User talk:Satricious

Welcome!

Hi ZaidhaanH! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! I dream of horses (Contribs) (Talk) 14:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	You've Don't a Great Job ,Satricious I think you. Should be an Administrator Your Great at Patrolling Have a Great Day ^_^ -Alex- 7:28AM UTC- DemonymsPlayer (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Satricious! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, What constitutes as vandalism and how should I deal with it?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still read the archived discussion. If you have follow-up questions, please . See also the help page about the archival process. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} on top of the current page (your user talk page). Muninnbot (talk) 19:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi Satricious. After reviewing your request, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please keep the following things in mind while using rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle or RedWarn.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into trouble or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! FASTILY 22:54, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Satricious (talk) 01:55, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Re: kenyon cox drawing

I don’t think the nude study you removed is at all offensive or against policy. It’s a classic piece of fine art, not random porn. Just wanted to give my opinion but don’t feel pressured to re-add it. Dronebogus (talk) 09:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dronebogus: Thanks for sharing your opinion! Yeah I removed it mostly because I thought others may see it as inappropriate or that it might draw people away from my user page. I agree, it's a fine piece of art. I'm quite fond of human anatomy and art in general, and I find that particular study to capture her body really well. I think I'll keep the image up actually, it's my user page so I might as well put up stuff that I admire and am fascinated by, I've already got David up there anyway. Humans are amazing :) Satricious (talk) 09:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Bare URL inline

Hi Satricious

Your most recent 125 edits show that 85 of them were you using WP:AWB to add {{Bare URL inline}}.

This is a very bad idea, because the powerful ref-filling script WP:REFLINKS does not support {{Bare URL inline}}. By tagging those refs without first trying to fill them using Reflinks, you have blocked an easy path to filling them.

For example, you tagged[1] Stuart High School (Whyalla). I reverted your edit, and in this edit[2] I was able to use Reflinks to fill one of the refs. The other bare refs on that page turned out to be dead, so I tagged them as dead.[3]

This is why I am using AWB to tag only the bare URL PDFs: WP:REFLINKS cannot fill them, so tagging the PDFs does not impede improvement.

Back in May and June last year, I used AWB to add a lot of {{Bare URL inline}} tags, an t cued a huge shitstorm for the reasons I explained above. I don't want that to happen to you, so I will now revert the edits in which you used AWB to add {{Bare URL inline}}.

I am sure that you mean well, but you are a relatively new editor with limited experience of the many nuances, quirks and complexities of en.wp. Leaping in like this to make mass changes without being aware of all the issues is a recipe for drama, so please consult carefully before launching any similar tasks. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:43, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

I have finished reverting all your additions of {{Bare URL inline}}.

Here is the list of 86 reverts. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Oh, I had no idea. I was under the impression that tagging a link as a bare URL would allow for easier access for tools such as Reflinks to fix them (and since the template has a section for "How to respond" with a link to WP:HOWCITE, I assumed, "ah, tag them as bare urls, it will get categorized and people will deal with it, great!"). Turns out I was completely wrong, that's embarrassing.
Do you think the template documentation should address this somehow? Because I really had no idea this would make things much harder.
In the future I'll be sure to let someone know before I attempt to make a considerable amount of edits, I recognize that as my mistake. Also, just so something does not happen again, may I ask where the most appropriate place would be to ask questions like that? WP:TEA? WT:AWB?
Sorry again to put you through that trouble, I'll try to work on fixing citations with AWB in the near future and hopefully that does more good than any unintentional harm I did with my edits. And thanks for quickly resolving the issue, you rock! :) Satricious (talk) 15:13, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for being so nice about that, Satricious. Having your work reverted is not fun, and it helps a lot that you take it so positively.

The problem with bare URLs is that until last year, the only systematic work on them was by a few editors who tackled pages one at a time, using a few flaky tools which are poorly documented. I took a different approach, using mass editing tools, and by this approach have cleared up about 2/3 of a backlog which was almost 500k pages when I started. Unfortunately, some of the editors taking the one-at-a-time approach resent the scale of progress, so efforts at consensus-building have not succeeded ... and in that context, updating the documentation is likely to be bogged down with silliness. So I avoid it.

WP:TEAHOUSE is mostly for the basics, and is v unlikely to be of much help with more complex issues like this. WT:AWB is a good place to start for advice on AWB use, but it's more for for how to use AWB than what to do with it or is this a good idea. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:28, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: That's interesting, clearing a backlog that long definitely deserves some praise; if anything, that's what I'm aiming at with fixing citation errors. Do you mind elaborating a bit on your approach using 'mass editing tools'? Because the only tool I'm aware of that can fill links is WP:REFILL (which I guess was is/formerly Reflinks?).

Actually nope, I just looked into Reflinks and it seems to be something completely different. In any case, you used it to fix my edits so I shall look into that.

I'll be honest though I still don't completely understand the use of {{Bare URL inline}}. My understanding now is that, reflinks would not work if bare URL inline is used, so would this mean that every single bare URL must go through reflinks first, and if it fails, the template must be used so that people could manually fix it themselves? In other words, the template must be used as a last resort?

I tried looking into this myself of course, I found 9M133 Kornet in Category:All articles with bare URLs for citations and tried using Reflinks and reFill to fix it. Reflinks could not do it (alright; it makes sense how it was tagged as a bare URL now), but reFill managed to fix this bare link. Wouldn't the 'proper' way of handling this be to then not tag that specific URL as a bare URL, but to run it through reFill and only tag the URLs that reFill and Reflinks fail with?

Then again I suppose what I just described is not an issue. Since tagged bare URLs are supported by reFill. However, I suppose what I'm getting at is that ideally, Category:All articles with bare URLs for citations would consist of only articles for which automated tools struggle with? Satricious (talk) 16:32, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I just looked at your recent edits and found out about the script (User:BrownHairedGirl/BareURLinline.js) you use to tag bare URLs. Just glancing at it it seems like it would find such bare URLs and ask you to either tag them or leave them be. But I'm just curious, how would you know that they are not already fixable via Reflinks? Do you run Reflinks first, fail, and then tag it with your script? Satricious (talk) 16:44, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I run Reflinks first. If it fails, I use User:BrownHairedGirl/BareURLinline.js.

Each day, I do this on bout 100 articles, in addition to many thousands of pages with bare URLS on which I use mass tools. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Well damn that's impressive. Satricious (talk) 17:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

No, {{Bare URL inline}} is not a last resort. But it should be used only if WP:REFLINKS has failed. THere are other tools which do support {{Bare URL inline}}, such as WP:REFILL and Citation bot. Most of my cleanup has used Citation bot, but I have also used Reflinks a lot, plus a huge array of AWB-based tools I developed myself and have not made public. For an overview of the public tools, see User:BrownHairedGirl/No-reflinks websites#Reference-filling_tools: that should clarify why REFILL is not the first choice of ref fillers, and why the path needs to be kept clear for REFLINKS. Note that {{Bare URL inline}} does not impede REFILL or Citation bot, so there is no need to try them before tagging a ref.

See also, WP:BRFA/BareRefBot, which if approved will make a huge dent in the remining backlog of ~150K non-PDF bare URls. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:47, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Thanks, I'll look into those. By the way, since you're very well familiar with AWB and scripting, I was just wondering whether you'd mind me asking you any questions I have on your talk page in the future? Obviously I would do my own research beforehand and do not intend to disturb you. I just wanted to know whether you are open to answering questions or whether that would bother you.

Eg. I'm currently trying to figure out how exactly one would approach updating wikitext programmatically, what I do with my User:Satricious/covidstats script (which is 100% not perfect) is I use regular expressions and replace them. But all that feels 'hacky' to me but seems to be the best approach (next to a fully fledged XML/HTML parser?). I'd like a much more structured approach (ie. hold the wikitext in a data structure, manipulate the data structure, then convert the data structure into wikitext without deforming the existing style).

If you could answer that question any time soon I'd really appreciate it. Satricious (talk) 16:59, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

@Satricious: I can answer that question about a separate data structure very quickly, 'cos I have no idea of how to go about it! I have never tried that.

However, I do know that such approaches are problematic, and be v controversial. So I recommend consulting widely before trying it.

Feel free to come to my talk to ask me other questions. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, so I see. I guess regex really is the best approach. Thanks, Satricious (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if regexes are best. They are just what I know best! And I am nowhere near being a pro programmer. I just write crude hack to code to make it good enough for a simple tsk.

Note that there is a hybrid approach: using a regex with a function to build the replacement string. That's what I did for example with this edit[4], using a custom module. If you like, I can email you the module to see if it inspires you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Ooh, I'd actually be curious to see how that's implemented. I'm definitely not going to turn down an opportunity to learn something, send an email my way! Satricious (talk) 19:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Satricious: Happy to do that.

But I can't attach anything via the email web form. So I need you to send me an email, then I can reply with the attachment. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:55, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl Will do so. And thanks in advance! Satricious (talk) 19:59, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@BrownHairedGirl: Sorry I don't think I pinged you properly with my message above so I'm pinging you again in case you missed my email. Satricious (talk) 05:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

@Satricious: sorry for the delay, but at last: you have mail.

Hope it is of some help. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated. :) Satricious (talk) 04:12, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Special:WantedTemplates

Hi! Would it be possible for you to add

/* <nowiki> */

to the top and

/* </nowiki> */

to the bottom of User:Satricious/dateFixer.js? By putting these tags inside of javascript comments, it won't impact the functionality of your script, but it will keep the backend software from transcluding Template:Use dmy/mdy dates. You will know if the tags worked if Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Use dmy/mdy dates no longer shows your page. By fixing these, we can keep the number of entries in Special:WantedTemplates to a minimum. Thank you in advance for your help! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 14:55, 26 March 2022 (UTC)