User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 55

Senior Editor II

Adminstats error II

User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 46#Adminstats error is happening again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Ditto. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 13:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• Same here. — Maile (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• +1. Spencer^T♦C 18:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
• Same for me. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

• Thank you for fixing this. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 08:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Ditto. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

i want to help complete list

	i want to help complete list
	hello . can you send me the template for fighters record table or instructions how to fill in records for new fighters . I would like help complete list Kasabia33 (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

You're asking the wrong person for that.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Wording of "External links modified" message

Hi, I have been coming across the "External links modified" message that this bot leaves on the talk pages of articles to which it modifies the external links (see, for example, the message on the talk page of the article on the Beverly Center), and I would like to make/ suggest some changes to its wording (in particular, I'd like to remove those portions of the text that make it sound like the bot is a human user— "Hello fellow Wikipedians", etc. when it is not a "Wikipedian", it is a bot). I have come to this talk page, but do not see any method here for changing this wording— am pretty sure you know how this works, however. Please advise. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 14:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not inclined to change the wording. The bot is supposedly to be friendly, and carries a basic AI.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Possible bug in InternetArchiveBot

Hi, could you please have a look at this edit done by InternetArchiveBot at svwp couple of weeks ago. It looks like it can not correctly handle ref tags spelt with capital letters. --Larske (talk) 08:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realize ref tags could be all capital letters.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Ref tags are case-insensitive, I have seen <Ref>...</Ref> as well as <REF>...</REF>. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Cyberbot II blanking pages when removing protection templates

This diff should be self-explanatory - it's whiting pages. I am unsure if any more occurrences of this exist, I found it through Special:SHORTPAGES. Keira1996 04:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Cyberbot created a duplicate AFD

See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2017_June_13&diff=785469792&oldid=785469669 where Cyberbot created an AFD which appeared in the listing after and above an AFD for the same article created by a non-bot user. I rolled back the duplicate entry to avoid confusing editors as to which AFD they should post their views at. Possible edit conflict? If the user's AFD was defective and needed to be replaced, then the defective AFD should have been removed when the corrected one was added. If that is the case then please undo my rollback, but also remove the other AFD. We only want one AFD for one article at one time. Edison (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Edison: Never post a rollback link: (a) it's only usable by admins and rollbackers; (b) if not used yet, it's too darned dangerous to leave lying around; (c) it only works once; (d) once it's been used it gives no indication of which edit you were intending to illustrate but instead throws a "Rollback failed" error. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 23:18, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please elaborate. I do not understand your post." if not used yet, it's too darned dangerous to leave lying around" It is just a diff.It is not a magic potion from Hogwarts. It does not magically roll things back if you look at it. Without a diff, how am I to indicate what the problem was? I noted what appeared to be a faulty edit, indicating a possible problem with the bot. Are we to sweep all problems under the rug and pretend they didn't happen? Am I supposed to leave a duplicate AFD live? Having fixed it, am I not supposed to notify the bot operator? How should I have phrased my post here? Edison (talk) 04:00, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

@Edison: If you would please observe my edit, you will see that besides posting my message, I also altered your link so that it was no longer a rollback, but became instead the actual diff of the edit which you presumably made by performing that rollback. Have a look at the version that you had left, and try out that link - see what happens - most significantly, it is not a diff, and does not indicate what the problem was. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

My recollection is I just copied the diff from the top of the AFD page after I fixed corrected the duplicate AFD problem. Not much is said about the perils of the "rollback diff" at WP:DIFF. Once someone else has made an edit after mine, my rollback is ineffective, and I don;t think it would work for anyone else. Perhaps you could edit WP:DIFF to discuss the hazards of copying the material from the top bar after an edit and using it as a diff while the rollback button is still visible. But thanks for your help. Edison (talk) 14:09, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

When I do the same thing on this page and copy the URL from aftrr I did an edit with the rollback button still visible, the diff does not include "rollback" so it is puzzling. See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyberpower678&diff=785616424&oldid=785583218 Edison (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

RFPP mangling

Not at all certain what happened in this edit. I removed a stray preformatted text after restoring to last-good... but is there anything else that could have caused the mangle? --Izno (talk) 16:46, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

I looked, but I don't see anything immediate. But bot's run on logic so something must have changed to confuse it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

"This table is out of date. Contact User talk:Cyberpower678".

It's been like that for a while, but I just assumed someone would have already let you know... ;-) Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 12:12, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Seems to be up to date again.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Account question

Hi CP, I'm thinking of renaming from Green Cardamom to GreenC. I was never very fond of Cardamom anyway (I was eating rice pudding with green cadamom when prompted for a username). The problem is when I try to sign up for a new account, it says "Too similar to User:Greenc" .. fair enough but that account has 3 edits from 2006. I'd like to stay with GreenC if possible, it's how I sign my name plus the GreenC bot, it would make a seamless transition. Do you think it would be possible to create a GreenC account anyway? -- GreenC 16:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom: You should not start a new account. You should have your user name changed. --Izno (talk) 16:39, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I can certainly change it for you, but I need to get a sysadmin involved.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! I went ahead and applied for a rename as the first step to see what happens maybe it will just go through. -- GreenC 17:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

It will not. You have too many edits, I need to summon a sysadmin to monitor the rename.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Oh thanks didn't know, yes lots of edits.. -- GreenC 17:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I rue the day when Rich Farmbrough comes to request a rename.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:10, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm sure it would meltdown the server. :p—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:11, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

I would have requested a rename for User:SmackBot to User:Helpful Pixie Bot, but I was under the impression that it was impossible when I changed the name. (Actually the software had been fixed some time earlier.) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC).

We don't typically rename bots, but renaming YOU would be just as big of a problem. :p—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:38, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Undead link

Hi. This is not a dead link: https://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bjarne_Kolbeinsson&diff=40061030&oldid=39261808 It's alive! Srv.rosen (talk) 09:44, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

@Srv.rosen: See https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot?page=reportfalsepositive&wiki=svwiki —CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:39, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Bot spam on article talk pages

I've noticed that only a very small percentage of external links modified by archive bots are ever checked—as in, someone filling in the |checked= parameter in the "External links modified" sections that the bots leave on talk pages. I believe these sections are largely worthless, and normally serve no purpose other than to swallow up actual discussion. See Talk:Kobe Bryant. The bots have made a mess of that talk page. No one is ever going to check 152 links. These messages should be done away with. Lizard (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Get consensus to do away with them. I can easily shut them off.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Where might I start a discussion? Lizard (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

The village pump is a great place to get a consensus.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikistats redux

Template:Adminstats/Maile66 seems to be down again. — Maile (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Working now. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Cyberbot I trancluding already transcluded AFDs

Hi there. I noticed Cyberbot I transcluding an AFD to June 13's log which the nominator (using TW) had correctly added to June 11's log. Can you check why that happened? Regards SoWhy 07:37, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what happened. Looks like a fluke.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Book reports

On the talk page for Book:Bible it says "Report bugs and suggestions for improvements to cyberpower678. " The book fails to convert to a PDF. And i have written on that talk page: "As of today, 20 June 2017 this book does not successfully generate a PDF file. This is because it is too long and including the Peshitta somehow prevents conversion. I know these things from creating my own 3 books which taken together are far more comprehensive than this book and total 275 chapters, however, in some cases, more than one article is part of a chapter. This book as shown here would be useable if it ended with the article here on Revelations. Perhaps more could be included but that is a natural place to divide the book. A reference to a subsequent book or the two subsequent books would be necessary. Rameshkkhanna Rameshkkhanna (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2017 (UTC)" Rameshkkhanna (talk) 17:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not the guy to fix that. I only operate the bot that generates book reports.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Exception

I understand what you're trying to do with the exception, but I have to say I'm a bit concerned that it means we're going to waste more time on discussions that are artifically extended. Could you monitor the relevant discussions and close them when they meet their "natural conclusion"? (e.g. the Wikipedia_talk:Bot_policy#Maybe_try_a_different_approach.3F subthread)

I added the exception to be fair to Magioladitis so he isn't just cut from the discussions still ongoing. Obviously if he keeps posting and nobody responds, then that would be considered artificially extending the discussion. That's why starting sub-threads are disallowed.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 22:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm mostly concerned about this scenario: We've had a complete discussion. Magioladitis and ~1-2 other editors who agree with him continue to post, so it's not just Magioladitis continuing. Two things can happen. First, those opposing his proposal can continue responding, at which point the discussion continues for an indefinite period of time. Second, those opposing his proposal can note that the same points are being brought up over-and-over and stop responding. At that point, we have an echo chamber of just the couple people supporting the proposal. Someone claims WP:SILENCE or claims the arguments are unrefuted (even though they were refuted previously) and makes a change that we now have to contest at WP:AN etc. The SILENCE thing is what I'm most concerned about. If someone familiar with these concerns were watching and closing discussions when the wheels were just spinning, I'd be a lot more at ease. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:05, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I've tried to stay somewhat outside of this particular issue, mainly in an effort to keep someone, as you say, "familiar with these concerns" in an uninvolved position. Primefac (talk) 23:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Alright, as long as someone's keeping an eye, I'm satisfied. I just want to move on to productive things instead of re-hashing the same thing with epsilon deviations over-and-over. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 23:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

HTML chars

Hello, it looks like we have a conversion problem here [1]. Thanks for your work ! --Framawiki (please notify) (talk) 17:54, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

I'll look into it when I can. Thanks.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't fix bot's error.

InternetArchiveBot marked three links here, all three are alive and kicking. The bot missed their fourth sister. IABot Management says they aren’t in a DB and won’t do anything. Thank you. Sammy D III (talk) 13:05, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Bumping this. There's seems to be some DB issues here.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:43, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Internet Archive Bot not responding to "CBI Ignore" tag

Hello Cyberpower, I have a quick question regarding the Internet Archive Bot. In a recent edit to the article for Michigan v. EPA, the Internet Archive Bot modified a reference, despite the fact that the article contains the {{cbignore}} tag. I placed that tag on the article (and other similar articles) because the bot disrupts the formatting of Bluebook-style references. Please advise. Thanks, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:38, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

You didn't read the template documentation did you? See {{cbignore}}—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:42, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Well, that was a rather silly error on my part. My apologies. Thanks for the prompt reply. Best, -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:46, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Archival at RFPP

The bot has not clerked since 6/23. I don't think anything on the page was done to disable it. Last edit was here. Enigma^msg 16:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Wayback Machine Question

Hi, I was working on Suzanne Stettinius and cyberbot 2 has added a wayback machine link. The link works when you first open it and then suddenly a message pops up saying the page hasn't been archived. Any idea how to fix this? Red Fiona (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Running on no-wiki

Thanks. I will notify users.

However, the subdomain no of the wiki is not identical to the language nb. At least the runpage link needs to be updated. Haros (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Run page redirects have been setup.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

User:GreenC

Woohoo! Thank you for your and everyone's help. -- GreenC 15:53, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

I can't claim the credit here. But thanks. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:54, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Heads up

DePiep seems to have left a message for you on User talk:InternetArchiveBot, by the way. Not sure how they did it, but they did. Elisfkc (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:07, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Concern regarding phrasing of automated talk page sections

Hi, sorry to bother, but I wanted to talk to someone about the wording placed on talk pages by bots like this one. Here is an example of a page where InternetArchiveBot made a change/ addition: [2]. My concern is with the phrasing of the message and its pseudo-human tone ("Hello fellow Wikipedians", etc.). This makes the bot sound like it is a person, which can be very confusing for newcomers to the site. If you would like suggestions for ways to rephrahse this so that it does not sound like it is a person, please let me know. Otherwise, feel free to change it yourself if you like. Regardless, I think it would be a large improvement if such message were stated more like, "The following message has been left by an automated software process called a 'bot'. Although 'bots' were designed by our editors, they are not people. Please do not attempt to leave them messages or to respond to messages they leave". And leave out the whole "Hello fellow Wikipedians!" and "Cheers!" at the end. That all goes towards the confusion. Please consider it. Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 02:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The aim of that is to not make it seem cold. I would figure the word "InternetArchiveBot" and the "Report bug" link after it would give it away that it's an automated process. I'm hesitant to change the wording, and would rather that change be backed by consensus.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I understand— and I think we both agree that messages in general should be friendly so that readers will not be put off by them. I think the difference comes when we are talking about talk pages, which normally only contain messages by people for people, and where a bot exclaiming "Hello, fellow Wikipedians!" start to look an awful lot like a people when it is not one, and where newbies, who quickly get the gist that talk pages are for people to talk to people, will preferentially believe that the notice is from a human rather than a bot, not knowing that the -bot suffix has a specific meaning, no matter what else the message says, when the message starts with something like "Hello fellow Wikipedians!" But if you want consensus, I can try to build some. Can you suggest a venue where relevant people will be able to consider it? Does the bot's talk page get enough traffic, do you think? (scratch that, I just checked that page and there is no way to edit it.) Am open to suggestions. Thanks for considering my request. KDS4444 (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The bot's talk page probably gets a lot of traffic, but it's just an instruction page and is fully protected. The Village Pump is the best place, or the bots noticeboard. Or starting a discussion in the village pump and leaving a link to the discussion at the noticeboard or vice versa.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Done and done. I mentioned you in the Pump proposal page, so you should be able to easily view the proposal there. Cheers! (from a human!). KDS4444 (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I left a note there. :-). Will be watching.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

RfA tally

Cyberbot1 seems to have choked on the RfA tally at about 14:42 UTC. Earlier today I speedied an obvious NOWNOW RfA created about six weeks ago from an account whose only edits were that - did that have anything to do with it? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:42, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Ritchie333: it appears to be choking on Anarchyte 2, claiming the oppose section is missing.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:27, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Problem with InternetArchiveBot on the Dutch Wikipedia

Hi,

This edit (and many similar edits) are done with good intention, there is no doubt about that.

However, by doing such edits, the dead link is linked in the template (increasing the chance the Wikipedia reader clicks on the dead link). The template needs to be adapted if you want to continue replacing archive.org links in the "url" parameter by "archiefurl" and "archiefdatum" parameters to include "dead-url=yes" (or something like that, just like the template "Cite news" on the English Wikipedia).

Kind regards, Geoffrey De Belie

User:Romaine: do you have time to adapt the "cite"-templates on the Dutch Wikipedia to include a "dead-url" parameter? If set to yes, the "url" parameter shouldn't be linked in the template. I do not feel confident doing this. Smile4ever (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The bot is simply enforcing the way the template was intended to be used. English templates use the English language cite template settings which of course have the deadurl parameter. I note existing imported articles have deadurl parameters.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:51, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

In Citeer web on the Dutch Wikipedia dead-url (as well as dode-url and dodeurl) works now. Romaine (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi cyberpower678.

1. Romaine changed the template "Citeer web" on the Dutch Wikipedia to include the parameter "dode-url". It has two aliases: "dead-url" and "dodeurl". This means my comment above is no longer valid and your bot only has to include "dode-url=ja" or "dead-url=yes". See the documentation here: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sjabloon:Citeer_web (Dutch). See the comment from Romaine above.

2. We noticed your bot ads spaces in weird locations. See this diff. Please see the bottom of this article. The first "Citeer web" is the way it is done on the Dutch Wikipedia.

• Your bot added a space before | at the beginning of a line, which is not desired
• Your bot added a space at the end of a line, which is not desired
• Your bot removes spaces from before and after the equal sign, which is not desired

3. Could you rewrite "Cite web" templates that your bot finds to "Citeer web" templates, rewriting the untranslated English parameters to translated parameters? This would mean replacing "|title" with "|titel" etc. We will provide you a full list of the parameters which need to be translated.

Kind regards,

Smile4ever (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Smile4ever: The bot's spacings are designed to make templates more readable with more consistent formatting based on how an auto-generator generates them. If it's really that huge of a deal, I guess I can alter them for the wiki, but that comes with the cost of the bot being harder to maintain. Template translation is not in the scope of IABot, nor is is technically capable of doing that. It can recognize the language the template uses and work with that, but it can't translate the entire template itself over. Sorry.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:35, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Maybe you can just disable the space changing for nlwiki altogether? It would not be such a huge deal if it would ignore "Citeer web" templates that are layed out over multiple lines. I can understand that translation of templates is out of scope for IABot. Kind regards, Smile4ever (talk) 18:54, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

@Smile4ever: The spacing is all part of the global string generator when it reconstructs the reference after making the modifications. If it collapsed all spacing, then it becomes an unreadable mess. The references, templates, and URLs are completely deconstructed and then analyzed. Then the deconstructed data is modified, and then reassembled. It's able to detect multiline templates and keep them that way.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:59, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Okay, understood. Then the bot will need to be adapted to prevent at least the two first scenarios (space before | at the beginning of a line -> only with multiline templates, space at the end of a line -> probably also related to multiline templates). That's probably something you don't want to happen on enwiki either. Kind regards, Smile4ever (talk) 19:04, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Actually the spacing style was modeled after this wiki. The spacing afterwards is inconsequential.

@Smile4ever: I have installed the modification. See diff.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Very good, thanks! Can you look at T136148 and change the summary your bot uses? That would be great. Kind regards, Smile4ever (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your changes. I hope this will be the last change needed. How do you determine whether "dodeurl" is set to "nee" or "ja"? Most of the time when IABot finds an archived link, it will be for a dead link. It was done wrong for this article. If you can't determine this correctly, I would make the default "ja". Kind regards, Smile4ever (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

If the URL is tagged dead, or the bot considers it dead, it will mark it dead. Otherwise it won't. For some reason this is considered a subscription site.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:33, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

For situations like this

I guess you could've used the {{humor note}} template that I created in a situation like this. Personally, I didn't create it for such blatantly obvious humor, but apparently we need it for that, too. That, and a good-size {{trout}} for people who thought your oppose was serious.

Hm... maybe we should create {{blatantly obvious humor note}}, too?

— Gestrid (talk) 05:16, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

RFA

Hi, Reading the replies at the RFA I get the feeling this place no longer has common sense or humour!, Christ knows how this place is gonna be in 10 years time if that's the sort of replies you're getting now!,
Anyway simply wanted to say A) Carry on with the (IMHO) funny !votes and B) Thank you for your contributions to this place,
Happy editing, –Davey2010^Talk 22:23, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

IKR, you would think that oppose rational I give wouldn't be taken seriously, considering that if it were meant to be serious, I would get rained down on like a ton of bricks. :p—CYBERPOWER (Around) 22:58, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

I assumed Cyberpower wrote the joke oppose vote to test the problem with the bot updating the RfA stats (see the thread immediately above this one). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Report Error

Hello, you left this message, or I guess one of your bots did, on my talk page, about me removing a template. I understand why it had put that, but that was actually me removing my own template that I realized after was not warranted. I'm not sure it actually still counts or not. Thanks. RES2773 (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Small changes for IABot

Hi Cyberpower678. Could you omit the "," symbol from the edit summaries for InternetArchiveBot on the Dutch Wikipedia? Is is grammatically incorrect. Kind regards, Smile4ever (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

@Smile4ever: Did you know all sysops on that wiki can make alterations as needed. The page can be found here.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:31, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Smile4ever (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Could you change "date" to "datum" here? "{{dode link|date=juli 2017 |bot=InternetArchiveBot }}". Kind regards, Smile4ever (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:10, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Adminstats/2600:1:F40A:379:89D7:2304:5675:D182

Template:Adminstats/2600:1:F40A:379:89D7:2304:5675:D182 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 13:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Problem on Dutch Wikipedia with "dodeurl=nee"

When your bot finds an archived link (link beginning with https://web.archive.org), please fill in "nee" for the parameter "dodeurl". Your bot does this many times wrong. Filling in "ja" instead of "nee" every once in a while is no big deal, but filling in "nee" constantly is. Kind regards, Smile4ever (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Well if it has an archive, it's already implied to be dead. Adding the parameter or omitting it generates the same output when rendered.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:44, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it is correct what you say. What I observe is the wrong behaviour though. Your bot puts many times "dodeurl=nee" when there is an archive link found. Such a diff. Kind regards, Smile4ever (talk) 15:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Smile4ever: Do you think you can report this bug, and future bugs, with the bug reporter? This way I can more easily keep track of these issues, and I won't forget them.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot at NL-wiki

Dear Cyberpower678,

Thank you for all your effort so far. I'm afraid that there is something that needs fixing. Your bot edited this page adding the parameters archiveurl and archivedata. However, the cite news template doesn't support those two parameters. Therefor I had to block your bot for now. @Romaine and Smile4ever: perhaps updating the cite news template is the fastest fix. If so, could one of you two please update this template? If this is resolved the bot can be unblocked and restarted again.

Natuur12 (talk) 13:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Natuur12: That's a rather extreme response for something so minor that can be fixed on the template's end. Why didn't you just use the run page, that is linked on the bot's user page?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I didn't realise that there is a run page. (This construction is unique for nl-wiki). I will lift the block and use the runpage too disable the bot. I found a second edit that is nog correct. See here. The bot adds "Gearchiveerde kopie" (Archived copy) as the title off the source but this is not correct. The title should be What is Freenet?. Is it possible to fix this? Natuur12 (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The bot does not have access to page titles, but makes use of existing titles when converting to cite templates when possible. However plain text titles are not supported due the fact that the bot can't distinguish what is title, and what is a plain text about the reference.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:41, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I understand but couldn't it be better if the bot would leave a talk page note with a check needed request? (Including a tracker category) This way the edits can be checked by hand. I expect that inserting fake titles will become less common after a while and therefor the workflow should be managable. Natuur12 (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

If you want, I can leave the title field blank. That should throw a CS error and place it in a tracking category. Would that help?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:06, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

It might. But would it also be possible to not convert bare URL's into refs with cite templates? Natuur12 (talk) 14:18, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Natuur12: I'll have to add that option to IABot. It's hard coded to do that right now. If possible can you file a ticket with the bug reporter? That way I won't forget this and can keep track of it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:35, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

While the Citeer web template was updated with these parameters, I am still working on the other Citeer templates. Those I expect to be ready later today. Romaine (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

In each of the 7 Cite templates on the Dutch Wikipedia, the parameters archiefurl/archiveurl/dodeurl/deadurl/dode-url/dead-url work now. If there are any issues regarding these templates, please contact me. Romaine (talk) 11:31, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

FAQ? and other things

Hello, in this edit the bot added two item lines for the exact same link, a minor issue. Also, the message text refers two times to an FAQ without linking to one. Lastly, it "saved" a root ("/") page referenced in an infobox, which is currently reachable. This is bad, such links should always refer to a live website if one exists. --Bdijkstra (talk) 14:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

@Bdijkstra: I have fixed the FaQ issue. Sorry for the confusion. The FaQ actually has the answer to the second part of your concern. For simplicity, I'll just answer it here. You could be looking at a false positive. You can use the false positive reporter which is an automated tool to report mistakenly dead URLs. This tool is an automated solution that in most cases self-corrects the bot's perception of the URLs live state. Changes usually take effect immediately.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Unwanted bot edits

Hi Cyberpower678. While I appreciate your effort, I don't think edits such as this one are necessary. In fact: even the contrary. I intentionally added these links, so that the up-to-date results can be easily found. There is no need to replace them by an archived version of the page. Please revert this, and similar edits on figure skater articles. Thanks. Trijnstel_talk 22:25, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I reverted five edits myself already, done on articles I wrote. But perhaps this was done on other figure skating articles too. Please check. Trijnstel_talk 22:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

I have no idea what articles are figure skating articles, and that edit to me looked like a URL getting archived, so I am confused here.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 22:40, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

The original link wasn't dead but is still live. Natuur12 (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is not a dead link. Sincerely, Taketa (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

@Trijnstel, Natuur12, and Taketa: IABot comes with a quick and easy solution for correcting the bot's perception of a URLs live state. This tool let's your report false positives, aka URLs seen as dead when they shouldn't be, and the tool will in most cases self-correct this error and changes take effect immediately.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:47, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

* is not a valid value for parameter date in template Wayback

Hi, could you please have a look at this edit done by InternetArchiveBot at svwp. The parameter value * for date gives rise to an error message ("Fel: ogiltid tid" means "Error: unvalid time"). What is the reason for date=*? --Larske (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are some more diffs with the same error: Fluor, Aluminium, Fosfor, Eritrea. --Larske (talk) 10:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

The old version of {{wayback}} didn't support date=* but I made changes to support it in the conversion to Lua. It would make sense to upgrade the template to this Lua version where possible it contains a number of other improvements over the old wikitext version. -- GreenC 12:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

It might be even better to adopt the use of {{Webarchive}}, and have IABot convert them for you.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:57, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

True, that is a big project to get consensus and convert everything over but it is the right thing. It's not so simple to convert as there is much garbage data it requires hand holding. I just imported the Wayback module to swwp [3] so the * problem should be fixed. -- GreenC 14:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

I built archive template conversion into IABot's core when we converted over. It's capable of handling them autonomously. All I have to do is flag the old templates as invalid, and the bot will forcibly convert them.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Understood. The conversion is hard due to edge cases. We would need to test IABot on testcase pages before setting it loose. I learned a lot during the conversion on enwiki. Also need to convert webarchive to Swedish which I'm not sure about due to language translation (the wayback I copied language that was there). -- GreenC 15:14, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to test in your sandbox here to see how it handles those edge cases.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Ran on User:GreenC/testcases/wayback nothing happened, maybe the template needs to be flagged for conversion? This isn't the full suite of tests a couple more I need to look up. -- GreenC 15:38, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Hmmm...that's odd. Not a good first impression. :/—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

When in a ref it converts to a citation template.[4] -- GreenC 15:51, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok this worked.[5] -- GreenC 15:53, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh right, I almost forgot. There are rules to when it converts to the new template. Stray archive templates in references are simply converted to citation templates, but are left alone outside references since the render on the page, and it tries to not disrupt visible formatting. In order for the conversion to happen, they need to be bound to external links inside or outside of references, I think. IABot's intelligence is getting hard to remember and predict.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:35, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

• Going back to the * date issue at hand, IABot shouldn't even be absorbing those. It could be a fault in the svwiki extension of IABot's core.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:11, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

  @Larske: I'm leading a million discussions everywhere at the same time. Do you think you can report this issue with the bug reporter so I can keep track of this?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:30, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done --Larske (talk) 14:54, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Adminstats down

Template:Adminstats/Maile66 - Cyberbot seems to have a recurring problem with my stats. Apr 27, June 10, June 19, July 4. — Maile (talk) 14:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi. {{Adminstats}} seems to be down and according to the template documentation, you maintain it. The error message says that I'm not an admin or account creator, but I don't seem to have been desysopped :-). The template hasn't been edited in over a year, and there's nothing about this on WP:VPT. It's not something I can't live without, but I appreciate the convenience of having the numbers readily visible. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 18:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure if InternetArchiveBot is doing the right thing

I'm not too technically savvy so I couldn't figure out what to do at the IABot Management Interface, but I've found a series of edits made by InternetArchiveBot that look wrong to me. For instance at this edit IABot marked this link dead and created a link to this archived version. The original link goes to a database where one can look things up about moths; for instance, pasting "Agastophanes" into the "taxon contains" field and clicking on the link gives good information that could be used as a reference, however that doesn't work at the archived link. The archived link seems to have the appearance of the database but not the data. If I'm understanding what's happening correctly, I think the archived links are not helpful and in replacing the good link actually unhelpful. Does that make sense? Thank you.  SchreiberBike | ⌨  23:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yep, there's a bug here somewhere.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:36, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Tonton Topic ban

I'm not following some of the details of the Tonton Bernardo TB.

I get this: is hereby indefinitely topic banned from participating in any active requests for adminship and requests for bureaucratshi effective immediately. (although there's a typo to clean up).

I think I get this: They may not !vote on RfXs of active candidates, nor may they comment or discuss on the RfX page of the candidate themselves.

It seems like a recapitulation of the first sentence. NO big deal, unless it is saying something else and I missed it.

I don't get this:

This user is permitted to comment on past candidates that have run the full cycle of their own respective RfX provided the candidate is not subject to an ongoing RfX.

Comment where? If you are talking about comments in an RfA, you've said it twice already.

If you mean comments about editors in other fora such as AN or ANI or article talk pages, then why is this mentioned? It seems like it is trying to make sure the ban isn't overly broad, but this just raises questions in my mind. What does this cover, that wasn't already perfectly clear?

This is good: Tonton Bernardo is permitted to run his own RfA as otherwise, a close reading of the Ban might preclude running, and while unlikely, we shouldn't do that.

This is puzzling:

and comment on other votes as he sees fit provided those comments do not reference ongoing RfXs of other candidates.

Comment on other votes in an RfA about Tonton Bernardo? If so, why is this needed? If they can run for RfA, they can run for RfA. Is this intended to cover the possibility that they might open an RfA simply to provide cover for casting votes about some other candidate also running at the same time? That's too obscure to worry about, if that's what you meant, but I'm wondering if it means something else I missed?

Sorry for the question, I know it wasn't easy to close but I'm genuinely puzzled about some of the details, and experience suggests that it can get messy to try to revisit if something is at issue.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:30, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I was trying to word the ban so it's not game-able. The gist is he cannot comment about candidates with an ongoing RfX about that RfX, nor can he vote on said RfX, but he can run his own RfA, and comment on other people's votes as sometimes candidates do in their own RfAs, without violating the ban. Basically commenting on a candidate while they are actively participating in the RfX, should be considered a violation, even if off page, as it is likely an attempt to game the ban. Does that make sense?—CYBERPOWER (Message) 00:37, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay I think I see where you're coming from but I'm now troubled I apologize in advance because I'm probably making too big a deal out of this. If an editor is topic banned from participating in RFA, I would urge them to lecture to take that page off their watchlist and make a point of not ever visiting it. Yet, if the editor is working on any article, and has some disagreement with another editor and wants to discuss it on the article talk page, they are apparently expected to double check RFA to make sure that they aren't running for admin because if they are they have to say nothing. I don't think that's a fair rule. But I despair because my proposed alternatives get complicated, so maybe I'll just let this go.--S Philbrick(Talk) 01:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

You are overthinking it. The person can not comment on their worthiness to be an admin during an ongoing RfA. They can still comment on other things about the user. :)—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much!

Dear Cyberpower, I believe you are the author of the IABot. I have been yearning for a long time for a smart, automated tool/bot that helps in archiving web sources and making the correspoding citation to them. In my view, your creation is soooo valuable, really helping combat linkrot, and helping linkrot-conscious editors like me not have to do a awful lot of mind-numbing manual archiving and citing in an effort to help preserve humankind's knowledge for the long-term. So for all that, thank you so very much! This is a great contribution to the whole of Wikipedia. I also appreciate the wisdom and generosity to those that decided to financially support your effort.Al83tito (talk) 05:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)(talk) user:Al83tito 05:16, 06 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2017).

Administrator changes

Happyme22 • Dragons flight

Zad68

Guideline and policy news

• The RFC discussion regarding WP:OUTING and WMF essay about paid editing and outing (see more at the ArbCom noticeboard archives) is now archived. Milieus #3 and #4 received support; so did concrete proposal #1.

Technical news

• Fuzzy search will soon be added to Special:Undelete, allowing administrators to search for deleted page titles with results similar to the search query. You can test this by adding ?fuzzy=1 to the URL, as with Special:Undelete?fuzzy=1. Currently the search only finds pages that exactly match the search term.
• A new bot will automatically revision delete unused file versions from files in Category:Non-free files with orphaned versions more than 7 days old.

Miscellaneous

• A newly revamped database report can help identify users who may be eligible to be autopatrolled.
• A potentially compromised account from 2001–2002 attempted to request resysop. Please practice appropriate account security by using a unique password for Wikipedia, and consider enabling two-factor authentication. Currently around 17% of admins have enabled 2FA, up from 16% in February 2017.
• Did you know: On 29 June 2017, there were 1,261 administrators on the English Wikipedia – the exact number of administrators as there were ten years ago on 29 June 2007. Since that time, the English Wikipedia has grown from 1.85 million articles to over 5.43 million.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Please revert your protection of User_talk:Magic_links_bot

If this page is not meant to be edited, then it should say so in clear language and clearly provide an alternative, which it does not. Random links on the page do not count. Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, that page is clearly a redirect. Redirects are never meant to be edited. Secondly, I’ll revert if the user asks me to. So far it would seemed to be welcomed as the user thanked me for protecting it. It’s his userspace and I’m not proving a point. All I’m doing is preventing further misunderstandings.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 04:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again for protecting it. (I don't want it removed.) — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)