User talk:Lahwaacz

From ArchWiki
Revision as of 22:16, 7 April 2015 by Nous (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Regex for replacing = codes

Hi, regarding User:Lahwaacz#User:Lahwaacz#Regex_for_replacing_.3D_codes do you intend to use a similar expression with the editor assistant or directly with the bot? In the latter case I think it would be pretty dangerous, for example it would break templates that already use a named parameter, e.g. {{Template|parameter=value}} would be turned into {{Template|1=parameter=value}}. -- Kynikos (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I used it only once and don't have any specific plans, but I'm quite certain I will need to use it again sometimes... Thanks for the warning, I will be cautious. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


About [1] (and [2]) User:Levi0x0x, who should have indeed provided an edit summary, appears to be the developer of the application and the maintainer of the PKGBUILD. I would keep his edit. -- Kynikos (talk) 00:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I know - I've seen also bash-player removed, both from wiki and Github (it seems the repo has been recreated from scratch). PodCastXDL has always been available upstream. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 08:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
Didn't he add it to the list one week ago? [3] Maybe he's found some bug and doesn't want people to use it until he fixes it? Anyway I'm not that interested, we can as well see if/how Levi0x0x reacts. -- Kynikos (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


The variables ACTION, INTERFACE, SSID, and Profile are only exported by auto.action and only netctl-auto uses that script. So if your not using netctl-auto then they don't do anything. Captaincurrie (talk) 08:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

That may be true, but that's not reason to remove the expansion flag from the page. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 08:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Article discussion prior to deletion argument

On 2015-03-24T13:21:22, Lahwaacz deleted article Firefox/Font_type_and_size.

I believe that it is Arch Linux wiki policy and general wiki policy to have discussions before article deletions. Exceptions that I have known have been for has been instances, for example, like original research, intentional vandalism, sensitive details related to personal biographies, and similar criteria. The reasons given for the deletion do not belong to the noted exceptions and any other reasons that I know:

"ArchWiki is not your blog (inappropriate language, not specific to Firefox, duplicates other pages: Fonts, Font configuration)"

Gently (talk) 14:26, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

The page was not deleted but moved to User:Gen2ly/Firefox/Font_type_and_size. This is not an excuse, just to set things right. This case indeed does not fall into the exceptions you've named, but I believe that low quality is good enough reason to move a page into the userspace. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
The "low quality" quip is unnecessary and I think we as wiki administrators would do good to try and be accurately descriptive particularly on such serious actions. If this action and comment is for personal reasons, please mention so and I'll contact you by email where that discussion would be more appropriate. Otherwise, if can be gotten over please continue to read.
I went to the article the day after and saw initially the notice "This page has been deleted...". This was new to me. I have since learned that moving a page without a redirect would leave this message. This message may bear discussion in similar form in the future but as it is now, this topic is erroneous and considered closed by me. (To deal with the "moving to userspace" reasoning I will take a tangential angle and open a discussion bearing the reasons for the move and attempt to resolve them (in the attempt to be as helpful as possible). If the topic is of interest, please visit and leave a comment if it is desirable there.)
Gently (talk) 15:18, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the notice is misleading, unfortunately I don't see a way this could be improved in the near future. Anyway, there was nothing personal behind the action, I will leave more descriptive comments about style and content "there". -- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:42, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

bot AUR to Official Repository edit

A recent bot edit (update Pkg/AUR templates) by on the Gitolite page correctly changed the AUR template to Pkg but left the Arch User Repository link

I fixed this, but would it be possible to modify the bot to take this into consideration?

I can imagine that blanket changing AUR links to Official Repository links in any given page could be dangerous - but for common phrasing or possibly word distance it would seem to be relatively safe

Or is there some sort of post-run manual inspection that I am unaware of that handles this situation?

Specifically this edit


{{AUR|gitolite}} is available in the [[Arch User Repository]]


{{Pkg|gitolite}} is available in the [[Arch User Repository]] (talk) 01:50, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

By "word distance" above what I _meant_ was Edit Distance ;)

I was initially thinking of Hamming distance - but apparently that is for strings of equal length.

What looks more promising is the Levenshtein distance - specifically "Comparing a list of strings" from the Python Distance package.

Example shamelessly ripped from that page:

(mainly because I couldn't link directly to the relevant section)

>>> sent1 = ['the', 'quick', 'brown', 'fox', 'jumps', 'over', 'the', 'lazy', 'dog']
>>> sent2 = ['the', 'lazy', 'fox', 'jumps', 'over', 'the', 'crazy', 'dog']
>>> distance.levenshtein(sent1, sent2)
3 (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

the bot currently does not touch the surrounding text at all, it only modifies the package templates or appends Template:Broken package link when the package is not found. This is obviously not perfect, this behaviour may lead to some incorrect combinations as you noticed, but blindly fixing the package links and not the surrounding text is still considered to be an improvement. Checking the surrounding text manually would require a lot of manpower, which we don't have, so it is currently not done systematically. Feel free to ask for further details or see the most recent discussion: ArchWiki:Requests#Strategy_for_updating_package_templates.
Regarding automatic updates of the surrounding text, the edit distance gives a clue about whether given edit should be performed or not, but it does not define how an edit should be performed. It can be useful in cases where there are multiple feasible substitutions in text and the strategy to select the optimal substitution is e.g. to minimize the Levenshtein distance. But we don't have any algorithm to generate feasible substitutions yet, so this technique fails. The surrounding text substitution is also very context sensitive and wiki bots must be designed in a way to minimize (ideally avoid completely) the error of the first kind, which in this case is modifying correct text to be incorrect. This makes defining general rules for the text substitution really hard, on the other hand many rules would be necessary to cover even the basic form of standard wording, so in the end both ways may be comparably hard. Anyway, if you have some ideas, I'm all ears :)
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 17:51, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I un-did your expansion edit in linux-pf accidentally. Nous (talk) 22:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)