Jump to content

User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.
This user has 70% energy left.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user is a global renamer.
This user is an edit filter manager on the English Wikipedia.
This user has interface administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20
Senior Editor II
Senior Editor II

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
The technical work you've been doing, like managing bots, creating new accounts and getting various things done as soon as possible is why each person's contributions (even if small) make a big impact on improving Wikipedia as a whole! Keep up the good work :) ~TheGeneralUser (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. :-) Sorry for the late response.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 16:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

pp-pc1 tagging task

Hi Cyber, have you had a chance to make the two updates? Which were the waiting time between the article being protected and the bot tagging the page and the bot including the expiry time and date. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:18, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Not yet. Sorry.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 17:51, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Duck Attack!

I translated, duck attack on the German Main page ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Umm... I'm sorry what?—cyberpower ChatAbsent 17:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Signature Help

I really like your signature. Can I use it for my signature? Thanks! Yoshi24517 17:04, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Sure.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 17:46, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

xtools problem

Hi. There seems to be a problem at https://tools.wmflabs.org/ with xtools. At https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/ all I see is "No input file specified." — Wbm1058 (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, this is also affecting the article count tool. DS (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
This is awesome. Either someone messed with the tool, or it broke itself. I'm not getting any information at where the problem could be, meaning I get to dig through the code to see if I can find it. :/—cyberpower ChatAbsent 19:16, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
The edit counter still not right seems to take an age and then eventually gives the error The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server. The proxy server could not handle the request GET /xtools/pcount/index.php.Blethering Scot 21:00, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Works for me!—cyberpower ChatAbsent 21:05, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
Something is not right maybe with labs though, don't know. Tried 5 times before posting and got that error. Then when you posted it worked and I've tried about another 5 times, 3 it worked and the other two got the same error.Blethering Scot 21:12, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

AFD

Cyberbot I added some odd entries into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 January 31. Mkdwtalk 00:07, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Note, there is now an WP:AN/I discussion regarding a side effect of the bot translcuding those pages into daily deletion logs, here. I've taken a shot in the dark that this may have been the cause, but its a guess at best. Monty845 17:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Pinging so this doesn't get archived straight away. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Unless I'm not seeing something, it doesn't seem to be happening anymore. Since it isn't I cannot tell you what was causing it. Monty seems to have fixed it though.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 22:13, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

m:Meta:Sandbox

Could your bot at least use the correct version when performing reverts of this sandbox (use the version number present in the "reset link" ? Also your bot absolutely does not need to run so often, twice a day: the Meta sandbox already includes a "reset edits" since long. verdy_p (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

I think I disabled it, but I'm not sure (check my enwiki edits). m:User_talk:Verdy_p#Meta:Sandbox. πr2 (t • c) 16:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll update the header so it won't we with you, but it's approved to operate twice a day for over a year now.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisting of cbronline.com being mishandled.

Links many years old to "cbronline.com" are as of late 2013 being flagged as spam. "cbronline" used to be a legitimate news source, but is now "Your tech social network". The bot is going too far back into the past, and needs to be checking the dates of the links. Links before some cutoff date should be automatically converted to Internet Archive links. The article RegisterFly was hit by this bot. Please fix. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 21:50, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

See discussion at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#cbronline.com. I think this can be fixed by changing the regular expression. "Old links" have the form "?guid=" followed by a large hex number, and should be kept. New links don't, and can be blacklisted. The old links are all dead, but are in the Internet Archive and can be fixed. --John Nagle (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
If it's on the blacklist, it'll get flagged because once removed, it can't be added back. Dates are irrelevant and technically impossible to implement in the manner you suggest.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 18:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Odd thing

Bit concerned about this edit CB I made on WP:RFPP as it prevented parsing anything below it. I know it's very rare for it to need to parse signatures containing potential wikicode and probably worth mentioning to user:jpgordon but anything you feel needs to be done to prevent it? tutterMouse (talk) 18:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

What potential wikicode is my signature? I've been using it for several years now, and nothing problematic has come up; if something is assuming that == is always the start of a header or something like that, it needs to correct that assumption. (Or perhaps it's assuming that :: is always the start of an indented comment?) --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
When I look at that part of the signature, for some reason that popped in my mind is a penis, which is something I really don't want to be thinking about, especially when I look at signatures. More to the point, I need to take a closer look at header parsing to make sure this doesn't happen again.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 18:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Always glad to be a test case, whether for your parser or your psyche. --jpgordon::==( o ) 18:57, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
:D—cyberpower ChatAbsent 19:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Custom RfX templates

I've been thinking for a while now about making some custom RfX report templates. It would be nice to have, e.g. a RfX report userbox, a collapsible RfX report template, and maybe others. On my userpage, for example, I think an RfX userbox would work best, and I've had trouble figuring out a good place to put User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report. How about making Cyberbot I's RfX data available via a Lua module? This way users could write their own RfX reports templates, and just get the RfX data from the Lua module. I could write the module code, so you won't need to learn Lua for this. To make it work, Cyberbot I would need to update a Lua table in a /data submodule with data about currently open RfAs and RfBs. Do you think this is a good idea? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:13, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I really Mr. S's idea here as well. Depending on how this goes, it would be possible to expand that module to include relevant data/reports for other types of requests for permissions such as how many (and a list of) edit protected requests someone has made to templates, modules, or interface messages for  Template editor userright requests. Technical 13 (talk) 14:39, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Well, we should probably separate the modules thematically. It would make sense to me to have Module:RfX data and Module:Edit request count rather than one big Module:Data for everything. But that's assuming that Cyberpower wants to go through with this, of course. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Pinging so this doesn't get archived straight away. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Yea sure. Create a few Lua templates that Cyberbot should update, and I'll make the modifications.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 22:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, I've created Template:RfX template maker, which uses Module:RfX template maker. The data page that Cyberbot would update is at Module:RfX template maker/data. The format should be fairly self-explanatory. I've put the strings inside double quotes, but you might want to use [=[ ]=] notation if you're concerned about double quotes appearing in your data. (Or you can escape them with \".) See the Lua Wiki for a tutorial about what kinds of string notation there are and what escapes exist. And let me know if you have any questions. :) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, I've set up a demo of the template at User:Mr. Stradivarius/RfX with a row template at User:Mr. Stradivarius/RfX/row. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Multiple edits to single AfD for two pages

Please check [1]. Apparently the bot didn't like my way of doing a multiple nomination, for whatever reason. I don't think the bot should complain about this problem more than once on the AfD page itself, especially not ten times in a row. So I have two questions. (1) Could you tell the bot not to multi-notify for a single problem? (2) In a two-article nomination, I believe both topics nominated should be in the heading, to show both of them in the table of contents. Can you teach the bot to understand that or teach me how to do that in a way that the bot understands? Thank you, —Kusma (t·c) 10:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Pinging so this doesn't get archived straight away. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 21:52, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Each article should have its own AfD. If there are multiple articles about the same thing, list them under the header, and the header should have the primary article.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 22:18, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Okay, you answered part (2): that is the structure the bot likes. In (1) I am asking you to make a change to the bot -- if somebody else screws up their AfD nominations as badly as I do (I may be a bit out of practice, but when I became an admin, it wouldn't have been a problem to do what I did), the bot should not give more than one error message. I think it might even edit war if reverted, and bots that edit war must be shut off or blocked. —Kusma (t·c) 19:45, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Sorry. I have deployed a patch that should fix that. I haven't tested it though.—cyberpower Temporarily OnlineBe my Valentine 20:51, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you! I hope I didn't make you break anything else. Happy coding, —Kusma (t·c) 22:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Melissa_Scott_(pastor)

Hey, just a quick question, can you check your bot regarding this AfD listing? I fear it's continually relisting a debate. Not sure of the details on it, but I'm leaving this for you to take a glance at. Thanks! Thargor Orlando (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

According to the transclusion list, it's only currently transcluded to one log, meaning it might be getting removed from the logs prematurely.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 18:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
It's why I'm asking. I transcluded it here (and it's still on the January 31 list), and the bot added it three days later (and it's still on the February 2 list), and then it added it today (where it now sits). I might have screwed it up to begin with, but I'm not sure what's triggering the bot to act. Thargor Orlando (talk) 23:07, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I only saw one log transclusion when I looked. It might be a MediaWiki caching issue.96.245.0.56 (talk) 23:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Just to follow up, the bot has added it to the last three days as well. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:25, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Cyber this does appear to be an issue. It added to the log yesterday here then notified the AFD here and it's doing this daily. If it's just this one AFD then the task doesn't need stopped because it's doing way more good than harm, but you need to look into in case doing on a wider scale. In which case bot task does need stopped.Blethering Scot 16:52, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I've got the script running through my debugger right now. It's definitely not wide scale but the 2006 creation is potentially confusing it.—cyberpower AbsentBe my Valentine 16:55, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I found the bug. I'll have a fix out shortly.—cyberpower AbsentBe my Valentine 17:22, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked Cyberbot II in emergency for incorrect mass-removal of PC templates. There were database problems around that time, which might explain misbehavior, yet I think the bot should have a safeguard against such (recurring) problems before it could be unblocked. Materialscientist (talk) 07:01, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

There is a run page for that. You are causing collateral damage. Can you unblock and disable the task instead?—cyberpower AbsentBe my Valentine 07:04, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Done. Materialscientist (talk) 07:08, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll look at the task at my earliest convenience which isn't very early, sadly. Thanks for unblocking. :-)—cyberpower AbsentBe my Valentine 07:09, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HappyBird

Cyberbot flagged this as "not correctly transcluded into the log" and trancluded it into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 11. I previously transcluded it into Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 10, so now it's transcluded twice. 1) Should either of these transclusions be removed, and if so, which one? 2) Did I botch the transclusion or did the bot make a mistake (or both)? Note that my work yesterday was to manually fix up an AFD that was not done properly in the first place, see the AFD and its edit history for details. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Have a look 3 threads up. You can just leave both transclusions.—cyberpower Temporarily OnlineBe my Valentine 18:57, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 20:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

RFPP edit conflicts

Hi Cyber. I keep edit conflicting with Cyberbot I when answering requests at WP:RFPP. It looks like the bot is only leaving a delay of a minute or two after the articles are protected before leaving its "please confirm" message. Is this by design? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 16:11, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

It actually runs every 15 minutes. You just happen to protect it at that time.—cyberpower AbsentBe my Valentine 18:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Calendar talk pages

Been noticing some strange activity at Talk:March 2007. Just thought I'd mention it. Mkdwtalk 22:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Cyber, sorry to do this but given the major sensitivities surrounding this particular bot task I've disabled the task for now. Given the contributions it doesn't appear to be just this page, but a small number.Blethering Scot 22:55, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
The pages have the tag via a transclusion of another page containing blacklisted links. The bot is slightly mixed up as a result. Removing the threads fixes the issue. I will therefore re-enable the task.—cyberpower AbsentBe my Valentine 23:26, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, i do feel at some point a more robust fix is needed to stop the issue materialising again. Also it would be worth checking the bots contribs to see the other articles its having the issue on.Blethering Scot 23:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Of course. I have removed the thread from the affected articles.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 00:25, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbot I edit warring with itself

Hi Cyberpower,

please check out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Gorman, where Cyberbot I makes an edit every 6 hours and then self-reverts. It is not very harmful, but probably not intended. Happy editing, —Kusma (t·c) 11:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I've disabled the AfD task, as I noticed a similar problem at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Pitylak. Perhaps this was caused by something in today's rollout of MediaWiki 1.23/wmf13? Anyway, feel free to enable the bot again once you've worked out what was going wrong and have fixed the issues. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:24, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Couldn't have been today's deployment; it hasn't happened yet. Jackmcbarn (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
It's not. It has something to do with the issue mentioned by Kusma above. My fix broke something else.—cyberpower AbsentBe my Valentine 19:30, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Any expected time on when it's going to be back up? No hurry, just wondering. 6an6sh6 07:56, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll try to fix it sometime today. If not, it'll have to wait until the weekend.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 18:35, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
  •  Fixed I ran it through the debugger and it turns out that it was a caching issue were it was retrieving an old copy of the page. By force updating, the issue has been resolved.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 19:43, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! 6an6sh6 19:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

minor bot oops

diff. Haven't see any others today. Bgwhite (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Some user activated a bot task. I switched it off again.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 18:36, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Template:Cratstats updating incorrectly

Hi, the bot has edited the template dozens of times since the last RFA was closed on Sunday the 16th, and it's still listing one open. Not a big deal, but maybe you could look at it when you get the chance? Thanks. Pakaran 16:46, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Somebody made some changes to the page so the bot is slightly confused. A minor update will fix this.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 18:37, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
 Fixed There you go.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 19:51, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the rapid fix.  :) Pakaran 22:34, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Bot mistake-I did not remove a template

I restored the prod after the user deleted it but someone else had the afd template that I simply put it over. Wgolf (talk) 20:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

An AfD overrides a prod. Removing the template, regardless, while there is an active AfD discussion is a no-no.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 20:03, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Zavkhan Province

On Talk:Zavkhan Province I am told about a blacklisted reference. I am unsure what I can or should do about it. Please provide some guidance to me, here or on my talk page.--DThomsen8 (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm a little confused myself, as I do not know what about the instructions you are unclear about. Can you elaborate?—cyberpower ChatAbsent 01:07, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I am going to sleep on it, and investigate tomorrow.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:43, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

My site has been blacklisted

Hi-- and sorry, I'm not a frequent Wikipedia editor, so my knowledge of syntax and protocols is pretty non-existent. But I have a Wikipedia page, and there's a message at the top saying that links to preposterousuniverse.com have been blacklisted. That's my personal site, so I'm not sure why it would be blacklisted. Either it's a mistake, or someone has hacked into my server, and I'd certainly like to know in either case. Let me know if I should be talking to someone else in particular. Thanks! Seanmcarroll (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)Seanmcarroll

(talk page stalker) The reason is that a Wikipedia admin added your site to the spam blacklist, in this edit. Looking at the edit summary, it seems that we had spam bots adding it to some of our articles. Its use in your article is obviously ok, so probably the best thing to do would be to add it to the spam whitelist just for your page. I'll look into that for you. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:11, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
@Seanmcarroll: I've made a request for whitelisting, so hopefully this should be resolved before too long. That page is a little backlogged, though, so it probably won't be done straight away. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks! Although I think there are various other Wikipedia pages that also link to my site, as I keep there a number of resources (lecture notes, blog posts, etc.). Is it possible to get whitelisted for any Wikipedia page? Also, if there are spambots operating from my site, I'd like to fix the problem -- do you know what the specific evidence is? Seanmcarroll (talk) 06:16, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the whitelist makes specific URLs available to all Wikipedia pages, while other pages from that site remain blocked. I'd have to check that, though. Anyway, if you have other Wikipedia pages that you would like the URLs to be available for, it would be helpful if you could list them at the whitelist request. I don't know the specific evidence that led to the site being blacklisted; for that you would have to ask NawlinWiki, the user that added the site to the list. But by far the most likely explanation is that it was a spam bot that was just using your URL, not a spam bot that was operating from your site. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
I'll do that, thanks again. Seanmcarroll (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

cyberbot I comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu Kush (Kunar)

Hello, cyberbot I added a comment to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hindu Kush (Kunar) showing that it had added an AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 20. I had already added that AfD to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2014 February 14 six days ago. An earlier AfD I had proposed received the same comment, so I'm wondering if I'm doing something wrong in the AfD process, or if the bot is confused, or if I am confused. Thanks, SchreiberBike talk 07:17, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

It looks like a bot bug, that I had applied a fix for in the past. I'll have to take another look.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 14:50, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

RfX report

Cyberbot I is not updating the RfX report for the current RfA. This isn't a big deal right now because the current RfA is not likely to go anywhere. Still, I figured I should let you know in case there is a problem with the bot. The RfA was not originally formatted properly, so it may have something to do with that (although User:Amalthea/RfX/Overview was able to pick it up). Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:08, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

The RfA is now closed, so there is no rush at all. Northern Antarctica (talk) 17:54, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

Fehlendes Bild in xtools/pcount

https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=Cyberpower678&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia versucht an dem Seitenende https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/images/labs.png einzubinden, was aber mangels Existenz nicht klappt. Könntest Du bitte entweder das Bild in das richtige Verzeichnis schieben oder die Einfügung entfernen? Danke! --Tim Landscheidt (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Mach ich bevor ich schlafen gehe.

How do you stop your bot from spamming its pointless tag?

Here for example. The talk page notice is enough. Nobody is going to remove those refs because they are valid WP:RS. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell your bot is not listed in Category:Wikipedia bots which are exclusion compliant. If you do not rectify this problem ASAP, I'll ask for your bot to be blocked. It's unacceptable for a bot to edit war with human editors. Someone not using his real name (talk) 12:42, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

It's equally unacceptable, that the article is using blacklisted links and your showing no interest in removing them. The bot is directed to post on both talk and article pages and leaves the article in a cat. Read the bot's instructions in future, the tag isn't supposed to be removed, it should be tagged invisible =true per its clear instructions or added to the exceptions list.Blethering Scot 14:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
What I did is not at all unacceptable. CBR is RS; there is no reason to remove the links. IF you want to challenge that go to WP:RS/N and make your case, if you think you have one. Don't edit war with me on technicalities. Are YOU going to remove the links? Is the article supposed to have a non-actionable tag for eternity? Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Why not just get the site removed from the blacklist? This edit is the one you should be taking issue with. If you get that removed from the blacklist then you won't have any more problems, and it probably won't be too hard to get it done. I would do it myself, but I'm on a public terminal now so I can't access my admin account. If you want to go the ANI route then you can, but be aware that this exact same discussion has been had there before more than once, if memory serves correctly. (Sorry, can't dig up the links right now.) — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 14:32, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius on tour: he's advised me he won't apply for whitelisting, because it has no chance of being done. And no its down to you to go to RS, they are on the blacklist the burden is on you no won else. If you don't want to request whitelist, you have told me you won't then no they will and should be removed. You should always read the bot instructions, nor is it not actionable. The tag isn't shown on the page now is it, its hidden as you would know if you bothered to read the instructions or request whitelisting or put the page on the bot exception list, not an option since won't be whitelisted.Blethering Scot 14:36, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
@Mr. Stradivarius on tour: Also as you will know its not showing on the page, as i was bothered to read the instructions on the template, as he was directed to do so. This leaves it in the cat and does not leave on the page.Blethering Scot 14:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
  • I have re-enabled the bot. There is documentation everywhere on how to get the bot to stop tagging the page. Read it. It is also exclusion compliant. There has been discussion everywhere regarding this bot, with the outcome being to operate the bot the way it does now.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 14:58, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Wait Cyber tell me he didn't disable the bot. Blethering Scot 14:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
He did.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 15:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Question about Cyberbot at RFPP

Cyberbot says a page wasn't protected at 18:53, however it was at 18:29. Am I missing something (note it was an increase from create by autoconfirmed to create by admin)? --kelapstick(bainuu) 19:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

It did the same thing on the talk page after I create protected it. I wonder if it is not recognizing create protection as being protected. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:07, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
If memory serves, there have always been problems with getting bots to recognise create protection, presumably because the protected page doesn't exist. As to what (if anything) can be done about it, I don't know; I'll leave that to Cyberpower. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
It should recognize it. I have to debug it.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 19:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Jumping the gun a bit

Hi, just to let you know that the bot posted on RfPP that List of TriStar Pictures films was protected during the same minute that I protected it, which led to an edit conflict. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi Cyberpower, sorry to add to the list of people moaning about your bot (it does valuable work at RfPP), but it did something simialr to me yesterday. Perhaps you could programme it so that it waits five minutes before adding a note at RfPP? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:18, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Does it not run every 15 mins, rather than in reply to an action.Blethering Scot 19:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes it does. But I can have it wait after protecting to make a comment.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 19:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Thats equally likely to edit conflict with another protection or comment being added. Both would lead to edit conflicts, the first by a scheduled time and the second by coincidence neither are better.Blethering Scot 19:56, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi cyberpower, if the bot could wait long enough (a few minutes at most) for the protecting admin to respond in that section on RfPP that protection has been added, that would avoid those edit conflicts. (Not sure about the other edit conflicts Blethering Scot raised.) Better still would be if we could tick a box to have the bot respond on our behalf on RfPP. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:01, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Sure.—cyberpower ChatAbsent 15:30, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
What I'm saying is thats unlikely to avoid edit conflicts altogether. A bot running ever 15 mins, is as likely as a bot running 5 mins after the protection to cause a conflict. Its random and likely to lead to more requests to change it again. The only thing likely to decrease conflicts is the bot running less and that not necessarily favourable. Blethering Scot 18:17, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
It won't eliminate edit conflicts altogether, but it makes it less likely that the bot will conflict with an admin who has just returned to RfPP after protecting a page. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:54, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
HJ, thats entirely incorrect. The bot doesn't edit the page immediately after an admin protects, it does it every 15 mins. Now asking it to do it 5 mins after protecting a page means its just as likely to accidentally edit conflict as it is editing every 15. There is absolutely no reasoning behind a change like that, the only way to cut out what are actually totally random edit conflicts is to decrease the the time it runs to say every 30 mins or every hour. At busy times admins will protect a whole host of pages in a row, so the bot would try and edit 5 mins after each protection if you set 5 mins then your very likely to get an edit conflict as you work through.Blethering Scot 19:06, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't mind edit conflicts with the bot when it's doing useful things (or, rather, I mind them less), and MediaWiki handles simultaneous edits in different sections better than it used to; I (and it seems other admins) don't really like getting back to RfPP to find that the bot has said the page is already protected (or edit-conflicting with the bot trying to make such a note which hasn't thus far happened to me). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:13, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Not necessarily Blethering Scott. If the bot looked at the protection time, and discovers it was protected within the last 5 minutes of it doing it's run, it can avoid commenting, for that run, but comment on it for the next run should the protecting admin not respond. That will give the protecting admin 15-20 minutes to comment, without the bot interfering. The bot in the meantime can work on other requests, that aren't being handled. I can definitely see a reduced amount of edit conflicts coming from this, though random conflicts may still be present. Besides, implementing this is hardly going to demand a rewrite. Just a simple if statement will do.—cyberpower ChatTemporarily Online 19:18, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Its worth a try, but I still think it doesn't really help the situation, random conflicts is random and this will still cause them.Blethering Scot 19:23, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock

Page says "This table is out of date. Contact User talk:Cyberpower678" - and under table - "This table is updated as often as every 15 minutes. Last updated 2 hours ago."  Ronhjones  (Talk) 00:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I need to update the outdated checker.—cyberpower ChatOnline 12:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

question

Hello I need to know who has the article, we need to improve. --Moollger (talk) 02:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

What?—cyberpower ChatOnline 12:16, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

PC Bot

Hi everyone! (Mr. Stradivarius—Callanecc) I just updated PC bot to wait 5 minutes before tagging. This demonstrates that timer functions as it should. I hope 5 minutes would be enough to click edit and add {{pp-pc1}}, or have Twinkle add it for you.—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Article Blamer

Hi! Your name is on the error page for the invaluable Article Blamer, which seems to have been out of action for a good few days now. Is there any chance it might be fixed soon? That would be so good! Many thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

I am aware of the issue, but the best solution as I see it is to branch it to a new location. It is intermittently working so try coming back every hour to see if you have any luck with it. I'm currently working on restoring full service to the tools.—cyberpower ChatOnline 20:55, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Cyberbot end date error

Just wanted to point this out. — Status (talk · contribs) 02:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit counter

Hey Cyberpower, your edit counter on Tool Labs is down. Do you know when it'll be back up? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:57, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Ditto from me. I keep getting:
"Internal error. The URI you have requested, http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=Voceditenore&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia, appears to be non-functional at this time."
Best, Voceditenore (talk) 14:53, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Just tried it again. This time I got:
"Proxy Error. The proxy server received an invalid response from an upstream server. The proxy server could not handle the request GET /xtools/pcount/index.php.
Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  • Sadly, the tool is becoming less stable. I'm already working on remedying the situation. I hope to have this resolved by the end of today or tomorrow.—cyberpower ChatOnline 17:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks so much. It's a great tool. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Erwin's tools.

Hi, I see you maintain the 'erwin85' project on labs. Before the migration it used to work, but now it seems dead. Are you planning to put it live again? I myself used 'related changes' a lot, that wasn't ported, any plans to work on migrating that one as well? Akoopal (talk) 12:26, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm a maintainer? I had no idea. In any event, if I am listed, I'll see if I can get it working again in a few moments.—cyberpower ChatOffline 18:50, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 Done—cyberpower ChatOffline 18:53, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Somehow you were listed alone now. Thanks for fixing. Akoopal (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit count tool bug

I like the new edit count tool. The "Future Plans" tab led me to this user talk page. I just wanted to let you know that the "Top Edited Pages" tab is generating bad links to Wikipedia. For example if a top edited page in the Wikipedia namespace is Good article nominations, I would expect a link to [2] but find a link to [3]. Apologies if you were already aware of this. Good work! ParacusForward (talk) 02:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I will fix this bug.—cyberpower ChatOffline 02:33, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 Fixed—cyberpower ChatOffline 17:31, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the quick response and fix. ParacusForward (talk) 03:51, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Bot's explanation is deficient

The explanation for this edit is obscure. Please explain. Please update standard explanation to be intelligible which, for a start, means not using WP jargon such as "transcluded". Thank you. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

"Transcluded" is well-known enough within Wikipedia that it isn't a problem. The message means whoever filed that AfD didn't follow the directions right, specifically step 3 where it says to add it to the log. Jackmcbarn (talk) 03:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
it's not even a WP jargon used equally in the real world. Blethering Scot 12:10, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, it seems that some coders also use this jargon, but "used equally in the real world" is a gross exaggeration, else my Chrome browser would not be highlighting every instance as a spelling mistake. Jargon has its place as a quick shorthand, but not when it is used to exclude readers or editors who are not versed in this shorthand. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
...—cyberpower ChatOnline 12:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Your responses are unhelpful. Please convert the jargon word "transclude" per below:
--Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
In what way are they unhelpful. It points you to the exact location it needs to step 3. There is absolutely nothing misleading about the edit summary, transcluded and listed do not mean the same thing.Blethering Scot 21:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
The bot's explanation was unclear to me. Your comments did not clarify and so were unhelpful. As it happens, I did follow step 3 and so did find it misleading. If "transcluded" and "listed" do not mean the same thing in this context, then I invite you to offer a better translation, but please do not use WP jargon and please do not use programming jargon. It would also help if the bot were to leave a diff of its change. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 22:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
What exactly is wrong with using Wikipedia jargon on Wikipedia? Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
exactly, however its not wikipedia jargon. The term is equally used outside and inside. Other than wikilinking to Wikipedia:Transclusion i see nothing needing fixing here. Instructions are instructions and this already does that.Blethering Scot 22:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
How about linking the word "transcluded" to Wikipedia:Transclusion? — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 22:43, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Appreciate the suggestion, but does not really help me or other non-programmers. Would prefer to have an explanation that is readily understandable to any native speaker of English, even if they are non-technical. If any editor, let alone any bot, has a problem with an edit that I made but is unwilling to tell me specifically what the problem is, in standard English, then please go away. Not helpful. Please let "transclude" go, it acts as a barrier. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:37, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
It does say it in standard English, in the body of the edit. You didn't follow step 3 of the AfD process. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:55, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
I assure you that I did follow step 3, but please lay that to one side. Please assume that I erred. Focus on the question at hand. Please provide exact quote of the standard English to which you refer. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 04:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The trouble with avoiding the word transclusion or its variants is that the resulting explanation becomes very long. For example, it could be, "A reference to the AfD discussion name (enclosed in double curly braces) was not added to the source text of the daily log, which meant that the discussion's content wasn't included there." But that isn't going to fit in an edit summary, and it misses some of the nuances of transclusion, for example that the log page is updated whenever the discussion is updated. Given the lack of regular English words to describe the concept, and the space limitations in edit summaries, coining a new word and linking to an explanation may be the best thing we are able to do. — Mr. Stradivarius on tour ♪ talk ♪ 07:11, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The trouble with using "transclusion" is that it makes WP an ever more insular world of those in the know, and if I made a mistake, then I am less likely to be such a person. If I made a mistake, then I would appreciate an explanation that perhaps sacrifices some of the niceties in favor of one that will help me to avoid the mistake in future. But, there seems to be no support here, so let's just leave it. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a case of someone not following the instructions and then not clicking on the link to the instructions given to fix what they didn't do in the first place. Transcluded is a valid term on and off wiki, it's not Jargon. Linking to the transclusion is the only thing that possibly should be done. The suggestion of using the word listed would change the meaning and creating a new term is inappropriate to everyone who does read the pages or uses the term off wiki. Sorry but this is a mountain being created out of a molehill. Blethering Scot 07:50, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
If you do not want to help, you do not want to help. If you refuse to assume good faith, you refuse to assume good faith. If you do not understand that "transclude" is jargon, whether useful or not, then I throw up my hands. I did in fact add the AfD to the log, but it seems the time slipped just past midnight UTC, so the bot added it to the next day's log. I have removed my original log entry in favor of the bot's. Given the chilly response here, I withdraw my request for improvement. Please forgive me for wasting your time. Please do not respond--it would only make this molehill more mountainous, and I have removed this page from my watchlist. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 02:28, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
@Hobbes Goodyear: I fully agree that the word "transclusion" is problematic. It even shows up as a mis-spelling using the wiki editor so the notion that it is common or garden usage is, frankly, utter nonsense intended to persuade you that you don't know what you are doing. It is especially problematic on en-WP as many an RfA candidate would confess, having to have their attempt at transclusion rectified (and sometimes ridiculed for their failure). I don't know what the answer is to the specific issue, but what really gets my goat is the attempt by wiki insiders and friends of the bot op led by Blethering Scott to pretend that this is not a real issue for some editors when it quite plainly is. The fact that Cyber has most sensibly avoided joining this discussion hints that they themselves may appreciate the OP's issue and if they can come up with a viable alternative it doesn't require force of numbers to convince him otherwise. Leaky Caldron 08:56, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
@Leaky caldron: I seriously suggest you retract certain comments in your reply or I will be taking further. You have nothing to back up any accusations you make and from someone like yourself i seriously expect better. Also cyber certainly did reply and is as aware as anyone, that saying transclusion is wikipedia jargon is quite frankly bullshit. The only thing that needs changed is a wikilink be added and as I'm the only one who has suggested any sort of change for the better, your comments are simply making a fool of yourself. The bot only issues instructions that are clearly given out in the AFD instructions already and it points at the specific relevant section. Its also been clearly explained that listed does not mean the same as transcluded and Stradivarius has explained why changing is equally problematic.Blethering Scot 17:11, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I apologise to any goats I have offended. Leaky Caldron 17:18, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Seriously, go grow a pair. Go and fling mud somewhere your wanted.Blethering Scot 17:22, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I am indeed aware of this discussion. I am quite frankly impartial to how it is changed, so I am waiting on how I should change this to fit everyone's needs.—cyberpower ChatOffline 18:48, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
I Would go ahead and wikilink transcluded as it will aid the description thats already there. If someone can think of a word that means the exact same as transcluded, thats simpler to understand then of course it could be changed the issue is none of the ones suggested mean the exact same.Blethering Scot 19:34, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

New feature request/suggestion for tool

A bytecount or wordcount would be nice.

Cheers • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 12:25, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Can you elaborate?—cyberpower ChatOffline 13:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
It would be interesting to be able to compare edits taking the size of the edit into account, and a byte or word count may be the simplest metric for the size of an edit. Comparison of edits over time might look different if the total or average size of an edit was available. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 17:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
So a detailed edit analysis.—cyberpower ChatOffline 17:35, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Great. I look forward to seeing it in action :-) • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 08:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyberpower678/Archive_17&oldid=1144717727"