to be ✅ now. Thanks again. Dmehus (talk) 15:02, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * For me the Miraheze logo is still the fav icon. PorkchopGMX (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * That is very strange and shouldn't be happening. Have you tried reloading your cache for publictestwiki.com? Reception123 (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I completely forgot about this, but the correct fav icon is showing up now. PorkchopGMX (talk) 13:01, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh, okay, that's great. :) Dmehus (talk) 19:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2020-12-21
The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2020-11- if they do not return to activity: Thanks,
 * now active
 * Dmehus (talk)
 * For the Consul Team
 * 01:13, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dmehus (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2021-01-19
The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2021-01- if they do not return to activity:
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active

Thanks,
 * Dmehus (talk)
 * For the Consul Team
 * 16:30, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dmehus (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2021-02-15
The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2021-02- if they do not return to activity:
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active
 * now active

Thanks,
 * Dmehus (talk)
 * For the Consul Team
 * 21:42, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Dmehus (talk) 18:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Translation not possible
Hello, I have tried to translate the main page, but I receive an error: ''The title "Translations:Main Page/2/de" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: " Translations:.* "'' Is anybody able to activate the translation system again? Thanks --Ameisenigel (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Ameisenigel This is very strange because you're already logged in. I've referred this to Void to see if he can take a look. Dmehus (talk) 22:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ameisenigel Void has found the cause, and it seems it was an issue with our local title blacklist, which, arguably, seemed unnecessary, so I've now ✅ the given interface message. Please try translating now. Dmehus (talk) 22:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Dmehus Thanks, now translating works. --Ameisenigel (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, ✅. Thanks again for reporting this. If I had to guess, we'd probably disabled translations by non-administrators due to poor quality machine translations and translations being done outside the translation system. Dmehus (talk) 23:15, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2021-03-21
The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2021-03- if they do not return to activity:
 * resigned
 * now active
 * now active
 * unneeded rights voluntarily removed from Void's alternate account
 * resigned
 * now active
 * now active
 * unneeded rights voluntarily removed from Void's alternate account
 * now active
 * now active
 * unneeded rights voluntarily removed from Void's alternate account
 * now active
 * unneeded rights voluntarily removed from Void's alternate account

Thanks,
 * Dmehus (talk)
 * For the Consul Team
 * 09:44, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅, notwithstanding the two users who voluntarily removed their user groups above. Dmehus (talk) 14:45, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Can my name be changed?
Hi, can I please have my name changed to Namielle please? Thank you! Theory of Eternity (talk) 12:41, 3 April 2021 (UTC)


 * See meta:Special:GlobalRenameRequest. --Anton (talk) 12:54, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit request

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
 * Admins can unblock themselves. – Olipino (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

. and, will anyone of you please remove or yourself from the above text. I see if users block themselves they are unable to do anything even they can't unblock themselves. I experienced this when I blocked my alternative account and when  blocked themselves. What do you people think? – Olipino (talk) 13:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * I've seen admins unblock themselves on Recent Changes, so I think it is possible for blocked admins to unblock themselves. I don't have admin powers myself, otherwise I'd test that for myself. Theory of Eternity (talk) 13:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, Consul can remove the block from itself. Admins can't, to my knowledge. Thanks --Anton (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I was wrong. The admin can unblock himself . Please see Special:ListGroupRights. Thanks. --Anton (talk) 14:05, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , let me test. – Olipino (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Yes, what are you going to test? --Anton (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , sorry for talking your time, I'm closing this discussion because yes  can unblock themselves as listed at Special:ListGroupRights. I tested block on myself and yes, I could unblock myself. Thank you! – Olipino (talk)  14:15, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section

Change in the Main policy
Hello fellows, the policy clearly states that  It is ok to test blocks on yourself (your own/main account), but it also states  which, in my opinion is wrong. If users create an alternative account, the underlining IP address remains same and if they block the alternative account, their main account will also get blocked and won't be able to test anything since the IP address will be same in both the accounts. This happened to me (probably on my second day here). I'd suggest to replace with -- Jusl¡t (talk) 17:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Users can create alternate accounts, though. Nevertheless, this is fairly non-controversial, so if there's no objections, I'll close this as a non-controversial amendment after three calendar days by replacing the above with, "You may place clearly marked test blocks on yourself, on User:Example, or on any alternate accounts you create for this purpose. As a best practice, it's recommended you (a) create any alternate accounts while logged into your main account and (b) identify any alternate accounts via your local or global user page in some way." How does that sound? Dmehus (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , since the IP block exemptions have been added to the  group, I have no objections. -- Jusl¡t (talk)  19:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Olipino Okay, ✅. If you or Anton want to add the  to the Administrators page, that'd be great, but do link to my Consul action in your edit summary using  . Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 20:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've added  to A. -- Jusl¡t (talk)  20:13, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Dmehus (talk) 20:14, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistency regarding requirements to request Bureaucrat
I noticed that both B and RfP list different requirements to be eligible to obtain bureaucrat. B states that a user must be a registered user for 24 hours before requesting bcrat, where as RfP states that a user must be an administrator for 24 hours before requesting bcrat. Typically I would correct this issue myself, but I do not know what the real requirement is, so I am bringing it up here in hopes that someone else can rectify the issue. Joritochip (talk) 02:55, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think bureaucrats can only promote  to bureaucrats user right (but I may be wrong). That's why it may be necessary to be an admin for 24 hours. -- Jusl¡t (talk)  04:42, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Joritochip Interesting point. In theory, I would say Bureaucrats would be correct, as one could theoretically have had a TestWiki account for more than twenty four hours but simply never requested administrator, so they've demonstrated that they're trusted. In practice, though, Request permissions' language may be the way to go. Reception123, do you have any thoughts? It is a policy page, but this a non-controversial administrative change I think we can clarify administratively as a Consul action. Dmehus (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggested move
While testing, I came across the template, RfPdone. I'd suggest to move it to the new more suitable title,  or something similar. I'd also like to make a new template to use when we will add someone to the bureaucrats group to let them know about the policies. Let me know who supports this. ,, what do you think. -- Jusl¡t (talk) 13:47, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * It serves a different purpose than AdminAcceptRfP; however, I personally don't think it's needed, as everyone can be a TestWiki . I'm checking with Reception123 to see what he thinks. Dmehus (talk) 14:10, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * , you took me in the wrong way. I know it serves a different purpose. What I mean is "this template should be posted on the talk page of a person who got the  flag, to let them know about the TestWiki policies. Posting at the talk page produces a notification and a user is bound to see what it is. I know everyone can be admin but, not everyone knows about the policies. -- Jusl¡t (talk)  14:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I just think we don't necessarily need to be creating a user talk page message for every user who requests permissions at Request permissions. I mean, we can keep the template, but my preference would be for deletion. Arguably it would be better to encourage Bureaucrats and Consuls to use AdminAcceptRfP and BureaucratAcceptRfP at Request permissions when granting permissions, as then the diff to the completed permission's request can be included within the requesting user's user rights log, no? Dmehus (talk) 14:29, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Inactive Rights Removal - 2021-04-18
The rights of the following users will be removed on or after 2021-04- if they do not return to activity:
 * now active

Thanks,
 * Dmehus (talk)
 * For the Consul Team
 * 00:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)