• 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
  • 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
  • I would like to apologize for the other thread. I didn't realize everyone planned on jumping on the thread. I have dealt with severe bullying from the user, something Ariana is aware and has tried to intervene with. But it shouldn't have been brought onto your wall and I apologize for that.

      Loading editor
    CzechOut closed this thread because:
    This situation is best resolved with a Special:Contact.
    01:44, September 29, 2017
  • Hey! So I was administrator and bureaucrat at the wiki called However, when I went to the wiki today it redirected me to The wiki was not inactive as I just edited like yesterday and there was no discussion or threads about this, as I did not agree to a merging? Can you please help?

      Loading editor
    CzechOut closed this thread because:
    If anyone in this thread would like to further explore the reasons theperfectionists was redirected to pretty-little-liars, please submit a Special:Contact so that the inquiry can be routed to the FANDOM staff member best able to answer.
    01:14, September 29, 2017
    • View all 18 replies
    • I'm trying so hard to be professional but it's hard when all you do is spew lies. I have nothing else to say to you and I apologize to the person who's wall this is for the disturbance. I try so hard to be civil with you, Tyson, but it's hard when you freak out at every decision that's not exactly how you wanted it to be. You don't own Wikia.

        Loading editor
    • Wow. Tyson, yeah I'm gonna have to side with Diva here.

        Loading editor
  • Hello, my name's Ninclow. I just made my own wikia to use as a place for me to store my ideas for rpg characters, be it canon or original, ect, and I found your post on the help pages, where you explained how it is possible to add infoboxes/templates from other wikis by copying and pasting the CCS codes from their MediaWiki:Common.css page to one's own, granted, of course, you add the ackowledgement that said templates were from the other wikia and not your own/not of your own making. I tried to follow your step-by-step explonation, but I think I must have gotten something wrong. If you have the time, could you take a look at my MediaWiki:Common.css page and the Death Eater infobox on the same wiki and see if I missed something, please? :-)

      Loading editor
    • Heya. Thanks for your question :)

      What you've done here is to create a portable infobox at Death Eater infobox, while using CSS that will only work with non-portable infoboxes.

      You should completely blank what you've done at your Common.css and start again, using CSS selectors that will affect your portable infobox. See Help:Infoboxes/CSS for more information, and a list of the most popular PI CSS selectors. You'll probably find this blog post helpful, as well.

      You should also be aware that your Admin Dashboard has your wiki currently set to use Europa-themed infoboxes, and these generally require much less CSS customisation.

      If you get into further difficulties, you can hit me up again, or you can drop by the Portability Hub to ask for mentoring help.

        Loading editor
    • Thank you for taking the time, and thank you for a quick reply! :-D

      Okay, I'm as green as they come. I don't really know anything about coding... Alas, I am afraid you lost me again. So, just to make sure I understood you correctly, you said I should press ctrl, alt + delete everything on my common.css and follow the steps you provided one more time? How will that end up any different?

        Loading editor
    • Well, I dunno about pressing CTRL-ALT-DELETE. I'm not a Windows user, but I'm given to understand that may not achieve what you want. :)

      With CSS, you create things called classes which contain styling information. So if you said:

      .red { color : red }

      ... in your MediaWiki:Common.css, that would mean that if you then typed this on a page ...

      <span class="red">Hi there!</span>

      then you'd literally turn "Hi there!" red. (Hi there!)

      You've added a whole set of classes to your Common.css which start with .infobox. But the problem is there's nothing which calls .infobox on your wiki, because you're using portable infoboxes. And portable infoboxes don't use the class .infobox at all. So you should just blank Common.css and start over.

      Since you know nothing about CSS coding, it may be wise to keep Common.css blank until you learn a little more coding. Luckily, your wiki is set to use Europa-styled infoboxes by default, and Europa is a great starting theme for someone in your situation. Your infoboxes will display just fine for now. As you explore the resources I linked you to, you'll eventually be able to add code to your CSS pages that will be able to actually change the look of the infoboxes. :)

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • For shame!

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hi, CzechOut.

    I'm shocked and appalled by you having blocked me "infinitely" from TARDIS Wiki, ostensibly for "requesting" (remember that wording, please, because it's the right one) that Danniesen email me. Not only have you blocked me on grounds that don't even exist on the wiki, but you've also accused me of having somehow "bullied" Danniesen! It never occured to me that what I said to him on his user talk page might be misconstrued as "bullying". It certainly wasn't my intention to bully him, and it's very unfortunate you've chosen to take it that way, especially as my sole motive was trying to do a good deed for TARDIS Wiki, with the info I posted him. Danniesen certainly had ample opportunity to deny my request, at which time I obviously would have been absolutely accepting of it and would have got on with other things. However, he didn't... and yet you conclude from that that he was being "bullied"!!

    I'm also quite shocked I was never issued a warning about something I had no idea was wrong, before I was "infinitely" blocked. I've since apologized profusely to Danniesen. Before the block, I deliberately went out of my way to be friendly to you too, wishing you a nice day. When you blocked me, you cited my conduct as a violation of T:SAFE USER, despite that page literally saying nothing at all about users chatting with each other via email! On the contrary, up to now, I've only ever been aware of Wikia actively encouraging users to contact each other via email.

    I notice, from this wall, that you've committed MANY other extremely abrupt blocks at TARDIS Wiki. Please don't persist with trying to lord it over the Wikia users; I urge you to do the right and reasonable thing by removing the block. As my thousands of edits on Memory Alpha show, my motive is making constructive edits that improve the wikis. In this case, I've learned my lesson as, if you do remove the block, I won't email anyone else (their loss!), and will continue making constructive edits that improve TARDIS Wiki.

    Thank you

      Loading editor
    CzechOut closed this thread because:
    Block review completed.
    03:02, May 11, 2017
    • As compared with many other big wikis, Tardis has a tiny percentage of blocks amongst its registered user population. Once you remove the blocks that are done for inappropriate names, only about 50 material violations of policy blocks remain.

      That means that our block rate of registered users is only about 0.56%. That's a fantastically low percentage. Other wikis as old as ours have much higher block rate percentages going on.

      My wall has some appeals requests on it, yes -- but this is because we have a formal appeals process at Tardis. It's only to be expected that I will have a few appeals on my wall, and they have occasionally resulted in blocks being lifted.

      I will not be lifting your block, however.

      I disagree fundamentally with your characterisation of the exchange with Danniesen as "a request". He was clearly uncomfortable with giving out his email address. And instead of backing off or answering his reasonable questions, you left 7 messages on his page, within a brief period of time. Some of them insinuated that his caution was unjustified. Your response to his wariness over email viruses was flatly hostile. "What sort of question is that?! Can you please just send me an email?"


      He doesn't know you. You can't just pop onto people's talk pages and say, "Email me!" and then fail to answer them when they ask you questions. That's incredibly frightening and off-putting. He has no guarantee whatsoever that you won't spam him or send him viruses.

      So I believe that a common-sense reading of that event is that you hounded him until he appeared to relent.

      I'm sorry, but I just can't allow that kind of behavior at Tardis. At the end of the day, T:SAFE USER is meant to protect people from giving away "anything else that can be used to quickly identify you". An email address is something that can "quickly identify you".

      And in cases where one user is harassing another user for personal information, admin do not have to give one bit of warning at all. One of the chief responsibilities of the Tardis admin team is to protect users. We must take it very seriously and act quite decisively.

        Loading editor
  • Hey there

    Okay, it's been 24 hours now and the admin who blocked me hasn't replied. The policy says to inform other admins on the wiki, so I've come to you for help:

    Basically, we were talking and discussing the validity of a page and whether it should be deleted or not. Apparently, one of my responses was a "personal attack" on Shambala108, though they didn't warn me at all that disagreeing with an anon constitutes an attack.

    They then proceeded to ban me for a whole month, up on June 1st, for just that. They then messaged me directly, but the policy pages states explicitly a warning should be given first, but they failed to do this.

    I feel there has been a misinterpretation (whether me or them) and I would like, at least, clarification on the issue as I wish to not repeat whatever my offence was. The policy also stated I inform you my Block ID is 6635.

    Think you will be able to help/enlighten me? Thank you in advance.

      Loading editor
    CzechOut closed this thread because:
    Review complete.
    21:10, May 6, 2017
    • Hey :) Thanks for writing. :)

      Your case has already received a great deal of consideration by a number of admin. However, Shambala108 hasn't been one of them. She's not been on the network since blocking you on the 1st of May.

      Since none of the rest of the admin staff were involved with the inciting talk page discussion, we hope you'll understand that we'd like a chance to confer with her first.

      Rest assured, however, that a decision will be reached, one way or another, by Saturday 6 May -- as we agree that any longer a wait wouldn't be justified. You will receive news of our decision here, in this thread. Thank you for your patience.

      p.s. I understand your frustration, but please know that you don't need to place messages on multiple admins' walls. You have successfully obtained our attention -- and, in any case, local rules allow you to message only one admin beyond the one who blocked you.
        Loading editor
    • Thank you for replying ^_^ I understand the circumstances and will continue our discussion at the stated thread. I was just worried I was being ignored. Thanks once more for responding.

        Loading editor
    • Hey, just reminding that it's Saturday the 6th of May and Shambala108 still hasn't responded.

        Loading editor
    • Hi there :) As promised, I'm back to give you the results of your block review.

      I should start by saying that responses to block requests aren't typically given. When replies are issued, they are mostly just a confirmation of whether the block will continue. However, a lot of discussion usually goes on behind the scenes. And, as I indicated in my last post, we try to get the opinions of the blocking administrator. Unfortunately, Shambala108 has not edited since the time she issued your block.

      Understandably, therefore, we can't speak to why she blocked you, beyond what she has already written. All we can say is that a small cadre of other admin don't see a clear case of T:ATTACKS violation. So we're going to call the remainder of your one month block "time served". You will again be able to edit Tardis from roughly the time this message is posted.

      But, since you brought it up, it's important to know that we fully support how Shambala108 blocked you. That is, it's the general understanding amongst admins is that, in practice, we do indeed have the right to block without warning for violations of T:ATTACKS. The definition of the word attack includes many things for which no-warning bans are completely reasonable. There are simply times where admins need to act swiftly and decisively, since our general goal is civility.

      But here's the kicker. When you participate in discussions like tardis:Talk:Friend from the Future (webcast), you have been warned. The editing pane on a talk page has a clear message at the top -- "This is a talk page. Keep your cool." -- that links you to T:DISCUSS. There, you're told that violating T:ATTACKS is a blockable offence. And this same message appears on every talk page, even user talk pages. So you've been warned that you'll be blocked, even though the governing rule for talk pages doesn't actually require you to be warned.

      At any rate, thanks for hanging on to let us make a fair attempt at discussing the matter both with Shambala108 and other admins. I hope you'll rejoin is for more editing fun at Tardis. :)

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