User talk:fanfanboy
| This is Fanfanboy's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments. |
|
| WikiProject Users | (Rated Start-class, Low-importance) | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||||
 Archives (Index) |
|
This page is archived by ClueBot III.
|
I promised myself
[edit]Hi, on the basshunter version of I promised myself, you removed my edit on an old account for vandalism despite me citing genuine sources. Would you be able to elaborate on why that is? Thanks https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=I_Promised_Myself&diff=prev&oldid=1269481324 Lovefromjuliaxo (talk) 23:01, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but it seems you may have gotten something mixed up. I was not the person who reverted you, that would be Binksternet. His reversion simply changed the articles version back to when I last edited it. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 13:24, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Administrator Elections | Renewal RFC phase
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections.
You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 27 February 2025
[edit]- Serendipity: Guinea-Bissau Heritage from Commons to the World
- Technology report: Hear that? The wikis go silent twice a year
- In the media: The end of the world
- Recent research: What's known about how readers navigate Wikipedia; Italian Wikipedia hardest to read
- Opinion: Sennecaster's RfA debriefing
- Tips and tricks: One year after this article is posted, will every single article on Wikipedia have a short description?
- Community view: Open letter from French Wikipedians says "no" to intimidation of volunteer contributors
- Traffic report: Temporary scars, February stars
The Signpost: 22 March 2025
[edit]- From the editor: Hanami
- News and notes: Deeper look at takedowns targeting Wikipedia
- In the media: The good, the bad, and the unusual
- Recent research: Explaining the disappointing history of Flagged Revisions; and what's the impact of ChatGPT on Wikipedia so far?
- Traffic report: All the world's a stage, we are merely players...
- Gallery: WikiPortraits rule!
- Essay: Unusual biographical images
- Obituary: Rest in peace
Escape Artist
[edit]This show doesn't even exist at all and it's fanmade. This was back when I was making stuff up (though I don't do that anymore) 71.3.64.166 (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for clarifying. Don't add false information next time. Thanks! fanfanboy (blocktalk) 16:30, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
- Would also highly recommend using edit summaries to clarify why you are making an edit. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 16:31, 2 April 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 9 April 2025
[edit]- Opinion: Crawlers, hogs and gorillas
- Debriefing: Giraffer's RfA debriefing
- Obituary: RHaworth, TomCat4680 and PawełMM
- Traffic report: Heigh-Ho, Heigh-Ho, off to report we go...
- News from Diff: Strengthening Wikipedia’s neutral point of view
- Comix: Thirteen
Hi Fanfanboy, you might want to change the background of your userbox as the wikilink to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints only gets a contrast ratio of 1.57, when it should at least be 4.5, according to MOS:CONTRAST. Nobody (talk) 14:00, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know, I'm used to the link being purple so I never really noticed the poor contrast. Is brightening the link like I just did acceptable? fanfanboy (blocktalk) 14:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- That might have some dark mode issues. See this. Has 1.47 ratio. Nobody (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I've removed the noinvert from the colored link template and brightened the link further. Looks like the contrast ratio is acceptable now. Also, I think this problem only applies to the dark mode gadget as I use the dark mode in the drop down under the appearance section in preferences and I have no issues on any part of the webisite (expect some semi-transparent sections like closures). fanfanboy (blocktalk) 19:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- There are a few ways to use dark mode, some are listed at Wikipedia:Dark mode, and not all have the same issues. Nobody (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks for letting me know, and thanks for pointing out the poor contrast. fanfanboy (blocktalk) 20:05, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- There are a few ways to use dark mode, some are listed at Wikipedia:Dark mode, and not all have the same issues. Nobody (talk) 19:51, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- Ok, I've removed the noinvert from the colored link template and brightened the link further. Looks like the contrast ratio is acceptable now. Also, I think this problem only applies to the dark mode gadget as I use the dark mode in the drop down under the appearance section in preferences and I have no issues on any part of the webisite (expect some semi-transparent sections like closures). fanfanboy (blocktalk) 19:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
- That might have some dark mode issues. See this. Has 1.47 ratio. Nobody (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
The Signpost: 1 May 2025
[edit]- In the media: Feds aiming for WMF's nonprofit status
- Recent research: How readers use Wikipedia health content; Scholars generally happy with how their papers are cited on Wikipedia
- Arbitration report: Sysop Tinucherian removed and admonished by the ArbCom
- Discussion report: Latest news from Centralized discussions
- Traffic report: Of Wolf and Man
- Disinformation report: At WikiCredCon, Wikipedia editors and Internet Archive discuss threats to trust in media
- News from the WMF: Product & Tech Progress on the Annual Plan
- Comix: By territory
- Community view: A deep dive into Wikimedia
- Debriefing: Barkeep49's RfB debriefing