UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Blinking Text Is Annoying: Difference between revisions
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(→For) |
|||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
# User pages are fine, but not signatures. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 22:19, 14 June 2009 (BST) | # User pages are fine, but not signatures. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 22:19, 14 June 2009 (BST) | ||
# Yes, this is needed.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 22:42, 14 June 2009 (BST) | # Yes, this is needed.--{{User:Drawde/Sig}} 22:42, 14 June 2009 (BST) | ||
# Yes, fine.. just as long as it doesn't affect my right to have jiggly boobies in my siggie----[[User:Sexualharrison|Sexualharrison]][[Image:Starofdavid2.png | 18px]] [[Image:Boobs.gif|18px]] 23:35, 14 June 2009 (BST) | |||
===Against=== | ===Against=== |
Revision as of 22:35, 14 June 2009
Ban blinking text. There is no need for it. I don't like it. Make it go away. From everything just sigs.
For bob:
The signature policy will be changed thusly:
What wouldn't be allowed
- Signatures which have images higher then 14 pixels high.
- Signatures which generally break the wiki in some way either through formatting or other means.
- Signatures which impersonate another user.
- Signatures which link to any of the following special pages: Special:Userlogout or Special:BlockIP.
- Signatures which link to external links that perform malicious actions (closing the browser for example).
- Signatures which contain images larger then 50kb.
- Signatures which contain blinking text or images that mimic blinking text.
Voting Section
Voting Rules |
Votes must be numbered, signed, and timestamped. They can take one of two forms:
Votes that do not conform to the above will be struck by a sysop. |
The only valid voting sections are For and Against. If you wish to abstain from voting, do not vote. |
For
- Well thought out and coherent.--xoxo 10:05, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:06, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- I--Bonghit420 10:18, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- We needed this for a long time. Linkthewindow Talk 10:31, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- Indeed --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:34, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- Amen!--Dr Mycroft Chris 11:39, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- --Cyberbob 11:57, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- - User:Whitehouse 15:01, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:44, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- -- Jolly Good--C Whitty 16:51, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- Yarp -- Cheese 17:51, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- -- Blinking text is dreadful, and should only be used in applicable (and rare) cases. Knowing you idiots (only a few of you...), that will never happen, so I am fully for this.--The Shoemaker Talk Red Faction 20:11, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- - I debated making a blinking yes here, but thought I would regret it. --Haliman - Talk 18:45, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- - Only because of the "images that mimic blinking" part. Blinking text can be disabled in FF, and I'm guessing the same for other browsers. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 19:02, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- - All the way.--SirArgo Talk 19:21, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- User pages are fine, but not signatures. --ZsL 22:19, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- Yes, this is needed.-- Adward 22:42, 14 June 2009 (BST)
- Yes, fine.. just as long as it doesn't affect my right to have jiggly boobies in my siggie----Sexualharrison 23:35, 14 June 2009 (BST)