User talk:MusikAnimal
User
Talk
Dashboard
Articles
Scripts
Tools
Templates
Userboxes
Awards
Welcome to my talk page. Please sign and date your entries by inserting ~~~~ at the end.
Archives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47 |
WP:AWB/CP gnoming
I noticed that your bot has not edited WP:AWB/CP since March. Intentional or did something get switched off? Primefac (talk) 16:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
- Ahh, the one bot task that made queries to multiple databases... This functionality broke recently due to wikitech:News/Wiki Replicas 2020 Redesign. I should be able to push out a fix this week. I see from the error log the bot has been complaining since April 1. I should probably set up some sort of notification system for this! — MusikAnimal talk 04:08, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! Primefac (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Primefac Okay, fixed now :) Sorry for the long downtime! For the record, I hadn't forgot about this since I replied 8 days ago, I was just waiting for the bot to run on its own after I pushed a fix. Of course Thursday went by and it errored out again, and after some debugging the new schedule is around now on Fridays (UTC).
- By the way, I am watching phab:T241196 and it seems there's no progress there yet. I'd rather wait until we are fully migrated to the JSON page instead of having the bot monitor two places. I suppose it wouldn't be hard to make the bot sync the contents of the old CheckPage to the new one, though; but that's assuming no one will attempt to edit the new one and not the old one (or else such changes would be lost). If you have any opinions, do share. Otherwise I'll just wait it out, for now. — MusikAnimal talk 04:32, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I should probably set up some sort of notification system for this!
See Wikipedia:Bot activity monitor. – SD0001 (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks! Primefac (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Recent changes
- The Wikimedia movement has been using IRC on a network called Freenode. There have been changes around who is in control of the network. The Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts have decided to move to the new Libera Chat network instead. This is not a formal decision for the movement to move all channels but most Wikimedia IRC channels will probably leave Freenode. There is a migration guide and ongoing Wikimedia discussions about this.
Changes later this week
- The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 May. It will be on all wikis from 27 May (calendar).
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
17:05, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
scriptManager
Please could you allow scriptManager to turn on scripts until they are turned off. For example, you could turn on RedWarn, revert some vandalism, then turn off RedWarn. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}}
on reply)Template:Z181 20:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
- @Qwerfjkl I don't think this would work. By "enabling" a script, you are downloading it and executing it. You can't un-download or programmatically undo whatever the script did. The solution is to simply reload the page. — MusikAnimal talk 20:59, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- @MusikAnimal: Sorry, to clarify: You load the script on every page until you turn it off. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use
{{reply to|Qwerfjkl}}
on reply)Template:Z181 21:01, 1 June 2021 (UTC)- Ah, I see. That is certainly possible, but scriptManager might as well enable the script via your common.js, much like Script Installer does. I'll try to look into this when time allows. It will require some UI changes. — MusikAnimal talk 18:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks! ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use
{{reply to|Qwerfjkl}}
on reply)Template:Z181 19:43, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, thanks! ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use
- Ah, I see. That is certainly possible, but scriptManager might as well enable the script via your common.js, much like Script Installer does. I'll try to look into this when time allows. It will require some UI changes. — MusikAnimal talk 18:26, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
- @MusikAnimal: Sorry, to clarify: You load the script on every page until you turn it off. ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use
This week's article for improvement (week 22, 2021)
A trench digger being used in Baku, Azerbaijan
Please be bold and help improve it! Previous selections: Pork chop • Desktop computer Get involved with the AFI project: Nominate an article • Review nominations Posted by: MusikBot talk 00:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject AFI • |
---|
Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.
Problems
- There was an issue on the Vector skin with the text size of categories and notices under the page title. It was fixed last Monday. [1]
Changes later this week
- There is no new MediaWiki version this week.
Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.
17:04, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
scriptManager
The "Enable scripts" group appears at the bottom of the entire page in responsive Monobook (select the Monobook skin if you haven't already and zoom in until the left toolbar disappears, or load a page with the skin on your phone. Note: the user preference for the responsive skin might not be set; it is selectable in the "appearance" section). It should be displayed in the "tools" section, i.e. the button on the very right of the second line. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
- Generating a notification just in case you missed my comment, since you have recently been replying to a section with the same title and by a user with a coincidentally relatively similar username. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 21
News and updates associated with user scripts from the past four months (February through May 2021).
Hello everyone and welcome to the 21st issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:
Scripts Submit your new/improved script here
|
My apologies for this long-overdue issue, and if I missed any scripts.
Hopefully going forward we can go back to monthly releases - any help would be appreciated. Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Invitation for Functionary consultation 2021
Greetings,
I'm letting you know in advance about a meeting I'd like to invite you to regarding the Universal Code of Conduct and the community's ownership of its future enforcement. I'm still in the process of putting together the details, but I wanted to share the date with you: 27 June, 2021. I do not have a time on this date yet, but I will let you soon. We have created a meta page with basic information. Please take a look at the meta page and sign up your name under the appropriate section.
Thank you for your time.--BAnand (WMF) 15:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
New message from Qwerfjkl
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation § AFCH script error. (Concerning scriptManager.) ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}}
on reply)Template:Z181 19:42, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48
Regarding this bug you closed
[https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T283012] I think there is a misunderstsanding. You are right that examples you cite are fine - but only up to a point. The issue concerns what happens when a redirect is overwritten by a moved-in the article (and hence deleted in the process). The "correct" examples you cite which have two entries on my article creation lists are for articles I created, and for redirects I also created to them, then the article was renamed and moved over my own redirect.
This is a bit different and more confusing for example for entries "Mary Lowell Putnam", "German–Polish declaration of non-aggression" and "Privacy concerns with Facebook" (from my list at [https://xtools.wmflabs.org/pages/en.wikipedia.org/Piotrus]). What happened is that I created redirects, but not the main articles. Then my redirects were deleted as the main article was moved in their spot. So the current tags deleted/recreated are both correct and not, and the listing is weird - since it shows a blue link to an article that nonetheless has no assessment. In particular, this is an error as it implies I am the creator of those articles (but I am not).
Looking at the top of the tool I see that it states that the results are supposed to "Redirects Exclude redirects" but clearly this fails when we are dealing with former redirects. This results in deleted redirects being listed, either duplicating my own creations or worse, adding entries for articles I DID NOT create.
So solution one would be to exclude them, per the exclude redirects assumption, solution two would be to label this more correctly. I think solution one is what we want here?
Please let me know if I clarified this better? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- @Piotrus Yes you clarified this better, thank you. However as far as I can tell this is still expected behaviour. The issue is we can't reliably tell if deleted pages were redirects. More info at mw:XTools/Pages Created#Common issues. The relevant bug is phab:T182183, but it probably can't be resolved until MediaWiki has a proper log of the creation of redirects (phab:T240065). We don't show an assessment because these entries refer to a deleted page (even though it has since been recreated) -- and similarly we can't tell what the assessment was of a deleted page. Does that make sense? I realize this isn't ideal; it's just an unfortunate caveat in MediaWiki. — MusikAnimal talk 16:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for explaining this. If it can't be solved reliably given existing infrastructure, oh well. My only idea is to adding a footnote somewhere that due to this bug the list can contain errors and overestimate the number of creations a bit. Speaking as a scholar who sometimes uses such tools to populate data in models, knowing about this error would be useful. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)