• I live in the janitor's closet at, but I often go on slumber parties all around the FANDOM network!
  • My occupation is Special Operations
  • I am part of the team that helps you promote your wiki — and make it look better. Click on "My Website" to put in your request, today!
  • Bio CzechOut has been at FANDOM since its earliest days. He likes comparing Irish whiskey with a good single malt, getting lost in a new city, and digging deep into the latest Apple® product.
  • [Show More]
  Loading editor
  • Just for letting you know, as you demoted Esteban02 from vanguard. I think that you should remove his profile from this template as well. Kind regards.

      Loading editor
  • Do you have a minute? I want to believe that the problem is on average, I am user # 7488 - blocked for nothing, from the very beginning - I do not know ... Can you unlock? Is it possible to block it?

      Loading editor
    CzechOut closed this thread because:
    Block lifted. Matter resolved.
    16:56, March 29, 2018
  • Jen jsem se chtěl zeptat, zda je možné se na Vás nějak obrátit v češtině? Moc se tu technicky neorientuji, ale působím i na Wikipedii, jaksi v ověřovacím provozu tvořím obsah vlastní wiki v odborné instituci pro památky, kde působím. Dovoluji si takto jen proto, že asi mohu z Vaší přezdívky tušit nějakou možnou spojitost... Zdraví Jan Sommer

      Loading editor
  • Hi, I don't mean to waste your time, but I wanted to say I love your username.

      Loading editor
  • Found a bug for you to fix:

    In Fandom Starter Pages, the death place field of Template:Infobox character is mislabeled as "Date of death". Due to this new wikis created on Wikia will have the death place field of Template:Infobox character mislabeled. Can you fix this?

    Below is the source code of the template.

             <title source="name"/>
             <image source="image">
                 <caption source="imagecaption" />
                 <data source="aliases"><label>Aliases</label></data>
                 <data source="relatives"><label>Relatives</label></data>
                 <data source="affiliation"><label>Affiliation</label></data>
             <header>Biographical information</header>
             <data source="marital"><label>Marital status</label></data>
             <data source="birthDate"><label>Date of birth</label></data>
             <data source="birthPlace"><label>Place of birth</label></data>
             <data source="deathDate"><label>Date of death</label></data>
             <data source="deathPlace"><label>Date of death</label></data>
             <header>Physical description</header>
             <data source="species"><label>Species</label></data>
             <data source="gender"><label>Gender</label></data>
             <data source="height"><label>Height</label></data>
             <data source="weight"><label>Weight</label></data>
             <data source="eyes"><label>Eye color</label></data>

    You may want to check other templates of Fandom Starter Pages to see if any other mistakes like this are here as well.

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hi Czech,

    We haven't communicated before, but I'm Matty and I need your help.

    I've been reading through some of the old forum discussions from Doctor Who Fanon (don't worry I'm not about to ask you to reconsider advertising DWF on Tardis again!) and it seems you could give me some valuable advice.

    As you prophesied, DWF went through another one of its reoccurring dormant periods again recently. This time, however, it was my fault. I lost interest due to a failing user base and abandoned the wiki around about a year ago. Luckily, a new user adopted the wiki recently and this - along with my increased spare time - has spurred me into an active period.

    Yet, I know that, if there is no community on DWF, I will most likely lose interest once again and the wiki shall fall again. That's why I need your help.

    Could you give me some advice on how to build an active user base? How do we attract more users? Are there any improvements you can see that DWF desperately needs? Also, could it better comply with Wikia policy?

    You may not be a user at DWF but what do you believe our aim, as a wiki, should be? You mentioned previously that it didn't seem as if we had any true, defined aim.

    MattyMG13 WikiSig

      Loading editor
    • Hey :) Sorry for the delay in responding, but my holiday season was incredibly busy.

      My number one recommendation is that you speak with the admin of the more successful fanon wikis to see what they've done.

      I'd consider wikis that are getting in excess of 100k views per week as "successful". Here are three of the most popular fanon sites at FANDOM, along with easy links to their admin:

      Other things to consider:

      • Make it clear on your top navigation, your desktop main page and your mobile page how people can find particular types of fiction. Organise by Doctor, companion, era, historical, futuristic, modern day -- and any other useful descriptors of the fiction's content. If I recall correctly, what I was talking about years ago was that it was really hard to figure out how to find the content. I think there are people interested in fanon who don't care about wholly original fanon. And there are people who love that kinda stuff. Your site should probably cater to those who want to find stories involving Jamie or Rose just as much as those who want to talk about the 53rd Doctor and her companion, Whatever McGee. Navigability is important to any wiki, so the more you improve that, the better chance a stranger has of finding something they like about your wiki.
      • Toward that end, you may want to consider firmly separating wholly original fanon from that which uses TV-established ones. This could be accomplished by asking, via Special:Contact, for a unique namespace for the original fiction. Make every story that employs only user-created characters have a title like Original:This is My Title. That way, it'll be easier, long-term, to manipulate titles and create lists.
      • You may even consider splitting the wiki off into a second wiki. Have all the 100% original stuff in its own wiki, while you reserve for just stuff involving at least one widely-known character. This would probably make dwfanon more popular in the long-run, as people tend to be more drawn to characters they already know. Meanwhile, the newly-created, original wiki could be a place where you didn't have to worry so much about numbers, but could be a place dominated by a few writers who had a clear idea of what they wanted to write. If that sounds like a lot of work, it's probably not as bad as you think. You can use Special:Export to easily move the pages themselves, while the styling can be easily cut-and-paste from one set of .css pages to the other.
      • Encourage what writers you have to write regularly. Maybe get them to publish once a week, on the same day each week. Regularity brings loyalty -- and eventually numbers.
      • Design should probably be more towards BBC Wales than BBC London. Most people drawn to DW these days are more familiar with the 21st century version of the show. Keep your design elements closer to that. The average reader will probably feel more at home.
        Loading editor
    • Hey again :) So apparently the person you really wanna talk to about Star Wars Fanon is SavageOpress1138. They're currently the most active admin.

        Loading editor
    • Hi, I am Fester and I am an admin at Doctor Who Fanon. Unfortunately Matty has resigned but I would like to thank you for the advice and we will definitely take it! Thanks again!

      - Fester

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hi! Thank you for your support always!! When I translated Help:Language code as Japanese Helper, I found you deleted some Chinese language codes (and others)[1]:

    • zh-cn - 中文(中国大陆) (not supported)
    • zh-hans - 中文(简体) (not supported)
    • zh-hant - 中文(繁體) (not supported)
    • zh-mo - 中文(澳門) (not supported)
    • zh-my - 中文(马来西亚) (not supported)
    • zh-sg - 中文(新加坡) (not supported)

    But we can choose these language(-code)s as language variant in Chinese wikis

    Would you please keep these language codes in the help page? Thanks.

      Loading editor
  • Hello, recently I have noticed some concerning things about your comments on scripts and such and I just want to clarify some things with you so that the waters aren't muddied. This is not an attack on you nor anything of the sort, just questions about the review process and such.

    Firstly, are there new criteria that us developers have not been made aware of? Recently on a couple of scripts I have noticed your concern for anonymous users loading some of our scripts. Is there a new restriction on script authors to keep anonymous users from seeing or loading our scripts? As far as I can tell the revisions of this script have never caused issues for logged out users so there was never any reason to push a guard so hard.

    Second, are scripts now being rejected for their perceived redundancy? As far as I, and other developers, am aware of there is a guarantee in the JS Guidelines that our code will not be rejected simply because of "how useful or valid a JS feature is". If this is no longer the case then I urge you to make the proper edits to the page so that there is no more confusion on our, wiki developers, part.

    And finally, are wiki developers required to support the browsers listed on the Help:Supported browsers page? It seems improbable that the entirety of the developer community would be happy with a mandate that forces us to consider, test, and account for browsers Wikia arbitrarily, and without notice, add to the list. I can understand wanting us to exclude unsupported browsers from executing our scripts but is there any pressure on us as a community to actually make sure our scripts play nicely with the choices Wikia makes without our knowledge?

      Loading editor
    CzechOut closed this thread because:
    A full and frank exchange of views has occurred.
    21:18, October 6, 2017
    • Hey :) Thanks for your questions. :)

      Most of your post is talking about one script which was approved some hours ago. The script changes were okayed within the normal time frame for JavaScript review. Moreover, because I asked for a few minor changes, the developer was able to see other errors, and the approved code was better as a result.

      I'm not really seeing it as a precedent-setting case. It's just one that had some code that made me raise an eyebrow—but also one that could be easily solved by a single, additional line.

      As for your last paragraph, which concerns your own code, I was not in any way attempting to make as broad a ruling as you're suggesting. The point was merely that your code was known to screw up the rendering of pages in IE 11. That's a no-no, because the ToU doesn't allow you to "obstruct the proper functioning and view of advertisements, and/or user interface and functionality".

      Nobody is saying that you have to "consider, test and account for [newly-supported] browsers" every time you write a script. All that happened here is that the script was already known to not work on IE 11. So I couldn't approve it with a known flaw.

      Hope that helps!

        Loading editor
    • My post is talking about the one script in question because this one particular case is probably the most bizarre. The script in question was not approved within the normal time frame as it was rejected for a problem it didn't have. No where in the script did it give anonymous users access to information they could not already get their hands on via a wikis very public API.

      In addition, the reasoning for seemingly mandating a guard was a completely contrived example in which a spider of some sort manged to:

      1. Have the foresight to crawl the monobook skin
      2. Execute this particular script in order to make changes to the page
      3. Scrape the information from the modified DOM to gain access to edit info

      If this completely improbable scenario were to play out the spider would be much better off making batch requests to the, again, public API Wikia provides through MediaWiki to all of its users.

      Furthermore this asinine scenario is still not really reason enough to push for the inclusion of a guard to stop the loading and use by anonymous users.

      And, to quote you, "At the end of the day, the use case for anons on Monobook is so tiny that it's not worth whatever small security risk might be present." I rebut with, at the end of the day the use case for monobook to anons is so tiny that the non-existent security issue is not even worth pushing a guard for.

      And lastly, you yet again rejected a revision because of commented out code, which cannot run, which seemingly goes against the "the approval process is not a review of the general quality of your code" section of the disclaimer in the Help:JavaScript review process page. The contents of comments poses no security issues or issues at script run-time as no JavaScript engine acknowledges or parses out the contents of comments.

      I disagree with your statement about it not setting a precedent. A staff member mandating that code be changed to meet yet undisclosed criteria is quite the situation where a precedent is set.

      Even so would it not be more appropriate to leave the code pending review while you seek clarification on its function than rejecting it and then arguing with the users about the purpose and functionality of the script? I certainly think so and I am fairly sure other developers feel the same way as well.

      Furthermore, as talked about in the previous section, said line of code didn't need to be added and the hook didn't and shouldn't have been removed only to be replaced later.

      I was not asking if you were making a broad ruling, I was asking if we need to now support browsers which Wikia arbitrarily adds to the Help:Supported browsers page. This is an incredibly important question as it basically decides in the future whether or not scripts will get rejected.

      The point is that the code I submitted in itself didn't screw up the rendering nor functionality of the site. In fact the code used in Zion is completely, and without error, compatible with IE. Upon failure it does not cause any elements of the site to become corrupt nor does it stop other scripts from running independent of itself. It was designed in such a way that the scripts it loads are put outside of itself so that errors in them will not bubble back up to Zion and further into code minified by the Resource Loader.

      It is in this manner that Zion does not and cannot violate the part of the ToU that you quoted.

      Source on error bubbling:

      function czechThisOut () {
          var _badScript = 'throw new Error("Czech out this sweet error message");';
          var _badNode = document.createElement('script');
              _badNode.innerHTML = _badScript;
          for (var i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
              console.log('Czech out how the script\'s errors don\'t bubble up!');
        Loading editor
    • You make some good points, and I'll certainly be sharing them with my colleagues at our next staff meeting. As for my own part, I'll take your criticisms under advisement and keep them in mind for the future. Thanks for sharing them with me in such an honest way.

      For now, though, I'll just say again that I wasn't trying to set any sort of precedent, and I don't think any of my fellow reviewers will see these two cases as anything warranting a change to the rules.

        Loading editor
  • Hello! :)

    I would like to request to have The Heiresses Wiki added to the {{ABCWikis}} template & Famous In Love Wiki added to the {{FreeformWikis}} template.

    Thanks! <3 -Audrey

      Loading editor
    Raylan13 closed this thread because:
    Taking up someone else's wall. Continued conversation, if desired, can be had at either Raylan's wall or on the talk page of the footer program.
    00:48, October 4, 2017
  • (answer to revision #77667 [rejected])

    Any change must be approved by you or another one who is authorized to do so. So I can't do anything without your knowledge.
    I can't delete anything I'm not authorized to. It's FANDOM's responsibility to ensure that the API works that way. And in my opinion it does. If not it would not be my fault.
    If I'm not logged in, I get 401 Unauthorized (Subject does not have permission [threads:delete])
    If I'm not authorized to do it, I get 403 Forbidden (Subject does not have permission [threads:delete])
    imho that seems to work.
    We are not asked to document our code. I guess, my getter and setter functions (there is not much more) are mostly self-explaining. But I can add javadoc and things like that if you feel better that way.
    I comment code out if it is work in progress but is needed for a later stage of development but I want to submit the current code now. It would be annoying extra work to cut the commented out code out and reinsert it after submitting the current version. And it would create one more unnecessary revision. I have to resubmit it anyway and you'll see it anyway. There is no need for stupidly copying around in my opinion.
    If the review process is confusing and not well-organized it is not my fault either. Then it has to be improved by FANDOM.
    Agent Zuri Profile Message Wall Blog 17:52, October 2, 2017 (UTC)

      Loading editor
See archived talk page
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message