[07:28:45] is there no way to get rid of the "this is my work" checkbox on uploads? [07:29:02] or default to ticked [07:32:37] right, very old thread and still open [07:33:29] tuxick: it can't be default ticked. That would defeat the whole purpose of that checkbox, since most people don't read and *understand* the instructions [07:36:50] yes i know, but i can't explain "yes sorry you just have to tick that every time" [07:37:28] i'm dealing with windows guys so their idea of documentation is screenshots [07:37:30] lots of them [07:38:14] maybe MsUpload extension to the resque [07:38:39] Oh, so you are not uploading to Wikimedia Commons, but your personal/corporate/independent wiki [07:38:55] yes [07:39:17] i assumed that's what this channel is about :) [07:40:54] Well, the extension you're using is too shaped for WMF use case. Check on the extension page to see if there's a configuration option to disable that, but otherwise there may be no simple way to change that [07:41:47] Not sure if it's relevant in your case, but you could use an extension to upload files. There are several. We usually use FlexForm as you can create the upload form in any way you want. [07:42:14] i found https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T140068 and i'm pretty surprised [07:42:27] i'm sure thousands of people have run into this [07:43:10] i'll have them try msupload [07:43:23] You can also write a small JavaScript that checks the checkbox and hides it [07:43:43] yeah that's discussed on the link i posted [07:44:03] Ah ok [07:47:52] it should have been made configurable years ago though [07:52:09] Yeah, but that's a no-priority for WMF, and nobody has submitted a patch [09:26:24] looks like dynamically changing js, not too trivial [16:00:38] Hello there, I would like to ask which is the official email address to send an email to the Wikipedia API responsible to allow us to use the API with our bot [16:02:26] I am writing on behalf of the Web Intelligence Hub of Eurostat, European Commission [16:04:10] AlexandrosBITOUL: the api is public and free to use if you respect the etiquette: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Etiquette - this page also contains links to other resources where you may get data in bulk [16:05:01] Thanks, but there is a robots.txt which reads Disallow to all agents/bots. Can we simply ignore it? [16:09:36] Yes, I think that's for search engines and general crawlers but not specific consumers of the api [16:11:10] Does that mean that if we simply have a user agent name and if we simply don't make parallel requests and keeping a reasonable delay between each request, it should be fine, in general? [16:11:24] yep [16:11:42] Otherwise, is there any official email at the Wikimedia/Wikipedia where we can officially request/inform about our activity on your API? [16:11:59] (specifically, the User-Agent should have contact information) [16:12:24] we have our email address there, is this enough you think? [16:12:44] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User-Agent_policy has a suggested format [16:13:30] is it only suggested, or it has to be precisely complied/followed? [16:15:30] I mean, it shouldn't be hard to configure your script to follow the format, so you might as well [16:15:50] will you be blocked if you don't? probably not [16:16:06] Sorry for all these questions, but we want to query your API officially as a Hub from Eurostat, European Commission and we prefer having an official communication with you and "agreement" with Wikipedia, if possible. Ideally I would prefer have an email exchange with someone from Wikipedia/Wikimedia. [16:16:57] I mean we wouldn't like to start querying and eventually be blocked... [16:21:24] check out https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Data perhaps? [16:21:40] you can engage the foundation, but there's already blanket approval to make use of the API... [16:21:44] oh they left [16:23:01] The only email address I've found after searching extensively about contact, is the ones listed here https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/contact/ and they don't seem to be "technical" [16:23:16] if someone wants a more official agreement for the apis, enterprise.wikimedia.com [16:25:42] That seems correct. If you are a business using the api and fear being blocked, pay for it [16:29:44] Thank you all for your responses to my questions. [17:20:38] hi [17:21:14] what kind of system or variable i guess to be checked to know if an extension is enabled or not? [17:32:24] Now I was able to publish my Scribunto module for LibreOffice Calc function names: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/l10n/2022/msg00327.html [17:45:12] nice one buovjaga i aim to do something like that one day :D [17:48:41] buovjaga: look into `mw.loadData` at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Scribunto/Lua_reference_manual [17:49:39] thanks, it seems very useful :) [17:53:23] there is also some work on providing page language access directly in scribunto at https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T321239 (which is a duplicate of https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T161976 ) [17:54:12] Izno[m]: I tried to create the data page, but I get Error: Lua error at line 1: unexpected symbol near '{'. [17:55:00] I just copied & pasted the table there... [17:55:30] your data page should basically return the table of interest directly so something like `return { ... }` [17:55:35] ok sorry :) [17:55:48] since I guess that's what you did wrong 🙂 [17:56:02] but I haven't seen that error before so I could be wrong [17:56:15] yeah was just my tunnel vision :) [17:56:27] 🙂 [17:56:57] thanks, everything still seems to be working after the renovation [17:59:01] you should probably move the declaration of fn_names into the function and add a `local` to it [17:59:17] ok thanks [18:01:26] now I'm glad I mentioned this here and got nice code reviews :) [18:09:54] some other minor thoughts, so you can chase them if you want: 1) it's not typically wiki-idiomatic to use the module directly but instead to use some sort of wrapper template (incidentally, that would help you to avoid spreading the lang everywhere until work on those earlier tasks is done), but this requires a little more setup in the module; 2) typically the main function is called main; 3) I think the `function function_name()` form is [18:09:54] much more common than the `p.function_name = function()` form on wikis [18:42:20] thanks, I'll note those down [22:19:53] doesnt the mw database store extension name and version? [22:20:00] i cant access one db currently [22:46:28] biberao, no, it's not in the database [22:46:45] oh damn [22:46:57] what would be the best way to get the installed extensions? [22:46:59] :D [22:47:53] API [22:48:11] ok then [22:48:18] i saw someone checking the directories [22:48:20] https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&meta=siteinfo&siprop=extensions [22:48:28] bawolff: yes thats what im doing [22:48:38] that also says enabled right? [22:48:41] or just installed? [22:49:05] I think most people use installed and enabled as synonyms [22:49:46] ok [22:49:50] But if you want to find extensions that have files installed but are not loaded by mediawiki, you would have to look in filesystem directories [22:49:57] ah ok [22:49:59] thats it [22:50:08] thats what i mean loaded extensions [22:50:33] But, everything about that is just convention, there is no garuntee that people will install extensions in the expected directories. They can in theory be anywhere in the filesystem [22:50:51] although most people do use the extensions subdirectory for that purpose [22:51:24] And people can in theory put things in the extension directory that are not extensions [22:51:24] bawolff: if we expect to install the same way everytime(almost(?)) [22:51:44] bawolff: so that means we cant know for sure what we got [22:52:23] yes, although its a fairly safe assumption that if a directory in the extensions subdirectory contains extension.json file, then it is an extension [22:53:01] ah ok [23:14:46] ok i made [23:15:01] a directory recursive to find the extension.json [23:15:08] and pulled version and name [23:37:08] ok now i need github to work