Removal of the Protection[]
Hey Crimson, do you mind unblocking it again?--Bullet
Minor error. Under section Rollback, it should say Rollback since. ;)
• Bermuda • Contact Me! • 02:20, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
I think it should be semi-protected. Is a user finds a mistake they can fix it. Technology Wizard · talk
- No. It's protected the way it is because the people who can edit it know what they're doing. --Jäzzi 12:06, July 20, 2011 (UTC)
I'm back. But I'll still be active. No as much. Busy. Working my fingers off. ANX219 21:35, July 24, 2011 (UTC)
Sorting[]
Incorrect sorting table:
| User | Admin since... |
|---|---|
| Example | January 2, 2011 |
| Example 2 | April 19, 2011 |
| Example 3 | December 7, 2011 |
Add...
<span style="display:none">2011-01-01</span> January 01, 2011
| User | Admin since... |
|---|---|
| Example | January 2, 2011 (or 2011 January 2) |
| Example 2 | April 19, 2011 (or 2011 April 19) |
| Example 3 | December 7, 2011 )or 2011 December 7) |
The above example should be used to actually sort the "Admin/Rollback since..." in the correct order. It's alphabetized, in which we all know A will go before J, for example, August (A) will always go first before July (J). Or for the numbers, 0 first, 9 last, for example, 199 (1) will go before 71 (7), unless it's 071 (0), shown above. User:Bermuda/sig2
We go by name not date, it's fine the way it is. By the way, it already somewhat does that, I believe when you hit the button, it sorts by year then month and day. --Template:BFSig
Per Bullet, alphabetical it works fine, and I personally don't think any change is needed. – Jäzzi 18:32, September 24, 2011 (UTC)
- Well, however this wiki likes to work things isn't my problem. ;) I just like dates (or other things) to sort correctly, because that's just how I am. :P User:Bermuda/sig2
- Never Mind, I thought you meant a different problem, you were correct my bad for the misunderstanding. --Template:BFSig
- Added, thanks. – Crimsonnavy T S 18:45, September 24, 2011 (UTC)