Board Thread:General Discussion/@comment-24739709-20151026190758/@comment-26402117-20151102183921

Robcamstone wrote: Does somebody want to explain why the admits are being exploited by wikia to fix the damage done by they poor attempts to plug security issues?

After any security issues are fixed surely all wikis should be intact as they were before wikia implemented the changes.

Also like others have pointed out why is wikia only obsessed with social websites? apart from the obvious reason of self promotion?

The JS review is poor I added some code which was reviewed and passed, but have now found that it conflicts with code in my personal global.js surely the review should be checking for conflicts as I'm new to JS I chose to remove the code as I would not know how to go about fixing it.

So I use the history to undo the last edit and even though I removed code I still had to submit the code for review, Why?

I have had to do this on 5 wikis.

Sad I think I must have lost a number of visits as I have not added any new content for ages as I have been trying to deal with the damage done by your poor security plugs.

It's to my belief that the JS review is a security review by definition. If there are parsing or execution errors, code faults or conflicts, its not Wikia's problem and they will not edit your code to fix it. Such help is available on request by the experienced programmers of the Dev Wiki.

If you're new to JS, then you should have another human developer or code-editing program check your code for safety as well as effectiveness. In any case, you can check for any conflicts by using the console tab in the developer tools of your browser - accessible through the F12 key.

Trust me from my experiences - there is no point having lots of features when you pay for it with your safety and security. I can believe that Wikia wants the best for its users and readers - hence why this move is going through quite quickly.

ΜΖD wrote: It's 2 things that use iframes, I tried some solutions posted earlier that were rejected in the review (it seems iframes just aren't allowed) so I don't think there is a way, sadly.

@MZD, interestingly, the use of verbatim for external content is usually either iframe or object. So they are essentially the same thing for web content ( and ), I reckon.

 Speedit   ♞    talk   contribs  18:39, November 2, 2015 (UTC)