User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 51

Archive 45

←

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

Archive 53

→

Archive 55

Senior Editor II

Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Bot_to_check_deadlinks_in_Featured_material

I think we might best approach someone experienced and ask them? Who might be a good person to do this? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:25, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

GreenC already knows how to communicate with my bot.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:46, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Dweller - Yeah I know how to make this bot but as mentioned elsewhere I don't want to be the person who actually runs the bot :) The person who runs the bot, their username will show up in the article history as the editor of the article. I don't want to be responsible for tons of edits to FAs every week or whatever. That person whoever it is would need to start a BRFA and I'd be happy to work with them on the software side. They would also need an account on Tools (or some other arrangement). -- GreenC 13:55, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Well actually the name of the calling bot will show up in the edit summary of InternetArchiveBot's edit. You would be queuing the bot up.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:58, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

GreenC, if the bot's name showed as the editor, does that help? What about if we offered two points of contact for the bot - you for technical questions and me for MOS/FA issues? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:06, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Again, to clarify, InternetArchiveBot is the bot actually making the edit. Within the edit summary the name of the calling editor or bot is linked in it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:08, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Does that tip you into a "yes"? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:10, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

You may want to check who you're talking to. I'm not GreenC. I was just chiming in. I'll let him talk now.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I was talking to GreenC. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

It looks like this [1] - I don't want to be responsible for the bot's edits :) Someone has to be the owner of the bot-triggering-bot (the Dweller in the example). -- GreenC 15:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Could that element be omitted from the edit summary, or replaced with a wikilink to a page that explains what we're doing, why and how to complain (to me)? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:01, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Some ideas.. what if there was a consensus discussion which is a founding charter which can be pointed to should anyone question the project. Then Dweller creates a userid (User:Farotbot ?) for the project and it lists project members who are willing to participate (ie. handle any problems with links). Then I'll create a BRFA and designate the userid as the bot account, and create an account on tools (same userid) where the bot will run. This userid would be accessible to a technical (me) and administrative (Dweller) contact. The same userid would show up in edit summaries, and the userid homepage would explain what the bot does and FAQ etc.. I'll handle technical issues (eg. bot stops working, how often to run) and content issues (eg. links are soft 404, tagged dead but still live) by members listed. -- GreenC 12:25, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

If you think that BRFA will accept that governance, I'm all for it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:39, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I see no reason why not, but I will be recusing as BAG on this one however. Pinging Xaosflux.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a need to funnel other editor's usernames in to a bot's edit summary. The bot's operator is responsible for the edit - is this suggestion that a bot may be operated by anyone? — xaosflux ^Talk 13:23, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

The name is there to identify who called the bot. I still will deal with any issues the bot causes. It's there for total transparency.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:26, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Chaps, is everyone happy or do we need anything more? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:11, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Are there any consensusish discussions that can be linked to? Needed for the BRFA -- GreenC 15:41, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Here is where the idea emerged, in discussion with the Featured Article co-ordinators. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:04, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FARotBot. Will wait a day or two before writing code, to make sure there is no unforeseen problem. User:Dweller, do you have experience with ssh or navigating unix shell? -- GreenC 15:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ha. I can barely manage Wikimarkup. The Rambling Man has to fix all my citewebs. Unless a technoramus (©Dweller 2017) can manage it, I can't manage it. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 15:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ah no problem. It will have a stop button page in the FARotBot account so it can be disabled anytime. -- GreenC 15:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

• @Dweller: I added a new feature to the bot queue tool. It might be helpful for you. To figure out what it is, go to the tool and try have it run on a category. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 08:06, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot

I'm having issues with IABot: when I run the bot on specific pages, whether it's a single page or a job running on multiple pages, the bot is not saving the changes that were intended to be made. Is this something that can be fixed ASAP? Thanks. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

It’s fixed now.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 08:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Cyberbot warning section headers, again

I just came across another case of Cyberbot I inserting an intended edit summary into the section header (previously reported in January). Don't know if there's anything new, noting it just in case. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:08, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

It’s on my todo list.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 08:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot

InternetArchiveBot seems to be inserting the follow-up message directly into the article now (example). I've removed the message from impacted articles, but you may want to look at it before it makes another pass. Kuru (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

A search finds no others (enwiki).. -- GreenC 15:05, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

Actually it's in every edit of beta7, not many. GreenC 16:09, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

I fucked up something when testing on the German Wikipedia. It’s fixed now.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 08:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2017

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

Administrator changes

Nakon • Scott

Sverdrup • Thespian • Elockid • James086 • Ffirehorse • Celestianpower • Boing! said Zebedee

Guideline and policy news

• ACTRIAL, a research experiment that restricts article creation to autoconfirmed users, will begin on September 7. It will run for six months. You can learn more about the research specifics at meta:Research:Autoconfirmed article creation trial, while Wikipedia talk:Autoconfirmed article creation trial is probably the best venue for general discussion.
• Following an RfC, WP:G13 speedy deletion criterion now applies to any page in the draftspace that has not been edited in six months. There is a bot-generated report, updated daily, to help identify potentially qualifying drafts that have not been submitted through articles for creation.

Technical news

• You will now get a notification when someone tries to log in to your account and fails. If they try from a device that has logged into your account before, you will be notified after five failed attempts. You can also set in your preferences to get an email when someone logs in to your account from a new device or IP address, which may be encouraged for admins and accounts with sensitive permissions.
• Syntax highlighting is now available as a beta feature (more info). This may assist administrators and template editors when dealing with intricate syntax of high-risk templates and system messages.
• In your notification preferences, you can now block specific users from pinging you. This functionality will soon be available for Special:EmailUser as well.

Arbitration

• Applications for CheckUser and Oversight are being accepted by the Arbitration Committee until September 12. Community discussion of the candidates will begin on September 18.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:35, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Your undoing of the Rfa close

Hello Cyberpower, hope you're doing well. I can understand why you reverted the closure of Robert's Rfa. Robert did mention on his talk page that he "will be drafting a concession speech, but it isn't the one anyone is advising, but it won't be hostile.". Perhaps you could consider not prolonging the Rfa drama by closing the said Rfa. I'll defer to your judgement. Warmly. Lourdes 06:48, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Cyberpower, the nominator should not close the RfA, only the candidate or the candidate's express directive should do that. He could have easily withdrawn himself rather than alluding to a concession speech; if he is asleep now he certainly saw the way the tide was going and could have withdrawn before he retired. And I say that as someone supportive of Robert. Softlavender (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Softlavender essentially explained my reasoning. I’m not inclined to reverse my reversal.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:01, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure, I appreciate the reply. Warmly. Lourdes 09:20, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I can understand too. Regards, Alex Shih^Talk 23:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

About your bot's editing interval at ja.wikipedia

Hello. I'm rxy. I noticed your bot violate to editing interval limit at Japanese Wikipedia. For this, I blocked your bot. Please slow down your bot's edit interval to maximum 6 edits per minute. When you fixed the bot, please reply here for unblock your bot. Thanks--Rxy (talk) 07:01, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Rxy: Thank you for the courtesy message. I replied there, to apply for an exception to this limit. I will be watching the page there for a response.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 07:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

False positive by the bot on it:50768 Ianwessen

Hello, I detected a fals positive on it:50768 Ianwessen. I believe you exceeded accesses to minorplanet center site and now the site is refusing further connections. Can you please check? --Ysogo (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ysogo: For future reference, it is much easier to report false positives with this tool, than it is to report to my talk page. I have gone ahead and reported the one for you.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 07:07, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

stop bot

(Sorry,I can not speak English very well.) Stop InternetArchiveBot now. This bot occur error in Japanese Wikipedia. This bot add to strings 2017年09月 that is error. zero is unneeded.--JapaneseA (talk) 09:17, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

It's already fixed and stopped.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:18, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Bot edit summary in ruwiki

You need to use "Сохранение" instead of "Спасение" in edit comments. Спасение means rescue, сохранение means saving. MBH (talk) 12:32, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot in de:wp

FYI: In de:Diskussion:Aerodynamik des Eurofighters Typhoon#Defekte Weblinks 2 the Bot claimed the fix of two dead reflinks. It found the correct IA version to replace the actually rotten links, but did not add them to the article. Gunslinger.1970 (talk) 13:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

A vandal messed with the bot's run page, and started the bot up on dewiki. That's probably the cause of the weirdness. Nevertheless, the bot isn't approved on dewiki yet and is shut off until it is approved.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, thank you for the quick response. If it would have been executed on the Article, it would be a proper fix. I'll do the bot's work now... Gunslinger.1970 (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@Gunslinger.1970: There's a Meinungsbild being created there, and all of the support we can get would help. :-).

See de:Wikipedia Diskussion:Meinungsbilder/Boteinsatz bei toten Links and de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Meinungsbilder/Boteinsatz_bei_toten_Links#Ergebnis_des_Probelaufs—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:57, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot work wrong

1 - please, don't remove '\n' symbols from template. Also, it's not a dead link, you still can read this review on original place. Maybe some sites block your bot for useragent? 2 - links to jasrac.or.jp also still alive. Zero Children (talk) 10:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Should be fixed now.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Compositio Mathematica

Your bot added a nonworking link here [2]. --Tosha (talk) 16:33, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

It works for me. Original is dead, and the bot added a working archive.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:14, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Why rescue

Lately we're seeing that a lot of functional links from e.g. www.bruggenstichting.nl are being rescued while not being marked as unreachable. These edits are often reverted by users. In the FaQ I couldn't find why the bot is rescuing some links but not others. Why rescue? --Bdijkstra (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Can you provide me some examples to look at?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:58, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Here's one. --Bdijkstra (talk) 13:03, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

The bot appears to be blocked from accessing that domain from Toolforge. I have whitelisted the domain. I will be making some improvements to the false positive reporter to more expediently handle these cases. BTW, by reporting false positives to https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=reportfalsepositive&wiki=nlwiki, you are helping to improve IABot's reliability in the future.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

In that case, the edit summary of the bot is confusing or misleading. When it says something like "0 marked as unreachable" ("0 gelabeld als onbereikbaar"), I must conclude that the bot could reach the page. Hence my original question --Bdijkstra (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

IABot tries to add an archive to the link before it marks it as unreachable. The edit summary can be changed if needed.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. We changed the edit summary to indicate that rescued links are also (deemed) unreachable. Maybe all languages should do this? --Bdijkstra (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Bot behavior

Is your bot still making changes like this one? (Please ping me when you reply.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: Yes it is.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 07:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

That triggers errors about not having a title. Is it feasible to add the IA links without adding an incomplete cite web template? (I.e., either adding the template with a title, or not adding the template?) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

You linked to an ancient edit, predating a bot version. IABot is currently at v1.5.1.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:13, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and that's why I asked whether the bot was still making changes like that one. If (and only if) it's still filling articles with CS1 errors, do you think that it would be feasible to find a better (i.e., non-error-producing) approach? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

IABot and false negatives in iltempo.it

Is there any way to set a bunch of URLs as dead, other than setting them dead individually or setting as dead the entire domine? I'm dealing with the italian newspaper Il Tempo which clearly is not a dead domine, but has a great number of dead URLs (last year the website was renewed and almost all news stories from the past went offline). Sadly IABot doesen't detect these URLs as dead, even if they look like an empty page with a huge "PAGE NOT FOUND" title (see example). Is there a way to make the bot automatically detect such URLs as dead? Individually setting them as dead would take much time (there are about 800 of them on it.wiki, almost all inserted before 2016 and hence dead). --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 16:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

IABot certainly thinks it’s dead. Just give it time to acknowledge it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:38, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot on Norwegian WP

Will you please explain this edit. The edit summary says ″(Redder 1 kilde(r) og merker 0 som død(e). ″ Which is supposed to mean that the bot saved one source and did not mark one as dead. Since the source it not mark as dead already was there saving the link was never necessary. The bot have inserted a live and kicking url for the second time. It is not the first edit like this I have observed from the bot. The bot seems to like to insert urls twice. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 18:39, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dyveldi: The bot converted the archive URL to it's long-form variant. On enwiki it's a required practice to use an archive URL where the original URL and snapshot timestamp can be extrapolated from the URL. This can be shut off however.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes I think this should be shut off. 1) the change is redundant and WebCitation clearly marks the short version as the permanent url 2) it creates a change that appears on peoples watch lists and the watch lists are already brimming with changes. Since this one does not make a real change we do better to have fewer edits and try to follow the ones making real changes. 3) I sometimes archive a page and cite only the archived page. This because I want to show exactly which version I used and what it looked like when I used it as a source. In those cases I do not want the live url-adress at all. I want only the url I actually used. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 17:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Re: long version there are good reasons for using it on Wikipedia. See discussion at a previous RfC on enwiki. -- GreenC 19:37, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

X-tools timecard

Hello! I understnad that you are a maintainer of Xtools. I'm looking for the documentation for the Xtools timecard, which is part of the general user statistics. I haven't been able to find it on toolforge or elsewhere! I'm hoping to look at the documentation, potentially contribute, and also look into what data I can get from it more generally. Any info you can provide on where to find the timecard documentation would be appreciated! Hexatekin (talk) 00:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Nonsense

What kind of nonsense is this? Fixing a url already fixed through the archive.org bypass a second time? If someone chooses to add a reference to an archived page, there's really no need to "warn" the reader that the original page is now a dead link. It also complicates the link, making it less readable to the human eye in the page source. Please leave links to archived pages unchanged if the link to the archived page works fine.  Wikiklaas  12:01, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

It is the way the template is supposed to be used when citing sources of now dead links. IABot enforces proper use of cite templates. It makes the citation properly render the fact that this is an archive. FYI, the original link is not linked in the output.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:07, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Collegamenti esterni modificati

A proposito dei collegamenti che hai modificato ([3], [4], [5], ecc.) ti volevo ringraziare.. e sapere come si potrebbe fare per modificarli tutti. Praticamente tutta la parte geografica insulare della Russia artica, con centinaia e centinaia di voci.. ha lo stesso problema del link alla mappa non più attivo. Buona parte di esse (ma non tutte) è presente nella mia pagina utente alla voce "contributi". Grazie, --Betta27 (talk) 14:11, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

@Betta27: Are you able to communicate in English?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:15, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Oh.. yes, sorry, I wrote to you in Italian because I got your message in that language..--Betta27 (talk) 17:04, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

translate IABot's interface

Hi, I wanted to start translate IABot's interface to German but it seems I do not have the required user rights. Do you know how/where to get translator rights at translatewiki? --Martina Nolte _talk 01:50, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

@Nemo bis: is the person to contact for that.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Nemo gave me translator rights. --Martina Nolte _talk 05:06, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Most of the messages to this page are about your bot doing/not doing something, so I thought I'd drop this by and say (on behalf of all the Wikimedia sites IABot is on) thank you, and you're awesome -- There'sNoTime (to explain) 09:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Aw thanks. I think it's just people trying to understand why the bot does certain things, and me trying to understand why they think it's wrong and trying fix misunderstandings on both sides.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:19, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Kudos and thanks from me as well! You did an awesome job at deWikipedia during the testing. Specifically your responsiveness and readiness to fix bugs immediately will help big times with getting more approval votes for the bot. --Martina Nolte _talk 05:12, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Bot changes in ruwiki

Hello. Here is the edit of your bot: ru:Special:Diff/87413759. It looks strange because of many things:

1. Bot adds link http://bozza.ru/art-94.html, which is already present in {{cite web}} invocation.
2. Bot adds deadurl=yes, while link is active and not dead.
3. This all things happens at the same time, when webcitation returns broken data (пїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅпїЅ ← that is not Russian).

Why it is happening (that is definetely not an "rescue") and what can be done to solve this problems? — Vort (talk) 08:59, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Not a bot bot issue. To address the first issue, the bot converted the archive to long form. To address the second deadurl=yes is implied when an archive is added, so the output isn’t changed. To address the third, the bot didn’t add the WebCite URL.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:36, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

1.1. I don't see any long forms at the webcitation.org website. Freshly created links have the same short ids, which was there many years ago.

1.2. If the task is to save url somewhere (for the case when webcitation goes to nowhere) — it's ok, but there should be no duplication. Now URL is located in 3 places: url= and archiveurl= parameters and at actual WebCite page. That is redundancy and that is bad.

2. No, it is better to add archive link while source is available, than find at later time that there are no archives available. And it is not too hard to check for 404 error instead of guessing.

3. But bot pretend to "rescue" it. For real rescue (in this case), the link should be archived one more time (if this is possible of course) [ example ].

— Vort (talk) 10:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Same thing in it.wiki at [[6]] --Scalorbio (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

On enwiki, it's a policy to not use short form links and that all archive URLs require the snapshot timestamp and original URL in the URL. If you don't want this to happen on ruwiki, you can disable said function by setting "convert_archive" to 0 on the configuration page. Redundancy is never bad, at least not how I see it. The bot isn't guessing here. It never guesses. If a link is dead, it will add an archive to it, if not, it won't do anything unless it sees the original marked as dead on wiki. To the bot, adding archive URLs to cite templates implies the fact that the original is dead, strictly because the cite template generates the archive link to click on when "deadurl=yes" is omitted, and the bot will treat it as such, but what the bot thinks, and how it behaves depends on how it is marked on Wikipedia. If there exists an archive URL in a cite template, whether or not deadurl=yes is set or not, the output it generates is the same. You should be setting deadurl=no if you intend to convey that the URL is still alive.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 10:50, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

• At first, deadurl is not supported in ruwiki. At second, When the URL is still live, but pre-emptively archived, then set |dead-url=no which means that deadurl=yes, for alive urls is a violence of template rules. And here is more than 20 cases of this incorrect behaviour. Bsivko (talk) 23:18, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

  @Bsivko: At first, ruwiki supports |deadurl, you linked me to enwiki BTW. Please see the documentation on ruwiki. The default value of the template when deadurl is not set is to set deadurl=yes to link the archive on the page. IABot is not changing anything except to make the default value of the template visible. Secondly, it's ADDING deadurl=yes to cite templates with archive URLs set, since deadurl=yes is the default value in those cases. It's not changing deadurl=no to deadurl=yes.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:08, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  I do not see any deadurl or dead-url in ruwiki template and its doc. Why the bot doesn't check whether the url is dead or not? Bsivko (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  If it helps, I can have IABot stop using deadlink altogethor. Would that help?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 09:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Russian deadlink works differently: Сюда боты обычно вписывают коды отказа (404, 403, etc). Код 200 означает «нет ошибки» и его причинами могут быть либо возвращение ссылки к жизни (и тогда параметр deadlink должен быть удалён) либо «мягкое 404», когда сообщение об ошибке сервера некорректно сопровождается кодом 200. . In a nutshell, bot checks HTTP response code and set it as is in deadlink. For alive links code is 200 and deadlink=200 or should be deleted. For dead url and for instance reponse code 403 we will get deadlink=403. Bsivko (talk) 10:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Being able to enter the URL codes might not be that bad an improvement to the en.WP templates, actually. Maybe you should suggest that at Help talk:CS1. --Izno (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

  Here is the topic about ruwiki. Enwiki is out of discussion. And the bot in ruwiki domain still works incurrectly. Bsivko (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

• Hi, how can I disable the addition of the deadurl tag? Iniquity (talk) 23:18, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

  I have to remove it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 11:00, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  Removed in v1.5.2.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 11:35, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

  Thanks! :) Iniquity (talk) 14:34, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

Adminstats bot not updating

Template:Adminstats/Maile66 - the bot doesn't seem to have run on adminstats last night. — Maile (talk) 11:52, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Translatable link targets

Hello, nice to see edits on it.wiki. Now that the bot is cross-wiki, it would be more appropriate for the linked pages (such as the user page) to reside on Meta-Wiki, where the Translate extension is available to translate them. --Nemo 12:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

It is already.  :-)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:00, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot

Hello Cyberpower678. Your InternetArchiveBot declares a link dead that is not dead, please look under als:Marietta Kobald. What can I do? Thank you, --Freigut (talk) 08:50, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help at als:Wikipedia:Stammtisch#En toote Link, wo nöd tood isch. --Freigut (talk) 20:06, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Stop InternetArchiveBot now

Stop InternetArchiveBot now. This bot occur error in Japanese Wikipedia. This bot add to strings 2017年09月 that is error. zero is unneeded. This error not fixed.--JapaneseA (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Should be fixed now.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:23, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot in jawp(deadurldate)

Hello Cyberpower678, and thank you for introduction your lovely bot into jawp. (I had been expecting this so much...!) I come here about your bot's edits. Your bot uses the parameter "deadurldate", but Japanese {{cite web}} doesn't have such parameter. You should use the parameters "deadlink" or "deadlinkdate" in order to indicate WP:DEADREF. Can you fix that? Thank you for your contribution. --FMmice (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

• And more, your bot forgets to make the link to meta:InternetArchiveBot/FAQ in messages.(cf. ja:ノート:スウィート17モンスター) Wouldn't you mind checking it?--FMmice (talk) 00:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

fr.wikipedia

Hello.

Please go to fr.wikipedia. There are some problems with the bot. It is disable for now. Supertoff (talk) 07:20, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

I've responded there.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Odd bot edit

Curious, what's the point of this bot edit? I mean, nothing's wrong; it's just pointless, unless I'm misunderstanding something. If you look a little back in the edit history, I moved the subsection in question from its original location in the section for unprotection requests. Nyttend (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Looks like it is sorting it by date time. --Izno (talk) 13:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

That's exactly what it's doing.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Ah, okay; I never knew that they were sorted chronologically. Of course we want people to put new requests at the bottom, but I didn't know that we bothered with rearranging items that weren't in chronological order. Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Rw: Enlaces externos modificados (es:Arenas Club)

About BOT InternetArchiveBot Worked perfect on es:Arenas Club page. diff

bar.wp

Hi Cyberpower678, bar.wp is ready for the InternetArchiveBot:

• https://bar.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Dischkrian:Autornportal#InternetArchiveBot

Many thanks in advance! --Joe Watzmo (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Ann Linley

Sorry to pester you here but I am a little confused about an edit made by Internet Archive Bot on Elizabeth Ann Linley; I did check the FAQs first but couldn't find an answer. Kolbertbot changed the http to https here on 27 August and now IAB has just changed a couple of them back to http here. When I try them, both http and https work. Can you help, please? SagaciousPhil - Chat 13:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It’s a known bug. It’s fixed in the next release.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:50, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realise it was a bug already reported; I just had visions of the two bots edit warring with each other. Thanks for such a prompt response. :-) SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:06, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Run IABot on all pages in a domain

I'm trying to update all of the broken links in Wikipedia for ias.ac.in. Is it possible to update all of the links on this domain using the IABot management interface? Jarble (talk) 15:36, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Any Wikipedia administrator can load pages containing a given domain and instruct the bot to run on those.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:47, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Since I am not an administrator, I am unable to do this. Is there another way to run IABot on all of these pages so that the links will be updated? Jarble (talk) 01:18, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

@Jarble: I have initiated the bot run for you. You can track it here. Be aware that IABot holds to a waiting period before officially declaring a link dead. If you need to run the job again, just copy out the list from that job and submit it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:22, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot uses a parameter that not exist

Hello, I'm came from Japanese Wikipedia. And I'm going to tell about the problem of your bot on Japanese Wikipedia.

Your bot uses the parameter "deadurldate", but it is not exist. (ja:Template:Cite web) The right one is "deadlinkdate". Could you fix it? (deadurldate => deadlinkdate)

Please see also this.

Thank you. (I'm sorry but my English is ankward.) 青羽雀 (talk) 14:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

Bunping this.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

@青羽雀: This is fixed in v1.5.3.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Archive bot on Norwegian WP - continuing

Continuing User_talk:Cyberpower678/Archive_51#InternetArchiveBot_on_Norwegian_WP. This page is filed so quickly it makes discussion difficult. A RfC on english WP is not relevant for Norwegian WP. I want to be able to cite an archived page whithout using the original url-dress. The original adresse is filed on the archived page and can be found there. When I cite a source I want to be able to cite the source I have actually used and in some cases it is not the live original url. How to I stop the bot from changing my citation and inserting a page I have not cited. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 10:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dyveldi: IABot hasn't changed your citation. It's still going to the same archive you added. Just to clarify that. To shut it off, go to no:Bruker:InternetArchiveBot/Dead-links.js and change 'convert_archives' to 0.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 11:47, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

A RfC on english WP is not relevant for Norwegian WP .. this is true, but have you read it? Are you aware of the security consequences of your decisions, and has it been discussed with the rest of the Norwegian community? -- GreenC 13:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion User:GreenC is pointing to Wikipedia talk:Using archive.is is about archive.is and not about using WebCitation. The last time I saw a discussion about archive.is I traced the ownership of the domain to a person "Denis Petrov" in Prague, see [[7]]. I can't find the word security on the talk page. Personally I would not use archive.is at all since I was not able to find an organization and I don't think anyone can predict how long this domain and it's activities will go on. I have noticed that the bot does insert this privately owned and run domain in Norwegian WP and I think it should be discussed if we want this domain used at all. In this case it will be necessary to have the original since archive.is probably is not reliable. Yes I will initiate a discussion about this on Norwegian WP at a later stage when I have more complete information. Are you able to give me an extract of the security issues you are referring to?

To User:Cyberpower678. In the example I had at the time used both the live original url and the archived url. From this perspective the edit was redundant.

-- The original page has at a later stage died (I have his new employee page so it will be easy to fix the dead/live issue). In addition my citation contains two links to Wayback Machine and here I notice that the archived page with WM looks like the original and the page I archived with WebCitation looks funny but since it contained the information I wanted to cite I used it.

-- The question is what happens if I use only an archived url for citation and intentionally omit the original url. What if I do not want to cite the original url and do not want it in the citation? Will the bot insert it anyway? Is it possible to stop the bot from changing the citation. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 19:22, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

And I apologize since won't be reading your answers for a couple of days since tomorrow the person who's biography I have used as an example is talking about proper sourcing in Norwegian for Wikipedia writers in Oslo. He has published scientifically in English and I can recommend his articles, especially the urban legends (about Popeye and his spinach) and sinking sheep. He is an expert on proper referencing. Then next few days will be dedicated to my workplace. Can't very well quit working because of Wikipedia. Please be patient, I appreciate your answers and I will read them at the latest in the weekend. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 19:31, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)@Dyveldi: So the bot has two different maintenance functions it applies when handling citation templates. The first maintenance function, which has no option to turn off, is enforcing correct use of the template by moving the archive URL from the 'url' parameter to 'arkiv_url' and placing the original url in the 'url' parameter. It does this because this is how the template is designed to be used. The template displays when the information was accessed as well as from when the snapshot was made on the archive. This is important information when citing and should be visible. As for using archive.is, it only uses it if there is no Wayback or WebCite snapshot available. We are well aware of how shady archive.is is and it was for a time entirely blacklisted here on Wikipedia. The second maintenance function, which can be turned off, is forcing the use of longform archive URLs so the original can be extrapolated if necessary, as well as the snapshot timestamp. On enwiki it is mandatory to force long forms of all archive URLs as is on dewiki, but some wikis discourage the use of long form and require short form instead. So this can be turned off by setting 'convert_archives' to 0 on the bot's local wiki configuration JS. This does add redundancy in many cases, but it does ensure the original URL is always known if the archives die for some reason, as well as all relevant information regarding the URL. On enwiki, there is a parameter called 'deadurl' and while setting it to 'yes' links it to the archive and the original, setting it to 'no' only links to the original. However, setting it to 'usurped' or 'bot: unknown' completely hides the original from rendering on the article. IABot supports this function, and if the template on nowiki supports this, I can add it to IABot.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:36, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

On enwiki, there is a parameter called 'deadurl' and while setting it to 'yes' links it to the archive and the original, setting it to 'no' only links to the original. (emphasis added) Not true:

{{cite web |dead-url=no |url=//example.com |archive-url=//example.org |archive-date=2017-09-13 |title=Example}}

"Example". Archived from the original on 2017-09-13. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Two links there; one to the original, and one to the archive. It has pretty-much always been thus.

|dead-url= selects which of |url= or |archive-url= is applied to the rendering of |title=.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:01, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

The discussion User:GreenC is pointing to Wikipedia talk:Using archive.is is about archive.is and not about using WebCitation. - this is factually incorrect as is demonstrated by reading the RfC where there is discussion about link shortening at WebCite and Archive.is which hides spam, malicious code and black listed links. Archive.is is a last resort when no better option is available, something is better than nothing. However I don't think archive.is is as shady or unreliable as is being made out, in my experience WebCite is more unreliable from a technical perspective. They all have issues. -- GreenC 20:18, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

--To User:Cyberpower678 - In the example we are discussing citation no 3 now links to 4 different url-adresses. The citation have this text:

«Ole Bjørn Rekdal (ansattside)» [WB] (nors). Høgskolen i Bergen. Arkivert fra originalen [WB] 2017-09-03. Besøkt 3. september 2017. (the underlining is mine)

1) Ole Bjørn Rekdal (ansattside) links to the archived page with Webcitation which I initiated.

2) Arkivert fra originalen links to the original url which have since died. The text translated to English is archived from the original.

3) The first [WB] links to Wayback Machine and should have been an archived version of the WebCite page. The page seems to be empty except for the heading.

4) The second [WB] links to Wayback Machine and is an archived version of the original page.

This means that the citation now links to 3 archived pages and this seems to be at least one too many.

-- Further when I archived with WebCite the content was intact, but the layout was not kept. I have seen this several times with WebCite and wonder why.

-- The first [WB] (3)) linking to the archives of WebCite does not seem to work at all. In addition it was archived September 5th and not on the 3rd which is the correct date for the other two archived pages.

-- The second [WB] (4)) is a good copy of the original page and much better than 2) with WebCite.

-- Why does this citation produce so many links to different archives?

-- I probably have some more questions. I do want to make sure that I understand this correctly and be able to use the functionality correctly when citing in the future. I also would like to give other users especially newcomers proper explanations on how to get citations right. The explanation should be easy to use and right now this seems slightly complicated. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 16:54, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

@Dyveldi: I'm not sure I'm following what you are saying here. When I look at the reference, I see a link to WebCite, and a link to the original. Nothing else. All IABot did here was expand the WebCite URL, and fill in the archive date of the snapshot in the template. It didn't anything else to the template or the reference. Maybe there is some confusion here?—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:17, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience.

1) linked to the url - http://www.webcitation.org/6tCojHLQV

- and was changed to http://www.webcitation.org/6tCojHLQV?url=http://www.hib.no/personside/?username=OBR

- the archived copy has lost the layout of the original

2) links to the original url - http://www.hib.no/personside/?username=OBR the url is dead

3) links to the url - http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.webcitation.org/6tCojHLQV?url=http://www.hib.no/personside/?username=OBR

- which contains one screenshot http://web.archive.org/web/20170905184058/http://www.webcitation.org/6tCojHLQV?url=http://www.hib.no/personside/?username=OBR

- the screenshot seems to be empty. The page was archived on September 5, 2017. which is not the same archive date as no 4) and 1)

- before the bot changed the url it used to link to http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.webcitation.org/6tCojHLQV which does not contain an archived page.

4) links to the url - http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.hib.no/personside/?username=OBR

- which contains 1 screenshot http://web.archive.org/web/20170903204815/http://www.hib.no/personside/?username=OBR

- and is a good copy of no 2) as it was when alive.

This I counted as 4 different urls. 1 original, 2 different urls with archive.org and 1 with webcitation.org. --ツ^ツDyveldi ^{☯ prat} _{✉ post} 17:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, no matter where I look on that page. I just don't see the links you mention. I only can click through to http://www.webcitation.org/6tCojHLQV?url=http://www.hib.no/personside/?username=OBR, which is what the bot expanded, and http://www.hib.no/personside/?username=OBR which was there to begin with. Based on the looks of things, you may have some sort of gadget enabled in your account. Since it's not enabled on mine, I can assume the gadget is not on by default.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:38, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

bar.wp

Hi Cyberpower678, bar.wp is ready for the InternetArchiveBot:

• https://bar.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Dischkrian:Autornportal#InternetArchiveBot

Many thanks in advance! --Joe Watzmo (talk) 09:29, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Noted thank you.

Wrong archive

Your iabot keeps mangling a url on the book of common prayer page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Common_Prayer . In the Oceania section it changes this:

http://anglicanprayerbook.nz A New Zealand Prayer Book, He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa
to this:
https://web.archive.org/web/20090622115607/http://pbsusa.org/PBLinks.htm A New Zealand Prayer Book, He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa

This web archive page is nothing to do with the New Zealand prayer book. Sorry about the 'Trout' but I have no idea how to fix or report this, hence this message, in a no doubt inappropriate forum... Sunblade1500 (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. I went ahead and did an initial investigation and reported it at Phab ticket and also made a correction to the article which includes some {{cbignore}} tags just in case so it won't happen again. It looks possibly caused by those extra {{ and }} though Cyberpower will need to determine. -- GreenC 01:42, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

This is an old edit. Just revert those you see. IABot shouldn't be making those mistakes anymore.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, thank you GreenC and Cyberpower678 for fixing this, I hope the fix sticks! And I don't have to make more noise in a few months time when a bot reviews the page again...! May the Peace of Christ be with you.Sunblade1500

IABot stripping https from webcitation.org

Hi,

I've noticed IABot is stripping https back to http in certain cases with www.webcitation.org links... any idea why? As far as I can tell, those links work via https, so wouldn't that be the preferred URL format to list them in? —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:06, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Arrgh... sorry, forgot to give an example. —Joeyconnick (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I need to update the DB entries to HTTPS. I made the update to the code, but I forgot to update the DB.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:19, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

About the 1RR thing

How am I supposed to be able to edit when editors game my restriction on something so simple as reverting a POV tag? I have reverted the removal but I'm pretty sure it won't last long. One look at the talk page shows three discussions about neutrality, the editor who reverted me has made one comment, claimed consensus and that's it? I have opened an RFC, but a POV tag is not meant to be removed until discussions are done, I could use some advice on such a situation thanks. Darkness Shines (talk) 05:33, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

I was right, already reverted Darkness Shines (talk) 05:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

It's always better to consult a 3rd neutral party to assess this. I don't know the full details, but you started an RfC and placed the tag. As far as process is concerned, the cannot be removed until the discussion is resolved, so I have re-instated the tag, and have the tag linking directly to the discussion.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, I gotta admit, this is the weirdest article talk page I have ever encountered. Darkness Shines (talk) 17:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Darkness Shines: This is where I recommend getting a WP:3O and having them comment there.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:34, 24 September 2017 (UTC)