From LyricWiki

Contents 1 Template:Track 2 LyricWiki:Plugins 3 Bug in old version of Amarok plugin 4 WikiLyrics question 5 Trying to use your plugin with Audacious 6 WLv0.12.10 7 Special:Contributions/Gabolin 8 Category:Review Me and album 9 LW:PR 10 Error in 0.13.4

[edit] Template:Track

I've noticed that the newest autogenerated album pages incorporate the Track template that Teknomunk made as an experiment. This template isn't standard and causes the pages to be more difficult to decipher and therefore more difficult to correct. Also, "The" title should have "T" as their first letter. Perhaps these could be corrected with the next version? Thanks! Kiefer 00:48, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Sorry I haven't read this before... I'll correct them for the next release.

Out of curiosity, what do you mean when you say that the track template causes the pages to be more difficult to decipher and more difficult to correct? I ask because generally speaking I regard templates as a good thing (as they allow future changes without having to do much work). Is there another (standard) template for album tracks or should I just use plain links?--Attendant 13:31, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

The pages just don't visually scan as easily, I guess due to the lack of repetition. (And, admittedly, probably because of my being used to the usual format!) It's not a huge difference, really. Probably the largest problem with its use is that because it's not talked about in the help pages (since it was an experiment and not implemented across the site) newcomers that might wish to edit a page incorporating it would likely not know where to begin or what to do to change things correctly. It would take a more experienced user to discover the template page with the explanation. So, templates are great for the "extras", but perhaps not so much for the "meat" of the site. Hopefully I'm explaining myself well enough...it's been a looooooong day.

Kiefer 19:47, 30 May 2007 (EDT)

[edit] LyricWiki:Plugins

If you don't mind, would you update the summary on LyricWiki:Plugins about your plugin. If I remember correctly, it is the one listed under Amarok Wiki-Lyrics (talk). Please include features, make sure the download link/instructions are up to date, list current version number, have a link to yourself as the author, and other such details.
- teknomunk (talk,E,日本) 01:45, 16 June 2007 (EDT)

[edit] Bug in old version of Amarok plugin

Hi,
Thanks for writing the plugin for Amarok! One of our users was formerly using v0.11.3 and it created some problems (overwriting artist pages with song pages for example - see here). I was just wondering if that is a known problem that is fixed in the current version?
Thanks,
-Sean Colombo 15:27, 9 August 2007 (EDT)

It's a known issue related to incorrect escaping of "&" in URLs and should be fixed by now (though I haven't tested extensively). --Attendant 20:43, 30 September 2007 (EDT)

[edit] WikiLyrics question

Hiya,
Someone had mentioned to me that there are a lot of pages getting generated with the /* Empty */ in them. Do you think this is most likely user-error, malicious-users or a bug? Here is an example page: 04.Garth_Brooks:Good_Ride_Cowboy.
Thanks for any insight you can give us,
-Sean Colombo (talk|contribs) 14:32, 11 December 2007 (EST)

Sorry, the MediaWiki version used by Lyriki was updated recently causing all non existing pages to return /* Empty */ instead of nothing and breaking my parser. I've already fixed this and will release an update in a few hours. About the bogus pages, they are related to wrongly tagged files. There isn't much that can be done about it except instructing your users. In Lyriki we have a submitting policy in place to deal with that. --Attendant 23:54, 11 December 2007 (EST)

[edit] Trying to use your plugin with Audacious

Hello. I am trying to use your plugin with Audacious, and I have found this link, but as you can see, it is outdated.

Now, I did manage to activate the Song Change plugin, and pass the correct artist and title information to your script. My only problem is that for each song, a new GTK window is launched. I would like new lyrics to reuse the existing window. Can you help?

87.202.189.248 12:24, 20 February 2008 (EST)

Sorry, the way the script currently works with Audacious is by spawning a new process every time the song changes so there's no way of reusing the window. However it wouldn't be to difficult to have every song change issue a request to one listening process. I'll give the idea some more thought to see if it's worth the effort. BTW, that page is seriously outdated... I'll try to update it when I have the time. --Attendant 21:40, 28 February 2008 (EST)]

Great, thanks. I suppose Amarok uses the plugin internally, and it doesn't have the same problem as audacious. If you make the plugin work with audacious, I can definitely help with the guide on how to get it to work. I can upload the small script I wrote. The whole thing feels like a workaround, not a solution, though, I don't think the Song Change plugin was written with this use in mind. However, seeing as there isn't a decent lyrics plugin for Audacious, even a workaround would be great.

EDIT: I see you already edited the guide on Wiki-Lyrics. :) Nice.

85.72.162.101 11:31, 8 March 2008 (EST)

Hello again. I just want to let you know that I am attempting to write a plugin for Audacious that utilizes your script. 87.202.181.139 05:25, 26 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] WLv0.12.10

I have been noticing something happening with the new version, I am not sure whether it is user error, or otherwise, but here is an example: Die Toten Hosen Lyrics:Spiel Mir Das Lied Vom Tod, as about 20 deleted pages. The MO is a page with templates, but no lyrics, and a page of bad pageform, ie 'artistname' Lyrics:'songname'.
Thanks for the help.
King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 18:04, 16 June 2008 (EDT)

Thanks for the attention. I'll keep an eye for anything unusual.

King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 13:20, 24 June 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Special:Contributions/Gabolin

I spent quite a bit of time yesterday reverting all the damage that was done with the auto-generator by this user. This is becoming a constant thing, unfortunately, because the auto-generator is pasting over existing pages, and losing page information in the process. (A couple of pages were pasted over TWICE by this user after being reverted previously!) SOTD badges, iTunes links, & correct album information are the primary losses, but often enough there are new misspellings and outright incorrect lyrics as well. When those aren't a problem, basically the changes amount to a few capitalization corrections or minor formatting changes. (Two lines are made into one line, for instance.) Is there some way to stop the auto-generator from pasting over existing pages?    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   08:51, 30 June 2008 (EDT)

We've been having the same problem with that user in Lyriki. I have implemented in the last version of the script a control mechanism against this kind of things (it lets you block specific users or versions from submitting content with the script) but it will only work for people using version 0.12.12 or above. It can't possibly work for older versions because it works by having the script check the control page every once in a while to see if it has permissions to submit and older version just don't do this check. About what to do with people using older versions damaging the site, my advice is to block them and leave them a message explaining why they've been blocked and what they should do to be unblocked.

In Lyriki we have the following policy in place, I suggest you make sure all script users abide by this (or some similar) rules:

• Always keep your version of the script updated. This ensures submitted content follows the current site guides and reduces the damage to the site caused by bugs in the script or plain obsolesce of the plugins (the parts of it that parse the content of the supported sites --content which is eventually submitted to this site by the script).
• Properly tag your files, specially if you submit content without reviewing it. You are responsible for the pages the script submits in your behalf.
• Check your talk page from time to time for any problems someone might have spotted with the script. Update notices and wrongly tagged files warnings will be placed there if necessary.
• You are free to modify and use the script under the terms of the GPL. However if you use a modified version to submit content, you should also change the way the script identifies its submissions (this helps in identifying sources of problems). Translated, do not impersonate Wiki-Lyrics script. Failure to comply will result in warnings, followed by bans in case of reiteration. --Attendant 23:39, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

Thank you for the reply. That particular version has been blocked. (EDIT: Actually, I notice that 3 additions using that version are on the current Recent Changes list. Hmmmmm.) Is the script supposed to overwrite an existing page? I don't think that it used to, but lately there's been a number of times that it has, and not by this user or by the same IP address. (I tend to put a cautionary note on their talk page about the auto-generator.) Does this mean that those versions of the script have been modified?    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   23:46, 1 July 2008 (EDT)

I am going to throw in my 2 cents on this one too: I have tried blocking 0.12.10 with the control page, as well as User:Asm, but so far nothing has worked. Also: I agree that I do not remember WL users being able to overwrite existing pages. Also, one other thing: Simply because WL users are, frankly, not very active in the community, and are hard to contact. Is there a way that we can send messages back through WL? a popup-then-continue page?

King_Nee1114 (talk page • contributions • deletions) 00:49, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Can you look at LyricWiki:Wiki-Lyrics to make sure everything is formatted correctly? I removed the spaces, hoping that would fix things, but then I noticed this change on the Recent Changes page, and that version I didn't have to remove a space from, so as far as I can tell, that person should have been blocked. Thanks.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   12:24, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Also, I've created Template:AutoGenNote for script users' talk pages.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   13:25, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

I think you guys didn't understand part of what I've wrote. You can't block versions (or users using versions) prior to v0.12.12 with the control page mechanism. Those versions just don't check with the control page if they should submit or not. That's why I suggested Kiefer to block users using older versions of the script and leaving them a message (I should have been more specific though: block them with the MediaWiki mechanism). No script (or user) can bypass that block so they'll eventually see that the script is failing to submit the content, prompting them to see what's wrong (note: starting from version 0.12.12, the script informs users if they've been blocked through the control page, and also prompts them to update when a new version has been released).

About the script overwriting existing pages, that has always been allowed but only for pages marked for review (pages autogenerated by Wiki-Lyrics itself or by other boots such as ÜberBot). In this case the script shouldn't allow submitting auto generated content (meaning the user will be prompted with a dialog to verify all the data to be submitted: lyrics, artist, song title, album, year, etc.). Nevertheless, at least version 0.12.10 have been misbehaving in this regard as I've seen it overwrite pages not marked for review. AFAIK, this has been resolved in the last version (the problem seemed to be that the method used for retrieving pages sometimes returned old versions of pages).

--Attendant 15:53, 2 July 2008 (EDT)

Aw, crud. Yeah, now that I look back, you did say that. (Besides that...duh, of course older versions wouldn't check to see if they are allowed!) I don't mind blocking people for vandalism or spamming, but for using a wayward script, I'm a bit hesitant. I guess what must be done, however, must be done. Thanks again for your attention & time.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   01:07, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

It appears as though 0.12.12 also overwrites those pages that don't have a Category:Review Me marker, as seen here.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   20:31, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

[edit] Category:Review Me and album

Dear Mr. Attendant, I was wondering if you could update your script to include the new changes that have come over Lyric Wiki in regards to Page Ranks. We are deprecating the category:Review Me in favor of star=Green in the Song template. Also, when one of the script uses is overwriting a page, it would be nice if they don't have an album listed, it would not overwrite the existing one. Thank you for your cooperation. --Aquatiki - T - E 01:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] LW:PR

Did you see that we changed the definition of Page Ranks? I would think that this means that when someone edits a page with your tool, it would become Bronze! --Åqüã†ìкí ƒ_Δ^Σ ¶ 14:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Error in 0.13.4

As shown in the various [[1]] by User:Nenika, the latest version of the script has a error. It misses one of the closing curly brackets in the {{Song}} template. I have set the LyricWiki:Wiki-Lyrics checker to block all recent versions, including the current one because of this glitch. Hopefully this can be fixed soon.

Also, the formatting on the site has been changing quite a bit recently (mostly having to do with templates and their parameters), and you may need to really take a gander at the Help pages. If you ever have any questions, feel free to ask me or leave a message on the Community Portal talk page.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   19:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)