FANDOM

Manuel de la Fuente

A FANDOM user
  Loading editor
  • I don't think so. You and I have not talked, we need to talk. Now listen here Manny, you were dishonest about it back in November well you don't call the shots here, NOW YOU ARE GOING TO LISTENYou lied to me. You didn't like me lying about who I was on the wikia and you can't even clarify a damn thing about why we can't talk now due to "evidence" you refuse to cite. This crap has gone on long enough. You may be an administrator, but you're not a reasonable individual. I know what you'll say but I don't care, all I wanted was for us to have that dialogue and the last seven months prove you were a liar the entire time. WE're here because you misled me, Manuel De La Fuente. And you think I'm the only unreasonable one between us? You may not like to hear me talk, you may call me a spammer, but dude..........you lied to me. I'm going to hold you accountable regardless of your admin status. Just like you held me accountable for my attitude and for spewing spoliers in places I should not have been. 

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • You should really do something with this guy He does appear to make fake info.

      Loading editor
  • Too late to ask for another chance?

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • How do you avoid bumping up against a reviewer? Great question. There are no real rules because it's simply a matter of unpredictable timing.

    If I've formally started the review process, get called away to look at something else, and then come back to find you've entered three more revisions, I face a dilemma. Officially, the rules at Help:JavaScript review process say I'd review the initial revision and then go for the latest one. Sometimes that means rejecting the first one to look at the latest one. Sometimes it won't. It's really a situational thing.

    But that's the case of the software telling me as the reviewer that I need to finish up one review before starting another.

    You encountered that once, but you also had a different thing. I remember an instance of a review request three or four revisions back from a current revision that hadn't been submitted for review. All of them were made within a few hours, so in a case like that, I'm going to think that the situation is fluid and volatile. So I'll reject the older revision to await the next submission.

    In other cases, I've approved an old revision because it's an obvious step forward that has no real issues. Again, it just really depends.

    Whatever the case, please don't think you're annoying us by contributing too quickly. We'll let you know, as I once did, if you need to put a hold on your contributions to give us time to do a full review of your work. You're never inconveniencing us by submitting multiple revisions. We like that you're enthusiastic enough to keep improving your code. It's just that there may be occasions where you're submitting faster than we can reasonably review. But I can no more predict what's "too fast" than I can imagine what it might mean for my trusty hound to give me "too much" affection.

      Loading editor
    • Hmm, well, this is exactly what I asked in my last message of our previous conversation (that got no reply).

      I did think it would be difficult for you to review so many edits so I was avoiding to send them until I had something worthy of reviewing; but right after that I noticed that someone had sent the last edit to review, and the next time I edited it happened again (I thought it was yourself or one of the mods); so seeing the situation and the lack of answer to my question I thought that was how it was supposed to be so I continued sending revisions by parts.

      If you want to know, today's edit was the last of my refactoring process. The code is acceptable enough now so I was hoping to continue tomorrow with adding the features I have in my ToDo; only the first three as the others don't make much sense unless there's enough interest from the community (I don't even know if someone has installed this script yet). This is also taking time from me and I need to continue focusing on the wiki I'm admin at.

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Heya :) Thanks for submitting your code w:c:dev:DiscussionsActivity.js to the JS Review process. We're discussing it internally, but we wanted to loop in staff members from widely varying time zones. It may take a little extra time to perform this review. In the meantime, we'd ask that you not submit any further revisions to this code, as it will force -- for technical reasons having to do with the JS Review tool itself -- rejection of the revision currently under review.

    Thanks for your patience as our wider team takes a look at your hard work!

      Loading editor
    • View all 10 replies
    • Okay :) Thanks for taking a second look.

        Loading editor
    • No problem, thank you for letting me know those concerns. :)

      I suppose it would be preferable that I send the code for the three upcoming features in a single edit? And maybe not posting the progress on the site at all to prevent third parties from clicking the "Submit for review" button when I'm not ready to send it yet (I think there should be a restriction so that only the last person who edited can see that button).

        Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
  • Hi, welcome to Community Central! Thanks for your edit to the Template talk:CBSWikis page.

    If you need help, feel free to leave me a message; you may also want to visit the forums or join us on Chat. You can also check the staff blog to keep up-to-date with the latest news and events around Wikia.

    Happy editing!

      Loading editor
    • A FANDOM user
        Loading editor
Give Kudos to this message
You've given this message Kudos!
See who gave Kudos to this message
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.