Saints Row Wiki
Advertisement
Saints Row Wiki

This is a User talk page. See Saints Row Wiki:Discussions for discussion policies.


  • Only post here regarding issues which require an admin, or directly involve 452 or GlitchBot.
  • Keep conversations on the same page. Do not split discussions.
  • If a discussion exists, continue it where it started.
  • Irrelevant messages may be deleted without a response.
  • Messages left here which belong elsewhere may be deleted without a response.
  • Replies posted here instead of on the original page may be deleted without a response.
  • Comments posted here by banned users or other non-editors will be deleted without a response.

For answers to common questions, check Saints Row Wiki:FAQ

Where should I post...
...a reply to a message I've received?

Reply directly below that message.
Always keep discussions in the same place.

...a reply to an existing discussion?

Continue the discussion on the same page.
Many existing discussions are listed on Active Discussions.

...about improving a specific article?

Use the Talk page of that article.

...about the content of an article?

Use the Talk page of that article.

...about improving articles in general?

The Saints Row Wiki:To-do list, or a sub-list.

...a general question about the game?

Go to Saints Row Wiki:Forums and make a post.

...a general question about the wiki?

Go to Forum:Saints Row Wiki and make a post.

...a question about a specific user's edit?

Go to their User talk page and post there.

...about something that happened in the chat?

In the chat. The chat rules are very clear that "Issues from inside the chat are not to be brought outside the chat."

...opinions/experiences about the game?

Make a Forum post

...an interview/article/review/other website?

Make a Forum post

...glitches/bugs/tricks I've found?

Make a Forum post

...a story I wrote about Saints Row?

http://saintsrowfanfiction.wikia.com

...my theories about the game?

http://saintsrowfanfiction.wikia.com

...my wishlist for future games?

http://saintsrowfanfiction.wikia.com

...I found bigfoot, etc?

http://saintsrowfanfiction.wikia.com

...about my life?

Try facebook, livejournal, myspace?

...anything else unrelated to Saints Row?

Anywhere else other than the Saints Row wiki.

If you're unsure, just make a forum post
See Saints Row Wiki:Discussions for full discussion policies

Due to size, existing conversations are split by year

2011 - 2012 - 2013 - 2014 - 2015 - 2016 - 2017 - 2018 - 2019 - 2020

If you have something to add to those discussions, reply on those pages.



JS review[]

Hello, please use test mode during active development of a script. You've submitted several updates to MediaWiki:Common.js for review just today and these have all appeared to been just testing iterative changes. You can use test mode to see how your changes look before submitting them for approval. Please see Help:JavaScript review process for more information. --Pcj (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Please do not link to shared help pages as if they were internal links. Links to shared help pages have appeared on Special:WantedPages for at least the past 10 years, a problem which has been made worse recently since it's now impossible* to create local versions of shared help pages.
Please do not patronize me with links to help pages as if I wasn't a contributor to the related talk page. The help page says absolutely nothing about frequency of submitting scripts for review.
  1. It normally takes DAYS before javascript updates get approved, so it has never mattered before. Until recently, I've never had two updates to a script approved on the same day.
  2. Test mode has been broken for 3 months. I've complained about it multiple times. If you're somehow ignorant of this fact and don't believe me: Here's the "test" mode of View_Source.js when loaded, and here's View Source.js. Note the first line. (This isn't relevant to common.js itself, but it's strange that you're espousing the virtues of something that I've already reported as broken.)
  3. You're wrong that "these have all appeared to [sic] been just testing iterative changes". Only 1 of my edits today was a test, and it wasn't submitted for approval.
I WAS done for the day, but now I apparently have to justify my edits to you:
  • 432305 was intended to be a standalone edit, and at the time I submitted it for review I didn't expect to make the related edit 432306 as a result of it. These two edits had absolutely nothing to do with subsequent edits. So that's 1 unnecessary submission.
  • 432308 had nothing to do with the previous edit, nor the subsequent edits.
  • 432309 - made 2 hours later - was not submitted, and I made the test edit 432310 before submitting the script. The pair were intended to be standalone, but 20 minutes later I noticed a bug and fixed it in 432311. So that's 1 more unnecessary submission.
  • 432312 was another edit to the same script, because after performing the previous fix I later realised I could simplify my script. At the time I submitted 432310, I didn't have any intention of making this change.
By my count, that's 7 edits, of which were 6 submitted because I thought I was done, which I could potentially have reduced to 4. There was only 1 time I made an edit expecting to make another, and I didn't submit that.
Apparently I pressed the "Submit for Review" button TWO extra times that would have been necessary had I done more testing, on the apparent first day that it has EVER mattered since you introduced this ridiculous review system.
Both of the 2 extra submissions were bug fixes: Yes, I could have done more testing. But I'm a single individual working for free, not a multimillion dollar corporation with hundreds of employees and billions of pageviews who can't ever manage to release an update without introducing bugs.
So when your multimillion dollar corporation starts doing better testing before releasing updates, I will too. Until then, I'm going to press the "submit for review" button any time that I think I am finished. Meanwhile, you still haven't fixed the bugs in The Update you released 3 months ago that you knew was not finished.
Every one of my javascript edits today were a result of the UCP update, so this really reminds me of the time you complained that I was making too many bug reports.
Hopefully one day Wikia Staff will figure out how Cause and Effect work, and stop complaining about the effects.
As I mentioned, I WAS done for the day before your comment, so thanks for littering my talk page and wasting 2 hours of my life over nothing.
452 00:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Please mind your tone. I was asking an eminently reasonable request and do not care for the anger evident in your response. I understand you may be frustrated with Fandom, but that is certainly no reason to take it out on me.
It normally takes DAYS before javascript updates get approved, so it has never mattered before. Until recently, I've never had two updates to a script approved on the same day.
This is an exceedingly odd point to make. It is not my fault that I am reviewing requests faster than others have previously. Given your behavior I think I can see why others have been slow to review your changes, though.
Test mode has been broken for 3 months.
It's broken on pages loaded through your loadScripts/importArticles code; my request was regarding multiple-submitted revisions to the main MediaWiki:Common.js, which is not affected by this bug.
I WAS done for the day, but now I apparently have to justify my edits to you
No, I don't care for justification. I was simply asking you to batch/test edits before submitting them for review.
As I mentioned, I WAS done for the day before your comment, so thanks for littering my talk page and wasting 2 hours of my life over nothing.
I don't know what you're on about. I asked for a simple thing which would probably cost everyone less time. It was you who decided to go off on a rant on this topic. If you get so heated in regards to a simple request, perhaps may I suggest taking a step back and having a breath or two? It may do wonders for your personal health and sanity. Thank you for your understanding. --Pcj (talk) 15:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Tone policing (also tone trolling, tone argument, and tone fallacy) is an ad hominem (personal attack) and anti-debate tactic based on criticizing a person for expressing emotion. Tone policing detracts from the validity of a statement by attacking the tone in which it was presented rather than the message itself.
I'm tempted to just sign off and leave it there, but I really do not appreciate your characterizations and unprofessional personal accusations.
I've just re-read everything I wrote and there's nothing "heated" in it. In fact, I specifically toned it down because Wikia Staff always turn around and play victim in regard to reactions and pretend that any form of emphasis must represent "anger". I guess I shouldn't have bothered, because you were going to do it no matter what I said. Thanks for demonstrating that things have not changed and that you are representing your corporation in the same manner as everyone else.
See above: Cause and Effect.
This is an exceedingly odd point to make.
The point is that given the normal timeline since "javascript review" was introduced - which is noted on the very help page you linked - there is absolutely no expectation that submitting multiple edits would ever be a problem.
And if it now is a problem, then update the help page before littering someone's talk page with "requests" as if they've broken a rule. I just checked the help page again, it stills says absolutely nothing about the frequency of review submissions.
I've never "requested" anyone do a single thing that wasn't already outlined on a help, policy, or talk page.
As always, you're just making up the rules as you see fit. It's one thing to act as if made-up rules simply should have been known, or to say that explicit permission is overruled by a pre-existing blog post, but it's outright bizarre that you linked to a help page which says absolutely nothing on the subject.
MediaWiki:Common.js, which is not affected by this bug.
As I already noted.
It is disingenuous of you to act as if I had not specifically said exactly that.
It's broken on pages loaded through your loadScripts/importArticles
It's broken for any importArticles call, my loadScripts code is irrelevant to the issue.
It is disingenuous of you to characterize this as a problem with my code specifically when this is a problem inherent to importArticles which occurs on any wiki that uses it.
Given your behavior I think I can see why others have been slow to review your changes, though.
Thank you for confirming that Wikia Staff indeed show favoritism.
But again: Cause and Effect. Try not to get them backwards.
452 21:24, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Representative[]

Hi There!

I have recently been appointed as the Wiki Representative for this community. I am here to assist this community on behalf of Fandom, help it grow and thrive, and act as a liaison between you, and full-time Fandom staff. If you, or any other users ever have an issue or question related to the wiki (editing, templates, wiki design, or any other matters related to Fandom), please feel free to contact me on my message wall, and I will assist in any way I can. 🙂
- Sitb (Message wall / Talk page) 02:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

(Note: The above comment was placed at the top of the page, and has been moved to where it belongs.)
Usually, new comments belong below existing comments. But at least you didn't put your introduction in an unnecessary table in the main namespace, I guess.
While different wikis have a variety of talk page styles, I've never seen one which places new messages at the top of the talk page.
Pressing the Add Topic button located at the top of talk pages creates a new section at the bottom of the page.
Please see Help:Talk pages#How to leave a message for more information about using talk pages. At the time I last edited that page, it even said "Usually, you should add comments to the end of the page.", but that was removed in favor of just instructing users to use the "Leave Message" / "Add Topic" button.
please feel free to contact me on my message wall
You do not have a Message Wall.
I need no help with editing, templates, or wiki design.
What I do need to know is:
452 04:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC) (edited 14:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC))
Sorry if my message was not placed precisely where you'd prefer. TBH, I've seen people use their talk pages in both ascending and descending chronology over the years - I figured you'd relocate the conversation to wherever you desire after the fact. Ulitimately, there was no harm done. 😉
I am aware that I do not have a message wall on this particular wiki. I use my Fandom-wide signature on hundreds of wikis (some use message walls and some use talk pages, so I include both options). Feel free to use the link that works, if you need to quickly navigate to contact me. Just ignore the link that is not applicable.
Just to clarify: I am not aware of any requests/tickets you might already have open, but if it's something I'm able to help you with, I'll do everything I can. Also, my assistance as a WR is provided to any of a wiki's users, not just admins. I'm happy you're confident in your own abilities, but if others approach me with a question, I'm here to assist them as well.
Enabling custom, non-content namespaces might be possible. What's the type of namespace you're considering?
I'm not aware of how Category:Template has invalid parameters functions TBH, but are there certain templates that you're concerned about, or ones that clearly are not functioning properly? At the very least, we can maybe look at those on a case-by-case basis. However, just a heads up: my knowledge of DPL is virtually non-existent, so we may have to enlist help from others with that, if needed.
You mention "Everything you broke 3 months ago". It looks like you're referring to the UCP migration (which I had no control over as a part-time contractor). If there are things that are still not functioning properly even now, and they aren't features that were retired with the UCP, then we can certainly work together to fix those things first. As for the concerns you mentioned in your forum post: did you happen to offer that feedback anywhere other than your wiki's local forums? I can pretty much guarantee that no one who plays a role in Fandom's design is going to see those concerns where they are currently located. There are better, more official channels for feedback, and if you want to be taken seriously, I would highly recommend parsing out all of the condescending parts/inappropriate language and stick to the facts:
  • What is broken (and how)
  • Why it is critical that the change should be corrected
  • Try to be as brief/concise as possible, because long thoughts make it hard to quickly identify actionable feedback
    - Sitb (Message wall / Talk page) 14:19, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
(Note: The above comment was indented 3 times instead of 2, and has been corrected)
I shouldn't be surprised that you don't know how to indent either.
To be fair, it's not covered on the current version of the talk page. But please see old revision of Help:Talk_pages I linked earlier for more information about using talk pages. Please see Saints Row Wiki:Discussions#Threads or Wikipedia's Help:Talk_pages#Indentation for a more in-depth explanation of how reply indentation works.
It is disingenuous of you to try to frame the default location for new messages as "where I'd prefer", when I have already explained to you that that is where the new section would have gone had you used the "Add Topic" button as the Help:Talk_pages instructs you to. It has nothing to do with my preferences, it is the default location.
Your response has given me all the information I need.
452 14:52, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I think I understand now how you prefer to order your talk page, so I'll try to keep that in mind when responding here. Please do clarify if I can further improve, so these threaded messages are easier to follow. Conversation formatting aside, I would like it if we could discuss the points I mentioned above (you commented on my formatting, rather than progressing our conversation). I've noticed a habit where you get defensive, and I don't necessarily blame this instinctive behavior. You may even feel it is justified, because of your previous experiences with Fandom. However, I interpreted your last message to be a bit condescending toward me, and I'm not sure why you would treat me that way, considering we've never spoken before today, and I've directed no criticism toward you whatsoever. I politely ask that you avoid that type of tone going forward (if it was intentional). There is a real person behind this account who has arrived at your wiki and is willing to assist your community, in whatever large or small way that might be. I have no desire to get into an argument over anything, I'm simply trying to determine what you feel you need for the wiki, so I can determine how to be of best assistance. I have nothing but respect for you so far, and I request that you please display the same level of curtesy toward me, before rushing to judgement. So, if you are willing to do so, could you offer any more information/clarification about the the points I mentioned last? (If it would be cleaner, perhaps we could create a new thread to talk about it?)
- Sitb (Message wall / Talk page) 17:56, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I was confused why you mentioned your signature, but I see now that my autoreplacer replaced the links in your signature. I have now restored them. 452 14:54, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
As expected, that link is now on Special:WantedPages, so I have re-enabled my autoreplacer. This link would have appeared as red, but you forced a colour over it.
There has never been any reason for a signature to link both to Message_Wall and User_talk, as User_talk links have always redirected to Message_Wall when it is active, while Message_Wall links always appear on Wanted Pages when it isn't - this is why the default signature only links to User_talk, even when Message Wall is active.
In future, please avoid creating unnecessary links to non-existing pages.
452 (talk) 13:18, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. I had not thought of some minor annoyances that might arise from the formatting I had applied to my signature over the last couple of years. TBF, not a single person has ever bought this up to me. I appreciate the explanation though, and based on what you mentioned, I've decided it's probably best to remove that formatting from my signature. If it annoys you, then it's possible it's maybe annoyed someone else. I'm glad someone finally said something! 🙂
All the best,
- Sitb 14:43, 19 February 2021 (UTC)