Wikipedia

User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 32

< User talk:Cyberpower678
Latest comment: 8 years ago by Xaosflux in topic adminstats task?
Archive 25←Archive 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35
Senior Editor II
Senior Editor II

Memento

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Compare results:

  • {{Wayback}} --> Archived January 1, 2009(Timestamp length), at the Wayback Machine
  • {{Memento}} --> {{Memento |url=http://www.thefa.com/England/U21s/Players/Postings/2005/01/AllTime_Caps.htm |date=20090101}}

Memento will return the best available link from any number of archives. I use it as backup in case Wayback API doesn't return an available snapshot. Memento has an in-depth API. -- GreenC 14:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Other than Wayback, Memento mostly returns Archive.is (~95%). However archive.is has been the subject of 3 contentious RfCs on en.wiki with some parties going so far as making bots to remove all archive.is links from the project (not sure they ever did it). Regardless, archive.is links are > 50% soft-404s. The reason is they didn't preserve the original page status code so all pages are code 200, in effect they turned hard 404's into soft-404s by the millions. This makes it useless so I have filtered archive.is out until there is a way of detecting soft-404s. Memento is still returning good links to WebCite and the Library of Congress and other national archives, but very few: out of ~2000 Memento API checks it found 36 usable links. -- GreenC 14:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
That seems like a very fruitless frontend method, and should be put in the backend instead.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Also we should leave archive.is out completely. We don't need to create more controversy, regarding archive.is's use of illegal botnets, to generate more income.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Agreed it should be part of the back-end system. In the WM data being generated, archive.is is filtered out. -- GreenC 15:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

300+ articles needing repair due to bug when Cyberbot II added Wayback template

Latest comment: 8 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

Hi. I found some articles where Cyberbot II added a {{Wayback}} template without any parameters after a dead link and added the url= and date= parameters immediately after the <ref> tag, outside of the Wayback template. I see at least three prior reports of this bug above starting on 9 March at #What the...? and #Bug report 4 and #Bad Edit, all which you noted as fixed on 18 March. However, there are currently more than 300 articles where that edit was never repaired (see these search results for a list). One example is the Monaco article, where this 10 March edit by Cyberbot II was never fixed -- Zyxw (talk) 04:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The best way to fix the edits themselves is to simply undo Cyberbot's edit, and let it pass over it again.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 04:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
P.S., the search results turned up an empty list.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 04:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Interesting that the search link doesn't work for you. When I click it I see the first 20 of 326 pages found. The search used was insource:/>\|url=/ insource:/\{\{wayback\}\}/ . -- Zyxw (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I see the search string, but no results.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 05:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps the following search will work for you: wayback insource:/\{\{wayback\}\}/ insource:/>\|url=/. Apparently that way the insource searches are only applied to the search results for "wayback", as opposed to the entire database (which is not recommended, even though it worked for me). -- Zyxw (talk) 06:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
The best thing to do is to undo each edit of Cyberbot, if it wasn't fixed, and let Cyberbot pass over it again.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 06:21, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

WaybackMedic will fix all these cases once it completes bot approval process. Fix #6. Should get to it in the next few weeks. -- GreenC 14:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I was meaning to look into that after I saw your response in one of the prior bug reports for this issue. Also wasn't looking to go through all 300+ articles myself to undo incorrect bot edits. Here's the list if anyone is feeling ambitious before WaybackMedic starts up:
Links to history pages of articles needing repair
-- Zyxw (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II & reformatting of refs

Latest comment: 8 years ago18 comments4 people in discussion

Is it possible to get Cyberbot II to stop reformatting refs, as here? I find this really frustrating. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 10:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

It's simply put the url, which is an archive to the archiveurl parameter leaving the original url in the url parameter. This is the way citation templates are supposed to be used and formatted. I don't see what's frustrating about that.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 11:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I know what it's doing, and it's a great service—but reformatting it all in one line is definitely not the way the template is "supposed to be used and formatted". They are far more difficult for humans to parse and manipulate when they are all on one line, and it slows down editing and maintenance. If the bot simply appended the new parameters to the end, it would be an awful lot easier to clean up. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 11:51, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Cyberbot internally regenerates the template, so all templates are formatted the same when the bot edits them. During the analysis process, the template gets taken apart so it's easier to analyze and parse. Parameters are broken down into associative arrays, modified and then rebuilt in a generator. The old template, as well as respective dead tags are then replaced with a new citation template, in a "clean" format. I hope the explanation helps to understand some mechanics underneath Cyberbot's hood.—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:08, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but it does nothing to relieve the frustration. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I could try to have the bot flag instances of multiline templates, and regenerate them as multiline templates as well. Will that work?—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't know, but is there some reason the parameters can't just be appeneded to the end? Is there any advantage to breaking down parameters into associative arrays, modifying them and rebuilding them in a generator? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 12:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Indeed there is. For one, it makes programming the bot and modify it easier, because I can now manipulate arrays, which is far less error prone, than having to correctly manipulate the string which can introduce hard to fix formatting errors. Another reason is the citation template uses 2 valid parameters for the same thing, archiveurl, and archive-url. Conversely, there are templates which use one, and the rest use the other. Detecting that is a whole lot easier with arrays rather than sifting through the string for them. Finally, it benefits maintainability in the long run, as there are plans to make this bot global, once it is bug free on this wikipedia. Parsing strings is a tricky thing, it took hours of work over many months to come up with the perfect regular expression in combination with a string parsing engine, to be able to detect the infinite ways users format their sources on Wikipedia. You could say it's one of my biggest prides in this bot.—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Comment Apologies for stepping in here. Isn't this really about horizontal and vertical formatting for web citations? Personally I tend to use the Visual Editor. There was some discussion on the Talk page here - and it notes that bots cannot distinguish between the two formats? Karst (talk) 12:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm sorry to ask this of you, but can you please focus your links more? I have no idea what you're trying to link me to, but I would rather not have to sift through an archive, and template documentation, to get your point. To answer your question independent of linking, my opinion is that it is possible to do. Simple checking to see if it spans across multiple lines versus a single line could flag the bot to a multiline citation. It does need to be implemented carefully, because if it only is partially multiline, cyberbot may end up reformatting it to multiline completely, which too could be undesired.—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Not to worry. Just ignore it. Karst (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I can appreciate the pride in having put so much into something that you've finally gotten working. For me, it's not just a matter of horizontal vs vertical, but also the alignment—I find it far faster and easier to navigate the cite templates when I've got them set up that way, and I maintain a large number of articles. Can you not understand the frustration of seeing all that done away with in one automated blow? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 13:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I see it, which is why I offered to implement multiline detection so the bot generates a multiline version instead of a single line.—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for looking into it. Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I have come across templates that are multi-line, but have multiple arguments per line. -- GreenC 14:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

As have I, so what do you suggest?—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:22, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Maybe note the location of the "\n" by associating it somehow with the last argument in the line. Then when rebuilding the ref add the "\n" back in along with the argument? -- GreenC 14:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
WHY DIDN'T I THINK OF THAT? :D Cyberbot trims all whitepspace when processing template. I could create another array with each parameter, and using boolean, I will just add \n when it's true.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Removing original URL from archived cite

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I'm trying to understand what happened in this edit. The bot removed the original (dead) URL and made it look like the archive URL was the original source. That seems misleading at best. Is there some new standard for handling archived URLs that I've overlooked, or is this possibly a bug? --RL0919 (talk) 21:56, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

You have that one backwards my friend. :p—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
D'oh! That's what I get for looking at diffs early in the morning. --RL0919 (talk) 22:03, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
I would give you some coffee, but I don't have any. :p—cyberpowerChat:Online 22:05, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

Re your recent comment at: Talk:Night owl (person)

Thank you for finding that 1997 article for us! Interesting that it was written so long ago -- could have been today. WaybackMachine is great. --Hordaland (talk) 05:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Yes, I got fooled. Happy 1st April to you, too. --Hordaland (talk) 05:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Me too

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thanks for your fixes to Victor McMahon. Much appreciated. I hope I have (correctly) done as you asked at Talk:Victor McMahon. Gderrin (talk) 05:56, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Trouted

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: SLAP!!!!! Jk --Xx Cool Guy7202 xX (talk) 01:20, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Citations where Cyberbot II ought to set deadurl=unfit

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

C678, please consider having Cyberbot II set deadurl=unfit rather than deadurl=yes when it encounters "url=https://web.archive.org/..." in a citation. When a human editor writes a citation this way, it generally means the original url is unreliable (e.g., dead, or re-directing, or displaying different content), which makes it counterproductive for Cyberbot II to add the original url as a live link. (For an example, see this edit.) By setting deadurl=unfit instead of deadurl=yes, the bot would still improve citations like these, but without the undesirable side-effect of displaying a live link to a bad reference page. Great if you & Cyberbot II can spare us the frustration of having to fix this problem manually in dozens or hundreds of places. Thanks very much for your consideration. —Patrug (talk) 18:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

I have modified the bot to use unfit instead of dead when fixing citation templates.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:26, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I am awaiting a reply.

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There is a message for you at Talk:Hollywood#External_links_modified. Thanks. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:04, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No logging

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Just noticed that Cyberbot I hasn't been logging any of its tasks since Wednesday, might need a kick. tutterMouse (talk) 19:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

That's because I moved it away from tool labs. So it is no longer logging there. The logs are no longer accessible at current.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 19:39, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I see. That's.. less that great. tutterMouse (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
With it being on it's own project, it shouldn't crash or hang when the toollab admins mess around, and the code has been proven to be otherwise stable now, so I wouldn't worry. Also my userpage has a restart link now.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 19:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that, nice job. I won't worry then, I'd prefer a bit of resilience with logging but until it's fixed I'll wait it out. tutterMouse (talk) 07:23, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Confused by some recent changes

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. I'm confused by some changes Cyberbot has made lately.

For example, check out the article Panzer Dragoon Saga. Cyberbot seems to have “rescued” two links by replacing them with pages that either 404 or redirect to the wrong page. I reverted the change, but it put it back. I understand I can prevent the bot doing this again, but before I do that, I want to make sure I understand what’s happening, and it’s not ‘’me’’ who is mistaken somehow.

What caused Cyberbot to make this change? Am I right in thinking that this isn’t a helpful change in this case?

The same thing seems to have happened at Songs From the Black Hole.

Popcornduff (talk) 08:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It is quite normal. As described in the linked FaQ, the citation template has been reformatted to follow a consistent use case. It moved the archiveurl to the proper field and placed its original in the url field. The use of the unfit value keeps the output the same, so it still links through to the archive if you go to the ref.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 11:34, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I read the FAQ before writing on your page, but forgive me, despite years of Wikipedia experience I have no idea what you're talking about. (I rely heavily on automatic referencing to sort my referencing stuff out; I'm good with words, not the technical stuff.) Did the bot make a mistake or not? Should I fix it? (Sorry for being dumb.) Popcornduff (talk) 12:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
OK, I checked the links again and you're right, they seem to go to the right place now. I must have got mixed up somehow. Sheesh, I have no idea how Wikipedia works, apparently. Popcornduff (talk) 12:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Citation templates are very dynamic, and it's okay to ask if you don't understand them, but what the bot is doing is normal and correct, so there is no need to worry.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello C. In checking the link updates mention at Talk:100 St Georges Terrace I found that two of the had worked just fine but the one listed as reference number two 100 St Georges Terrace#References aka "Heritage" does not go to the old info. Instead a reader sees this. I was not sure whether to change the template to "true or failed" since there was a mix of the two. Also if there is a place other than your talk page here that you would like me to report these please let me know and I will be happy to do so. MarnetteD|Talk 22:06, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a normal operation. It simply reformatted the reference but the user still sees the same link when they click on it. You can mark it as true.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the info. I am headed to that talk page to do the update now. MarnetteD|Talk 00:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot I is incorrectly removing list of cleanup tags from book reports

Latest comment: 8 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

See for example this edit, and compare it with Banshee's Last Cry. It started doing this today on all books on my watchlist.--IDVtalk 12:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

There has been at least one similar problem before, see User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 25#Book talk:Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse, User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 13#Book talk:Me. I Am Mariah... The Elusive Chanteuse and User talk:Redrose64/unclassified 13#Book talk:E=MC² (Mariah Carey album). --Redrose64 (talk) 16:49, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
There was a file permission error for a file the bot uses. I just migrated Cyberbot from toollabs to a new location. I'm running the bot again, and I'm not getting any errors this time, so it looks like it's working correctly this time.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
It still does this: Example--IDVtalk 11:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Then I don't know what is causing it, and will need some time to figure. I haven't touched this code in years now.—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Blacklist bot picking up part of website.

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi, In Montgomery_County,_Pennsylvania the bot tagged forbes.com as being in the blacklist. The site is not in the blacklist, what is in the blacklist is forbestsavings.com. Sir Joseph (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please read the blacklist tag again. It tells you exactly what is blacklisted and what rule on what blacklist is triggering it. The blacklist bot is not suffering from a bug here.—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:56, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Slight issue.

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

First of all, thanks for developing and running this bot. I personally think it is a great help to the community. I noticed a slight issue here. The bot obviously puts in all the required information, including the deadurl tag. However, from the message on the Talk page it is if the bot attempted to fix it (it was already archived) and failed. I noticed the same thing happening on the Eric Clapton page yesterday. Just a fyi! Karst (talk) 09:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I should probably fix the wording on the talk page message to reflect the bot's intentions.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 11:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Noticed the change in the wording. Thanks!Karst (talk) 15:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Format idea

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I think it was basic 'Wiki on the job training' impulse that led me to augment my 'true' response at Talk:Rajat Gupta#External links modified. Thinking a little more, my on-the-fly addition, in some form, does seem a good addition. In short: The 'request' paragraph stays 'open' even after 'true' has been figured out and entered; plus, the 'tradition' of having a signature attached to Talk input seems worthy of integrating. Fwiw. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 22:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC) (link augmented+ Swliv (talk) 16:05, 5 April 2016 (UTC))

Cyberbot II mangled reference

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

When cyberbot attempted to fix a dead link, the result was a mangled cite and reference error https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Old_Orchard_Shoal_Light&diff=prev&oldid=709202973 --Auric talk 12:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

This is a stale bug. This bug has been fixed a while ago.—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
How long ago was this fixed? This edit was made on 13:59, March 9, 2016. --Auric talk 18:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Mid March. I'm releasing updates almost every day, and this one made the top of the fix list.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 18:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago21 comments7 people in discussion

Is there a way to make Cyberbot II stop complaining about legitimate links to the subject's website in the Archive.is article? For now I added {{bots|deny=Cyberbot II}}. – nyuszika7h (talk) 14:45, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Please don't do that. Cyberbot II does other important tasks to articles. You can simply set the supplied invisible parameter to true on the tag itself, and the tag will hide itself and Cyberbot will leave it alone.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice, it wasn't meant to be permanent anyway, though it probably wouldn't have made the edit again soon after the revert, so it was probably not needed. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:48, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
There are a lot of these at present as a result of Jackmcbarn (talk · contribs) adding Archive.is to the blacklist in this diff [1]. The last discussion of the site seems to be Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3 -- Cavrdg (talk) 14:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
So we should go and delete every article referencing archive.is. MASS DELETION FTW, YEAA!! :p </humor>—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I feel like banning Archive.is is actively disruptive to Wikipedia. It doesn't matter what someone (maybe the site's owner, maybe not) did, it's often an invaluable resource when it's the only place an archived version is available or it manages to archive "Web 2.0" parts of websites that Internet Archive and WebCite can't usually do (an example that's not really that "Web 2.0" but still causes issues: WebCite fails to archive the "PREMIERE" tags in Zap2it's TV listings which is quite an important detail – can't use the episode guide for Looped as it's a mess and also shows air dates from other countries with no indication of which country). Reversion of mass addition without community consensus I can understand, but banning it does not achieve any good – as far as I can tell it's trivial to circumvent the block. Anyway, ranting here won't solve anything. The problem is it's pretty much impossible to achieve consensus without convincing the people who have !voted for blacklisting it in the original RFC. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Please do tell how it's trivial to circumvent the block?—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
It's possible to use HTML entities to replace one or more characters, you can see the Archive.is article still contains some of these tricks they had to use earlier for legitimate mentions in the article about the site. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
That's no longer possible. It's one of the things that was fixed when I switched archive.is blocking from the abuse filter to the spam blacklist. Jackmcbarn (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, I forgot to mention that Memento can still be used, which lists Archive.is among possibly other options for archived versions of the site. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm somewhat skeptical that will work. Can you provide an example here?—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:44, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I just had the Cyberbot notices pop up on some articles I have on my Watchlist and was wondering why this site was blacklisted. Thanks for the discussion. Shearonink (talk) 15:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Cyberbot is a chronic attention seeker. It loves to shout "look at me" as the first thing in an article even when it is not necessary. It is now doing this with archive.is links. Please tone down the "it's all about me" tagging messages and put them on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
No, cyberbot tags articles with blacklisted links with a maintenance tag, and it follows the blacklist. It is no different from {{cleanup}}, and you can hide the tags with the invisible parameter provided. No other maintenance tag does that.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 18:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
The behaviour of cyberbot is just obnoxious. Sticking a tag at the top of the page because one single reference out of may be a hundred isn't quite acceptable. What is wrong with just adding the tag to the reference it self, why do you have to hog our attention for something so slight, and why do we have to fix your attention-seeking problem. {{cleanup}} is there to fix more important problems that this. Hzh (talk) 12:43, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
This happened before. If the tagging has to be on the article page, it should be at the top of the external links section.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:24, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
And it's also been hashed out that why one maintenance tag should be placed elsewhere than the others? There are some articles that don't even have external links sections. Unfortunately the conversation never went anywhere so I maintained the status quo of where to put maintenance tags.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 18:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Many archive.is links are not immediately harmful to an article and were added in good faith. They are currently being treated as though the article will be ruined if they are not removed immediately. It is way over the top to demand the removal of an archive.is link as the first thing in an article.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:33, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
It's not demanding a removal. It's requesting you to whitelist. There are negative consequences to have a blacklisted link on an article. If the link gets removed, it can't be added back. The notice isn't there to serve as a notice to taint the article but to make sure the article's blacklisted link does cause future problems in editing. If it can't be whitelisted for "technical" reasons, I can put it on the exceptions list, and the easiest fix is to simply set the invisible parameter to true on the tag, and Cyberbot will quietly work on the template with no generated output.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 18:41, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
So if I change the code to invisible=true, the bot will accept this? I'm a busy person and can't change hundreds of links at the drop of a hat just to please a bot.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 18:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, the bot will accept it. You can even move it around.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 18:54, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Siouxsie and the Banshees

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Would you stop your bot on this article. There's no need to let deadliks appear whereas these pages have been closed for years. The webarchives pages work so there's no need to still put these links again. This kind of bot should be banned from wiki, such a waste of time. Carliertwo (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Carliertwo: You seem to be unaware that articles are not owned by anyone on Wikipedia. Don't revert edits just because you don't like them. The bot is simply correcting incorrect usage of citation templates, the reference links still work the exact same way. nyuszika7h (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
There already is a RfC on the Siouxsie and the Banshees Talk page in relation to this. Karst (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Vidhi Mehta

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

she is a famous singer i already have attached in refrence link why you deleting her page please help me devilisback 17:35, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

?—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:36, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Nonconstructive activity

Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

What's the reason of this action? First, the bot crumples templates of references into lumps which are more difficult to read and edit. This difficulty can be disputable, but why choice of bot's owners is preferred over choice of article's authors? Second, and the most important. When I wrote the article, I provided only links to archived versions of some sources (which can not change - e.g., journal papers), and inserted them in the "url" parameter. The bot added links to original adresses (which is absolutely redundant), added "archivedate" parameter (simply a junk in this case) and marked original adresses as dead, while actually they are not! Stas (talk) 23:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Your usage of the citation templates is incorrect. Archive urls need to go into the archiveurl parameter, and the original of that archive in the url parameter. deadurl=unfit renders the output in a manner that allows the readers to still access the archive. As for condensing multiline templates, I'm working on an update for that. As a side note, archive can die too.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:30, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
  • My usage of the citation templates is absolutely correct. Obviously more correct than usual inserting of a link to original page without any archives. Because, as I already stated, I apply this usage to pdfs of journal articles, which can never be modified. They can only disappear from present location. And probability of this is much lower for archived page than for the original. If anybody wants to know the original address, he can see it on the archived page (in the case of web.archive.org - even in its address). That's why links to original addresses are redundant, and dates of archiving are a perfect junk and nothing more.
  • What about condensing multiline templates - I hope that when you resolve this issue, you will bring all templates changed by the bot to original condition. Stas (talk) 08:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Your usage of the template is incorrect, and your rationale does not consider other factors. There is an ongoing RfC[2] that will make community consensus clear. -- GreenC 14:17, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
Firstly, since I wrote you some arguments, I expect from you something more than unsubstantiated statements. Secondly, explain, please, 1) when these templates will be de-"condensed" and 2) what is the need for displaying archivedate for these pdfs. Stas (talk) 01:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
The "other factors" are in the RfC explained by multiple people. I don't know when they will be split ask Cyberbot. The archivedate is there for end users to know when the links was archived, for bots to better maintain links, and for whatever reason someone might find it useful. If your contention is it's not needed or useful and it shouldn't exist, than start an RfC to have it removed from the cite templates, but there is wide consensus for its inclusion. -- GreenC 15:33, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Huge message not needed for small issue

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The article Ozzy Osbourne is presently dominated by a huge in-your-face banner message at the top of the article, generated by 'Cyberbot II', seemingly damning the whole article for the sake of an issue with one reference. This really is unnecessary. 86.161.61.4 (talk) 00:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

  • WP:SOFIXIT then remove the tag, rather than badgering the person who runs the bot. Those issue tags are supposed to be big and ugly, so people are a) not liable to ignore / not notice them and b) driven to address the issues so they can be removed. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:51, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Caught in an autoblock

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
This user's request to have autoblock on their IP address lifted has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Cyberpower678 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))
Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Block message:

{{checkuserblock-account}}

Accept reason: Cleared. T. Canens (talk) 03:42, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Posted on behalf of Cyberpower678, since he can't edit his talk page right now. Kaldari (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Odd Cyberbot II edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Please see this. Not sure what happened here, but seems to be a one off problem. The other edits from the bot seem fine. -- The Voidwalker Discuss 01:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

This is so weird on many levels, that's it difficult to explain.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On the Numb3rs main page, Cyberbot II had | made this change. I tried the link in the article, and it is still working. Can you please reset the status? Thank you for your time.SciGal (talk) 12:41, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

There's nothing to reset. Please read the FAQ again.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hello, Cyberpower678. You have new messages at Σ's talk page.
Message added 18:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

But now the page needs those pesky visible Archive links/boxes... Shearonink (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

CyberBot - Already protected message

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Cyberpower. Just a message to say that you could probably write an exception for Cyberbot's auto-response under the heading at Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Current_requests_for_reduction_in_protection_level, as one would expect articles listed there to already be protected. Cheers! SFB 18:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot doesn't recognize the keyword 'un-salt', so it picked out 'salt' and saw that it is already salted.—cyberpowerChat:Online 18:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Cool - just me and my awkward way of making requests then SFB 18:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Can I put pictures that have characters in them but I drew it myself?

Latest comment: 8 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Hello? Can I put pictures that have characters in them but I drew it myself? --KawaiiCafé ◯⁀ ‿‿ ⁀◯ (☏) 03:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

?—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:30, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Assuming I understand the question right... generally, no. That'd be intellectual property infringement. See Fan art#Copyright. — Earwig talk 22:32, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Cyberpower678. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical).
Message added 17:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In order to get more eyes on converting a talk page from one automatic archiving-method to another, I've posted a thread at Village pump. Thanks for all your help on User talk:Chicbyaccident and the discussion at User talk:Σ, any further discussion should probably take place at the Village Pump. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 17:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You are responsible for 30% of all edit activity on Wikipedia

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

Hello! I am an engineer at the Wikimedia Foundation. I wanted to let you know that null edits to the following pages appear to make up over a quarter of all edits on Wikipedia:

This was discovered in the course of investigating T128838. Could you please disable or fix these bots?

Thanks, --Ori Livneh (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Ryan Kaldari pointed it out to me yesterday evening. I'll begin fixing these, this weekend.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Wait a minute, Cyberbot shouldn't be editing pages 4, 5, and 6, and it never did.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Is SoxBot not part of Cyberbot, or not operated by you? In SoxBot/admin-highlight.php I see:
$page = initPage( "User:Cyberbot I/adminrights-admins.js" );
$page->edit( $data, 'Updating admins list', true );
Then in SoxBot/taskchecker.php:
$wikisimp->initPage("User:Cyberbot I/Run/Datefixer")->edit($datefixer,"Setting task status to $datefixer.",true);
And in SoxBot/taskchecker.php:
$wikisimp->initPage("User:Cyberbot I/Run/Adminstats")->edit($adminstatssimp,"Setting task status to $adminstatssimp.",true);
If, however, you mean that Cyberbot is not editing these pages on enwiki specifically, you may be right. --Ori Livneh (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes these scripts are editing other wikis.—cyberpowerChat:Online 16:59, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
BDavis (WMF) (talk · contribs) added a 10-minute sleep to the status updating loops in a GitHub pull-request. How soon do you think you could roll this change (or another one, if you prefer to fix it some other way)? If it's not in the next 24h, would you consider disabling the bot until it is fixed? Thanks, --Ori Livneh (talk) 19:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I made a patch that should practically remove all the null edits.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:10, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

nick change

Latest comment: 8 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

thanks for the change. but I lost my discussion page? where is it? someone suggested on Steward requests page: 

I think I know what went wrong here. Looks like Cyberpower678 forgot to disable the creation of redirects when he renamed the old account, so a redirect was created from Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Ppiioottrr to Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Ppiioottrr~plwiki. That redirect probably prevented Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Piotrjutkiewicz from being moved to Dyskusja_wikipedysty:Ppiioottrr. --Ppiioottrr (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I do apologize for the inconvenience I caused you. Your discussion page is located here.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
ok. but how can I have it back now?--Ppiioottrr (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I mean: with my new nick...--Ppiioottrr (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Also as mentioned earlier, a local admin/sysop will need to delete the discussion page on your new username, and the move the discussion from your old username to the new username.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:27, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
yes, I asked a local admin and he told me that it has to be done by the person that had changed the nick... :( --Ppiioottrr (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
He is incorrect. I do not possess the ability to move the pages around over there. It requires an administrator to do, and I am not one.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Latest comment: 8 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Checked less than ten IABot edits of today. Three out of four archive.org links requiring fix of bot edits had 404 status (wget -t1 -T5 ...). --Thoken (talk) 15:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

When the bot queries the archives, it requests the archives to return a page with a 200, 203, or a 206 status code. So when the archives return something other than that, it usually means something went wrong on the end of archive.org.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:57, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Does "something went wrong on the end of archive.org" imply the links the bot validated/inserted
https://web.archive.org/web/20150419043055/http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/winter_olympic_bids/future_bids_2018/1216135909.html
https://web.archive.org/web/20120915005814/http://www.usps.com/memotomailers/2006/aug2006.htm
https://web.archive.org/web/20130304175029/http://www.bladonjets.com/news/bladon-jets-wins-tsb-award/
presented 20x status to the bot and something different to me? Sorry for insisting. --Thoken (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Thoken, what article are these links from? -- GreenC 18:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict)It would help if you could present some links. I'm not going to provide accurate answers without more input to confirm my hypothesis.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 18:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

These links were already processed and noted by WaybackMedic and would have been fixed by now except the bot approval process is now over 30 days and counting. What WaybackMedic will do:

  1. http://www.gamesbids.com/eng/winter_olympic_bids/future_bids_2018 is from Munich and has a new archive date -> 20120519033500
  2. http://www.usps.com/memotomailers/2006/aug2006.htm is from United States Postal Service and has a new archive date -> 20090211012235
  3. http://www.bladonjets.com/news/bladon-jets-wins-tsb-award is from Gas turbine with a new archive date -> 20120313215440

-- GreenC 18:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Latest comment: 8 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hello,

Just a query here. I am going through a number CS1 errors: external links (like these). I noticed that many of these errors are caused by active links in the publisher or website field of reference or external links. Like this diff shows for instance. I was just wondering if the bot perhaps could grab those too to fix? I fully understand if that is too complicated and needs to be done by hand. Apologies if this has been asked before. Karst (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

I could probably program the bot to flag all of those cases as invalid citations for URLs only.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:33, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata admin activity report

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi! Per [3], creating a property is now considered an administrative action (that is, creating a new page in the Property: namespace). Would it be possible to adjust the report accordingly? Thanks! --Rschen7754 01:29, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

adminstats task?

Latest comment: 8 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Can you check on the your bot's task that updates pages such as Template:Adminstats/Xaosflux - seems to have stalled a couple of week ago. Thank you! — xaosflux Talk 11:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

None of the adminstats pages have been updated since 06:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC) - the last one was Template:Adminstats/RL0919. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
A Peachy bug cropped up causing a crash on startup. I have it running now.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. — xaosflux Talk 03:34, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyberpower678/Archive_32&oldid=1142949069"