Difference between revisions of "User talk:Larivact"

From ArchWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Categorizing redirects: re, close)
(DeveloperWiki: re)
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 114: Line 114:
  
 
:::I was not trying to "dismiss the case", I accept the judgment. I was just pointing something out. --[[User:Larivact|Larivact]] ([[User talk:Larivact|talk]]) 19:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 
:::I was not trying to "dismiss the case", I accept the judgment. I was just pointing something out. --[[User:Larivact|Larivact]] ([[User talk:Larivact|talk]]) 19:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 +
 +
::::It's been 2 weeks so your cosysop access has been restored. -- [[User:Alad|Alad]] ([[User talk:Alad|talk]]) 15:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 +
 +
:::::Thanks, I will be more careful in the future. --[[User:Larivact|Larivact]] ([[User talk:Larivact|talk]]) 16:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
  
 
:You deleted merged content and forgot to restore the original pages on two occasions: [[Special:Diff/554735]] & [[Special:Diff/554222]]. --[[User:Larivact|Larivact]] ([[User talk:Larivact|talk]]) 20:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 
:You deleted merged content and forgot to restore the original pages on two occasions: [[Special:Diff/554735]] & [[Special:Diff/554222]]. --[[User:Larivact|Larivact]] ([[User talk:Larivact|talk]]) 20:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 16:04, 20 November 2018

Link checker

Hi,

I've noticed that you've been updating many links lately to use HTTPS and flagging dead links, thanks! Are you doing all the work manually or do you have some tool helping you?

-- Lahwaacz (talk) 17:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

I have to admit that I was doing it manually. Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned.
I just wrote linkchecker.py a small Python script that detects dead links and HTTP links that can be upgraded to HTTPS. Cheers.–Larivact (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
No worries, better late than never :-) As for your comment on automatic editing, that would be obviously very nice and I might even help you with that. Here is my link-checker.py, which currently checks internal links and only a few external links and (semi-)automatically makes the edits. If you'd like, feel free to try it, only know that there are still many false-positives that should be handled differently than what the script suggests, so use the --dry-run option for testing. Also, since there is practically no documentation, feel free to ask anything.
As for the checking strategy, I think that if the updates are fully automated, the script should be able to detect and ignore temporarily unavailable sites. For example, if we run the script daily, it should flag dead links only on the second or third successive failure. For that we would need to have some persistent cache of the responses, so that would be much more difficult though.
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I uploaded my current version. It seems to work fine except that it fails to recognize identical dead links in man templates. I am not sure how to fix this. Maybe earwig will have an idea. [1]Larivact (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
I put my bot on ice till there is a Python MediaWiki parser that supports space-initialized code blocks. It doesn't look like earwig cares about #103. --Larivact (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

API login

According to the MediaWiki docs you should get a login token from action=query&meta=tokens and post to clientlogin. action=query&meta=tokens however returns +\ as the token when I am not logged in. --Larivact (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Apparently it's the edit token for anonymous users and you need to send a valid _session cookie to log in. So you need to be logged in in order to log in ... that's just stupid. --Larivact (talk) 07:45, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
The meta=tokens submodule has an additional type parameter, where you should pass login. You might be more happy with this documentation as a complete API reference. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 08:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
api='https://wiki.archlinux.org/api.php?format=json&action'
token=$(curl "$api=query&meta=tokens&type=login" | jq -r .query.tokens.logintoken)
curl --data-urlencode "logintoken=$token" "$api=clientlogin"
I get a badtoken error. --Larivact (talk) 09:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Now hook up the cookies:
api='https://wiki.archlinux.org/api.php?format=json&action'
token=$(curl "$api=query&meta=tokens&type=login" -c test.cookie | jq -r .query.tokens.logintoken)
curl --data-urlencode "logintoken=$token" "$api=clientlogin" -b "archwiki_session=$(tail -n 1 test.cookie | awk '{ print $7 }')"
At least it gives me a different error now ;)
-- Lahwaacz (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
"You're not allowed to edit this wiki through the API" Discriminating bots, huh? --Larivact (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Not bots, only new accounts. As shown couple of lines below, you need at least 20 edits and 3 days of age. Sorry for the inconvenience, the config was designed against spammers rather than for bots. Also note that technically there are still only 3 bot accounts. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Moving articles to User space

Hi, thank you for moving articles without content back to the authors' User pages, if I can suggest an improvement you could also update or remove any backlinks in doing so, cheers :) -- Kynikos (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Of course, thanks for cleaning up after me. --Larivact (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, scrolling recent changes here, I'm not sure about a couple of moves today. For example, User:Thestinger/Nessus. It has a dozen contributors over years, software is uptodate & article covers some specific info, a Nessus_(Русский) translation exists too. Why does it not have enough flesh to stay in Main? --Indigo (talk) 19:14, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi, the installation note is superfluous, if you are interested in how a PKGBUILD file works, read it; when a PKGBUILD does a silent HTTP request this should be fixed. The post-installation setup section is unnecessary as the localhost page tells you to do that anyway. The service name and the localhost URL are echoed in post_install. The removal note should be echoed in post_remove. So the few info that's there can just be echoed during installation / removal and doesn't require an article. I now commented my suggestions at the AUR package.[2] --Larivact (talk) 05:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, all good reasons, and good move to suggest the improvements to the AUR package. Yet, consider the following: (1) How did you come up with the improvements for the PKGBUILD? Without installing the package or scrolling years of comments, the info in the article helped you. You sure are right it is better served in the PKGBUILD, but it is not there yet - and if you did not explain here, the move reasons would not be transparent. (2) What may happen in six months, if another user sees there is no article on Nessus yet? S/he may create one from scratch, rather than improving an existing (fixing style and removing then superfluous info), or reconsider after finding the previous one via a Template:Archive). (3) Since User pages are not indexed in our search, there is no direct way to find the current one. Moving it like this also leaves translator teams in a flux figuring why the original is gone.
I'm appreciating your effort to clean-up too, please don't think otherwise. I'd like to make another suggestion: We have Template:Stub and want to archive it. The problem is that it is still used in many articles, Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Stub. Among these will be clearer cut candidates for archiving/Template:Merge for otherwise useful info/move to user space (the latter should be primarily for articles a single contributor started but never got round to bringing it to a full article). Cheers. --Indigo (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I wasn't aware of the confusion I caused. I moved the articles to the User namespace since I didn't get archiving - I thought it was a dedicated feature. I'll undo my recent moves. --Larivact (talk) 18:27, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
So do we have a uniform strategy on when to Archive something and when to move something back to the original author's user page? E.g. [3], [4], [5] would fall under the above "single contributor" criterion...
Also I'll take advantage of this to remind ourselves of the behemoth discussion ArchWiki_talk:Administrators#Should_we_remove_or_archive_obsolete_articles.3F which is not yet completed. -- Alad (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd say if it has only one contributor (excluding translators adding language links, bot edits etc.) and it is not very old (e.g. up to 1 or 2 years), then move it to the user namespace, otherwise archive it. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 19:36, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. While it can get arbitrary, I'd also exclude simple fixes done by staff to help a new article to par style-wise.
@Larivact: thanks again. --Indigo (talk) 17:10, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
I agree too with Lahwaacz's proposed guidelines, we can make them official in Help:Procedures#Remove an entire page. Sorry I don't have time to resume ArchWiki_talk:Administrators#Should_we_remove_or_archive_obsolete_articles.3F at the moment. -- Kynikos (talk) 09:39, 20 August 2017 (UTC)
I'd make it depend on the current amount/quality of information. When something is only a short stub / a style mess it's not really worth archiving. On the other hand when we deal with all such pages and monitor new pages the two year rule should work.--Larivact (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Also note that when a page has dozens of contributors and it's still "a short stub / a style mess", it's not really worth moving to the subpage of the first editor. If something's not worth archiving, we might as well delete it. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
I've started deleting pages that are either irrelevant to Arch (e.g. ArchAudio which was some random third-party project, now dead) or are "stubs" without meaningful contribution (e.g. Bankid). @Larivact: great work on the categorizing/cleanup you're doing btw. -- Alad (talk) 10:29, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
N.B. If there's a related page (such as a modern replacement), it's likely better to redirect pages there rather than delete or archive them. All this does show there's gaps in Help:Procedures#Remove an entire page and I agree to expand it. -- Alad (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely don't want to duplicate ArchWiki talk:Administrators#Should we remove or archive obsolete articles? here, but my position is that for the moment the issue is regulated by Help:Procedures#Remove an entire page which only considers deletion in case of "spam or other clearly malicious content". I think that all contributions that made it to stay published for long periods (ArchAudio even since 2009) are part of the history of the wiki and should not be deleted. I don't see the advantages of deleting except when in need to censor the content; the data is not actually removed from the database, so it's not even a relief for the server, as small as it would even be, and I still regret having the habit of deleting pages and especially discussions before the only (and I hope last) occasion in which the deleted articles were actually purged from the database without any warning. -- Kynikos (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
In the case of ArchAudio I would say it never belonged on the wiki in the first place, or classifies as spam. See [6] which raised the original concern but was closed arbitrarily by two users. In the other cases I agree they might as well have been moved back to the user namespace. -- Alad (talk) 12:54, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Topic is closed but I do think some pages should redirect/merged to List of applications. I am now reviewing pages moved to user namespace and do the work if approprite. -- Fengchao (talk) 06:13, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

Weird API behavior

Requesting https://wiki.archlinux.org/api.php?action=query&format=json&generator=backlinks&gbltitle=Firefox&gblnamespace=0&gbllimit=max&prop=revisions&rvprop=content&rvcontinue=1155%7C525115&continue=%7C%7C yields no revisions for some pages (eg. CUPS).

--Larivact (talk) 09:39, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Why do you include the rvcontinue= and continue= parameters? It seems to work fine without them. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 10:50, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
I am implementing query continuation for a script. Apparently querying is limited to 50 pages (or 500 with apihighlimits).[1] Interestingly the MW API returns no warning whatsoever when you overdraw that limit and just silently stops returning requested properties for pages and the returned continue yields the same pages again but with different pages having/lacking the properties.[7] Thanks anyway for the prompt reply.
--Larivact (talk) 15:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
Well, I still don't see how you got to the rvcontinue parameter, because you can't combine the gbllimit and rvlimit parameters... But yeah, you can get pages without any properties in cases where you need to continue the outer pageset as well as the set of properties of each page. See the note in [8] and code in [9], maybe it will help. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 08:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)
You get rvcontinue in continue if you request my last link without cookies. --Larivact (talk) 09:19, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

DeveloperWiki

What's so incomprehensible about "DeveloperWiki" being for developers? I have no idea what you're doing, once again without any prior discussion. You should stop it now. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 09:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I am aware that the DeveloperWiki is for developers, I was just cleaning up a bit. --Larivact (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
~60 edits and ~10 merged pages (so far) is much more than "a bit" for someone who should not edit the pages, let alone without discussing the changes first. -- Lahwaacz (talk) 09:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Almost directly after the protection level for DeveloperWiki was dropped to cosysop, you've started making drastic changes to these articles, including article renames, re-categorization and restructure of content. DeveloperWiki is an internal developer wiki and the links are often referred to from other sources, meaning simply breaking dozens of links and expected content is unacceptable.

This is definitely NOT the first time you have been warned on ignoring ArchWiki:Contributing#Announce_article_rewrites_in_a_talk_page. After consulting with the administration team I have suspended your cosysop rights for two weeks. Your changes to DeveloperWiki have been reverted, as I have no time to check them one-by-one, including the need to check with other members of the Arch development team.

Note that your part of the ArchWiki:Maintenance Team is not affected by this change. Should you however continue ignoring ArchWiki:Contributing#The_3_fundamental_rules - whether during these 2 weeks or at any time after - the administration team will see itself forced to take further disciplinary action.

-- Alad (talk) 12:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

I am not alright with you accusing me of "breaking dozens of links" when I did not break a single one (hint: redirects). --Larivact (talk) 16:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
This is not some court of law where you dismiss the whole case because of one small detail. Fact is that despite being an official wiki maintainer for over one year, you keep willfully ignoring ArchWiki:Contributing#The_3_fundamental_rules, this time in egregious ways with pages only meant to be edited by the Arch development team. This sets a bad example for users and other members of the maintenance team alike.
You can either start being responsible in your edits like everyone else, or reconsider being a part of our team. -- Alad (talk) 19:36, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
I was not trying to "dismiss the case", I accept the judgment. I was just pointing something out. --Larivact (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It's been 2 weeks so your cosysop access has been restored. -- Alad (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I will be more careful in the future. --Larivact (talk) 16:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
You deleted merged content and forgot to restore the original pages on two occasions: Special:Diff/554735 & Special:Diff/554222. --Larivact (talk) 20:02, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
I apologize that I didn't properly clean up after the mess you've made. -- Alad (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Categorizing redirects

Hi, about [10], [11], [12] and [13]. Also [14] seems strictly related.

One of the original intentions of Help:Style#Redirect pages ("Redirect pages should contain only the redirect code and nothing else"), since then applied systematically, was to avoid categorizing redirects (in fact archived pages are mentioned as an exception).

Is there a plan behind those changes, or would it be better to undo them and find a style-compliant alternative? (I'm not sure of the goal)

-- Kynikos (talk) 10:52, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

The goal of these new categories is to provide a new way of navigating the wiki. The plan is to update Help:Style#Redirect pages to allow for categorization, see Help talk:Style#Categorization of redirects. --Larivact (talk) 11:49, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, I've been quite inactive and forgot about that discussion, I'll continue there. -- Kynikos (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2018 (UTC)