MediaWiki-l August 2014

mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org

59 participants
54 discussions

Mediawiki Off-line Documentation
by Mock, Jason - 0993 - MITLL 11 Aug '14

11 Aug '14

I find myself, on a regular basis, deploying Mediawiki in air-gap environments that do not contain a DMZ. In other words, the users of these systems will not have access to any external websites in any way (e.g., http://www.mediawiki.org, http://www.wikipedia.com). This ultimately results in their inability to review editing and formatting documentation while making edits to the wiki. Historically speaking I vaguely remember there being some form of prepared dump of the documentation being available through either Mediawiki¹s main page or through wikimedia.org. Unfortunately with my latest deployment I¹m not seeing that to be the case. Is there anything like this available any more, so I don¹t have to transcribe help pages manually? All I need is just basic editing documentation so users don¹t have to jump back and forth just to figure out how to display an image or add a link. I¹m hoping I¹m just not finding the right page, but I don¹t remember it being this difficult to locate. Either way, I appreciate any guidance anyone can provide. Thank you, Jason Mock

3 3

MedaWiki hosting with VisualEditor
by Shai Katz 11 Aug '14

11 Aug '14

Someone know a good MediaWiki hosting company that allows VisualEditor extension to be installed automaticlly ? Thanks!

5 9

Redirect logged-in user to https
by Al 11 Aug '14

11 Aug '14

Is there a way to redirect an already logged-in user to https? I'm referring to when they click on a link to the wiki from some other non-wiki page. If they are already logged in but the link is http, then they say at http. Related, is there a way to force https when logging-in and thereafter? Thanks, Al

3 3

installation help sought
by Greg Bennett 11 Aug '14

11 Aug '14

Greetings Have used MediaWiki for years at work, but have never had to install it before. So when I needed a wiki for an extracurricular activity, I wanted to use what I was familiar with. I have a website with an 'internal' password-protected directory (Exec) sitting off document root so we can run a few admin scripts, etc. I want to include a private wiki in that space. For technical reasons, I am unable to run a browser to run the installation, so I have to do it manually via command line. So I untarred mediawiki, named it wiki, and place it at .../httpdocs/Exec/wiki. I manually create the empty database and user then run the following command from that directory # php maintenance/install.php mediawiki mediawiki --pass xxxxxxx --scriptpath wiki --dbuser xxxxx --dbpass xxxxxx --dbname xxxxxxx I get a few warnings about optional libs missing, and one in particular which might be relevant: "Warning: Your default directory for uploads (/var/www/vhosts/ mysite.com/httpdocs/Exec/wiki/images/) is not checked for vulnerability to arbitrary script execution during the CLI install." then it proceeds to: ================================= Setting up database done Creating tables done Creating database user done Populating default interwiki table done Initializing statistics done Generating secret keys done Creating administrator user account done Creating main page with default content done ================================ Looks good so far. I go to www.mysite.com/Exec/wiki/index.php, it redirects to www.mysite.com/Exec/wiki/index.php/Main_Page. It exists, but its butt ugly and a couple of broken image links. While I'm not completely sure what a skin is, this ain't it. Furthermore, selecting certain links (e.g. "Read") sends me to a recursive url like this: http://www.mysite.com/Exec/wiki/index.php/wiki/index.php/wiki/index.php/Wik…....... .. and this error: "The requested page title was invalid, empty, or an incorrectly linked inter-language or inter-wiki title. It may contain one or more characters that cannot be used in titles." Somehow my "scriptpath" (aka $wgScriptPath) must be wrong, but I can't figure it out. Really hoping my wiki have to be sitting directly below document root (which isn;t an option). I've started from scratch a couple of times, but nothing changes. To the experienced admins on this mailing list, is there anything obviously wrong? Any help would be appreciated. Greg

2 1

[[Manual:Timezone]]
by Federico Leva (Nemo) 10 Aug '14

10 Aug '14

I'm marking for translation the top1000 most visited pages. Next in my list: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:Timezone Seems to be full of rubbish though, anyone bother cleaning up/updating? Nemo

2 1

MW 1.23 and SSL(SNI) Don't play well with Special:RunJobs
by Anders Wegge Keller 08 Aug '14

08 Aug '14

I have a wiki set up on a TLS-only vhost. There is a companion vhost on port 80, that makes a permanent redirect from / to https://host.name.tld This works fine, and the wiki can be browsed, edited &c. However, I've noticed that sometimes, I had to purge a page manually, to get rid of red links to pages. Today, I noticed what I belive is the cause. A massive buildup of jobs in the queue, that didn't execute, until i ran maintenance/runJobs.php In the apache log file for vhosts without a log setup, I notice that I have a lot of POST's like the one below, matching the number of unrun jobs. host.name.tld:80 512.512.512.512 - - [05/Aug/2014:09:48:24 +0200] "POST /w/index.php?title=Special3ARunJobs&tasks=jobs&maxjobs=1& sigexpiry=1407224909&signature=1a51329b5936d6f0c8a287f9e1a74c241300dccc HTTP/1.1" 301 830 "-" "-" So it looks like the post to execute a job goes to the non-secure URL for the site, even though $wgServer is set to TLS: $wgServer = "https://host.name.tld"; This leads to two questions: 1) Why strip https from the server URL? 2) Why isn't the redirect from port 80 to port 443 honoured? The vhost is set up with Server Name Indication, but I don't think that's the cause, since I don't see the POST resent in the default servers log file. 3) What to do about this? -- //Wegge

1 0

Deleted page still appears on a Category page
by Jason Ji 08 Aug '14

08 Aug '14

Hello, I have a wiki running MediaWiki 1.23 and Semantic MediaWiki 1.9.1 in a development environment (so lots of page creations, deletions, settings changes, etc). At some point during my development today, after I changed some settings in PostConfiguration.php regarding namespaces, I found that a page which I had deleted was still showing up in the Category page of which it was a member (when it still existed). Clicking on the link to the deleted page takes me to the deleted page (correctly stating that the page was deleted, but I could restore it if desired). I have tried things like re-creating and deleting the page, running refreshLinks.php, runJobs.php (until the job queue was clear), and SMW/UpdateJob.php, but none of these have fixed the problem - the phantom page is still showing in the Category page. Can anyone give any insight as to a) why this might happen, and/or b) any other ways I can try to correct the problem? Thanks! -- Jason Ji jason.y.ji(a)gmail.com

3 2

need an urgent support from mediawiki about URL address to my mediawiki
by Poopak Alaeifar 07 Aug '14

07 Aug '14

Hi All sorry my question may be funny, But I need your helps. I have installed mediawiki in one of the servers of the company that i work obviously it is in localhost of that server, now I want to know the URL I should use to access that mediawiki from our internal LAN. Would you please help me ? IT IS VERY URGENT FOR ME. Cheers Pamela

2 3

Redirect anonymous user to login page
by Rowe, Dolores A 06 Aug '14

06 Aug '14

In MediaWiki 1.22.8, does anyone know how to redirect the anonymous (not logged in) user to the Special:UserLogin page automatically ? thx, L

1 0

Re: [MediaWiki-l] [Mediawiki-enterprise] MediaWiki for the third party community: get involved!
by Isarra Yos 04 Aug '14

04 Aug '14

Aye, these are valid points, and there are very real issues with what we have (and don't have) currently. But why do we need a separate organisation to address them? Why can they not be addressed at home, on mw.org? Why hasn't any of this consolidation happened already, before adding another level of complexity? Some comments inline, too, but they're less relevant to my main point/question. On 04/08/14 16:27, Derric Atzrott wrote: > This reply is as I understand the situation to be. If anyone else can > provide a bit more insight into things, or correct me where I am wrong, > I would be grateful. > >> Hi, >> >> What would be the purpose of this organisation and separate community, >> exactly? Has there been any demonstrated need or even want for such an >> organisation amongst the community it would proportedly serve? >> > This is something that has been in the works on Wikitech-l for some time > now. The folks on Wikitech-l and the WMF have come to the decision that > they can't really dedicate the resources required to handle third parties > properly (someone correct me if I am wrong on this). I thought that was what the release managers were supposed to be doing. I could be wrong. > They are going to be working with the folks over at Debian, among other > places, to get the vary Linux distributions packages up-to-date and keep > them up-to-date. > > They are also going to be giving the installer a little bit more love than > it currently has, and working on additional database support. The WMF is > paying them for their work. Its a contracted deal to offload some of the > development and release tasks that primarily benefit third-party users to > someone who can actually dedicate the time and effort to listen to third- > party users. But is there any reason these would need to be off mw.org etc and out of the existing communities? Why they would need an entirely new community? How would that help? > Given the luck that enteprise has had in the past at getting some features > added to Mediawiki (without coding them ourselves that is), I believe that > a need has definitely been demonstrated. As an enteprise user myself, I > personally want this and like the idea, so while I can't speak for > everyone, at least one person in the community wants it. In open source, that's how it works - unless you get lucky or it's fairly generic, you need to code specific pieces you need yourself, or explicitly pay someone else to do it. Developer time isn't free, even if they are donating it. A new organisation would not change that. > >> I ask in particular because as a third-party sysadmin myself, it's hard >> enough following all the relevant discussion and information that >> concerns releases as it is already. > I think the idea is that they will be consolodating these as much as > possible. Though, I will say that I think they should keep using this > list as the primary list for enteprise instead of having their own > mailing list as well. Unless the enterprise list is to be deprecated. > > It would be nice to just be able to subscribe to two lists as a > third-party user, mediawiki-enteprise-l and announcements-l. If you have custom extensions, large scale, and/or like to keep up to date, wikitech-l is pretty much a requirement too, since architectural changes and whatnot are discussed there, and they will affect how you do things even if you don't have a particular stake in the outcome. If you do, however, the only way to ensure your voice is heard is to speak up for yourself, or hire someone directly to do so. This is unfortunate because some discussions (such as the Architecture Summit) can be particularly time-consuming and potentially costly, but my experience there and on various lists (with the WMF, with the Marks, and others) has been that nobody else will speak for you unless they have an explicit reason to do so. Someone else paying them to do so is not such a reason, because people answer to the people who pay them, not random people out on the sidelines. >> Adding another organisation on top >> of that, with its own lists and websites to check and follow, and >> another layer of community to go through to get things upstreamed, seems >> highly premature when we can't even consolidate the basics (release >> notes, date announcements, even testing) at home. > I suspect that they will be more able to help third-party users get things > upstreamed. Or at least that is my hope. > > They should also be handling release notes and date announcements entirely > now for third-party users (assuming I've understood correctly). I think > that this will lead to more consistent and easier to understand release > notes and announcements. > > I can't really say anything about testing. I'm not terribly familiar with > any of our testing infrastructure to be honest. These things can easily be done without a new organisation and community. They just take time and resources regardless of where they wind up. The new organisation and community would also take time and resources. On top of that. >> Considering we also have no guarantee that any new organisation would be >> more receptive to the needs and concerns of the third-party end users >> than the WMF is currently, and there would still be things we would need >> to go to the WMF directly about anyway (thus making it even harder to >> figure out where to go for something), I find this all very worrying. > They are being paid to be more receptive, so I hope that they will be. > > I should hope that they will also be able to act as a liason between > third-party users and the Mediawiki development community. > > Personally, I don't find it worrying, I actually find it quite refreshing. > Its about time third-party users were treated as first-party citizens! :D > > Thank you, > Derric Atzrott Aye, we need better. But it's been a year already with a much more contained scope, and even that has proven far more difficult than those involved expected, with subsequently little progress. In light of this, extending the scope seems highly premature. Hence worrying. I want the better to actually happen. -I

2 1

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

MediaWiki-l August 2014