However, the title "Interesting Quotes/Thoughts" should be revised to avoid subjective descriptions such as "interesting." So I think all that's needed is to revise the premise of the article from "quotes that are interest" to something like "quotes by subject."
Just wanted to bring this to your attention to see if you have any guidance on this matter or input on my suggestion above.
A recent comment in the Allison Staněk article states that "Stanek" (rather than Staněk) should be the correct name, because the hacek mark for the "e" does not appear in the game. I believe the comment is correct, but I wanted to run this by you just to make sure, because you were the original author of that article.
Just to let know, I think I fixed up the code for the navbox now (the erroneous part that kept appearing in edit mode should now be gone). I don't know if I got got all the previous style over so let me know if it doesn't look quite the same and I'll try to see about fixing it.
You might have seen the "join Illuminati" spam comments coming from the 197.21x.xxx.xxx IPs (Nigerian). I'd like to suggest blocking this IP range. Blocked IPs will be able to view the wiki but not comment/edit.
FYI - I got in touch with Fandom support and they turned on the AbuseFilter extension (description). It can block comments that match a text pattern and autoblock the offending IPs. I think this will be a good addition (or maybe a better alternative) to the existing IP block.
I'll set up a filter for those comments some time later this week.
You might want to implement the ConfirmEdit captcha to reduce spamming. On a small wiki (non-Wikia hosted) that I've run, adding a simple lore-based question as a captcha completely solved all the problems with spamming.
I was thinking of an IP range block (most of that Illuminati spam comes from Nigeria) but so far the spam is relatively low and easy to deal with manually. If it becomes more frequent and annoying, we'll figure something out.
Comments are just that, so as long as they are somehow related to the topic there's not much reason to move them. Also not sure if the OPs get notifications when their comments are moved, so I'd rather leave the comments where they are to avoid confusion.
Hi, I'm not sure when Sugarhoney will be back and a user is taking it personal when I asked for Sugarhoney's thoughts on a page the user had created and keeps arguing about it even when I pointed out it's up to you guys. Also, I wanted to run something by you related to the topic but as they're going to attack anything that has to do with that page, is there another way to talk?
I have never attacked you for anything. I have only defended my contributions and arguments. Nor am I taking anything personally. I have even agreed with you when your edits and suggestions were superior to mine.
Not personally attacking no, but you are attacking anything that brings into question that page, as instead of letting the admins decide on it (who are admins for reason) you keep arguing, like following me over here and commenting on it when I'm asking for an admin to just step in as you've turned a simple one comment thread into 9 (more if I hadn't chosen to just stop responding) instead of letting the admin say their thoughts first. And that's the last I'm saying of this until one of the admins asks.
I followed you over here when I saw that you were claiming I am attacking you, so I felt the need to defend myself against false accusations. You have the been the one attacking me and my contributions. I want to make sure the admins are aware of that. Everything I have done has been in a defensive response to your attacks.
Hi, I saw a user recently went through and changed all the infoboxes image order to reflect the latest game (not necessarily the latest chronologically, like DeBeers is now his 2029 self rather than the 2052) and I couldn't find a policy regarding this. What's your suggestion?
There isn't an explicit policy on this but I think the practice previously was to put the image from the game the character features most prominently in first. I'm not necessarily against the way the anon editor has arranged the images, as long as other editors are happy with it. What's your opinion?
Sorry for my really late reply to this! I would say that RPG wiki banner at the bottom of the homepage is enough and anything additional might make it look unprofessional, but if the logo could be added neatly I would be in favour of it.
>> I would say that RPG wiki banner at the bottom of the homepage is enough
That's my thoughts too.
I'm not sure the logo would be appropriate because it's the logo of the pre-merger Square (that DX has nothing to do with) and not Square Enix. And to be honest, I don't think the idea of "link exchange" is worth it just for the sake of getting an incoming link.
I'd rather just add the wiki link to the Square Enix page.
>> but if the logo could be added neatly I would be in favour of it.
I tried a couple of things... In our current layout, the logo could be placed in the lower right corner, under "Quote":
But on small-width screens where 2-column layout is used this will look a bit less neat - with empty space in the adjacent column. However, this is the far bottom of the page, so the empty space might be not a big deal.
Hi, when you get a chance, can you look into this user's changes? I'm not overly familiar with the lore regarding the articles so I can't tell if it's accurate or them throwing in their own speculation.
I think the anon is correct, although there is slightly conflicting information about this. One email says:
">I'd like to investigate the possibility of resurrecting
>the bovine manipulation project (MJID-9803HU8932), with
>an eye towards recreating the "Gray" lifeform -- while
>the project was deemed a failure at the time, it _was_
>successful as a propaganda tactic in diverting attention
>away from actual Dreamland research."
which I would say confirms they're not really aliens and are meant as more of a diversion. Although it might be slightly speculative to say the idea is to discredit any whistle-blowers rather than just confuse the public. Do you think the current phrasing should be reworded at all? Thanks for asking!
Ok, thanks for that. I'd probably reword it just to remove the whistle-blower part then, as that email shows it was a diversion, but can't say for certain if it was also meant to discredit any potential whistle blowers.