User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 43
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cyberpower678. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 50 |
IABot issue?
Hi, so IABot just made an edit here where it lists 3 links as dead. However, I just checked and at least the first link listed as dead, http://www.tricitynews.com/news/172702541.html, is archived at https://web.archive.org/web/20130520071852/http://www.tricitynews.com/news/172702541.html (so I've already fixed that in the article).
I assume it's supposed to find something like that, as opposed to reporting it dead, so I assume there might be a problem? —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
PS I was not able to use this tool to report these links... even when I OAuth-ed in, I was told I didn't have the correct permisisons. —Joeyconnick (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- I have updated the data for you, you are shy of 300 edits on Wikipedia for obtaining the permissions you need.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 02:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. I'm curious, though: I've been on wikipedia since 2005 and it tells me I have upwards of 2700 edits, so not really sure where you're getting your numbers from. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Sorry, what I meant to say is that you get the permissions at 3 months and 3000 edits and that you need just shy of 300 more to obtain the permissions on the interface.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:46, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- This may help.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, that makes more sense. I'm not sure why such a high edit count is required to report cases where the bot is wrong, though—shouldn't pretty much anyone be able to do that? Other archive bots I've seen around don't seem to have that restriction. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's put in there to prevent new users from spamming and abusing the interface, especially since this bot will be a global bot.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 04:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, that makes more sense. I'm not sure why such a high edit count is required to report cases where the bot is wrong, though—shouldn't pretty much anyone be able to do that? Other archive bots I've seen around don't seem to have that restriction. —Joeyconnick (talk) 04:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for doing that. I'm curious, though: I've been on wikipedia since 2005 and it tells me I have upwards of 2700 edits, so not really sure where you're getting your numbers from. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:28, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
"Everest (2015 film)" modification
Hello. Unable to use tools to make report. InternetArchiveBot made this incorrect change to Everest (2015 film):
"Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120626144753/http://www.saturnawards.org/ to http://www.saturnawards.org/"
Active and working url for this reference is:
http://www.saturnawards.org/The-Saturn-Awards-Annual-Nominations.php
DonFB (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
- My records indicate you haven't even accessed the tool to try, please describe what problem you are facing.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 02:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I briefly tried the tool with an old browser. I'm not having a problem; fixed the issue (as you can see above) and thought it would be helpful to report what happened. DonFB (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is I'm not getting anything meaningful to work with here. You're citing me 2 different URLs and one archive URL and tell me you can't use the tools, in which I see you haven't accessed yet.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 04:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I'll try to explain more fully. The bot added an archive url for an outdated webpage to the footnote, which contained a working url for the current website. At the time, I was not aware that the existing url, which was working, did not point to a directly relevant page. By drilling down, I found the relevant page on that website and edited the url in the article. For some reason, the bot decided that the working url (which pointed to an existing webpage that did not show the correct information) should be supplemented with a four-year-old archive page (which contained outdated information). Again, I'm not facing any problem and don't need the tools at this time; am just trying to report the odd activity by the bot, which added the archive url for an old and non-relevant page to a footnote which contained a currently working url (though I had to drill down from that current page to find another page with the correct information and link it). DonFB (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Okay, so in those cases, you would use the tools provided in the talk page.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 00:46, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- You're welcome, glad to help. DonFB (talk) 00:10, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'll try to explain more fully. The bot added an archive url for an outdated webpage to the footnote, which contained a working url for the current website. At the time, I was not aware that the existing url, which was working, did not point to a directly relevant page. By drilling down, I found the relevant page on that website and edited the url in the article. For some reason, the bot decided that the working url (which pointed to an existing webpage that did not show the correct information) should be supplemented with a four-year-old archive page (which contained outdated information). Again, I'm not facing any problem and don't need the tools at this time; am just trying to report the odd activity by the bot, which added the archive url for an old and non-relevant page to a footnote which contained a currently working url (though I had to drill down from that current page to find another page with the correct information and link it). DonFB (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- The problem is I'm not getting anything meaningful to work with here. You're citing me 2 different URLs and one archive URL and tell me you can't use the tools, in which I see you haven't accessed yet.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 04:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I briefly tried the tool with an old browser. I'm not having a problem; fixed the issue (as you can see above) and thought it would be helpful to report what happened. DonFB (talk) 04:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
InternetArchiveBot
Hello! I've started working on some Olympic articles and to great sadness one of the go to sources that appears to be cited on many olympic related pages is closing. See this page. Would it be possible for IABot to start replacing these links with waybackmachine archives? I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to ask or even out of scope of the bot's tasks. If it is could you point me in the right direction on how to get something like this set up? --Cameron11598 (Talk) 02:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sure. I'll flag the domains as dead tomorrow morning.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 02:48, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Like Thanks a bunch! --Cameron11598 (Talk) 09:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Done I have flagged 66478 links to sports-reference.com as dead in the DB, IABot will eventually get to them.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 15:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Internet Archive bot and Google Books
Hello. Does the bot archiving Google Book links like this useful and intentional? I've previously asked this at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)/Archive_53#Archive.org_for_Google_Books and someone else confirmed no. Ugog Nizdast (talk) 17:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- The bot archives what it considers dead, but that edit you pointed looks like a case of the bot going haywire, because of an edit User:Plastikspork made to its on wiki configuration page which broke it.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 17:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Cyberpower678!
Cyberpower678,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Class455 (talk | stand clear of the doors!) 17:36, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Hi Cyberpower
Hi Cyberpower, wanted to drop in a quick query. Why does User:Cyberbot I/Current AfD's contain closed Afds? Thanks. Lourdes 18:00, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have no idea, it needs to be investigated.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 19:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
IABot removed author field content
I am concerned about this IABot edit which removed the content of the "author" field during a deadlink rescue. Now arguably that information should not have been in a hidden comment (and arguably it should not be there at all as the linked page does not verify "staff writers" and the site is not a news site in any case) but in either case I don't understand why the bot is removing editor generated information from the template. Not sure whether this is a bug I should raise on Phabricator or there is a good reason for it I am missing. SpinningSpark 11:18, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- It's an unfortunate technical limitation. There are pros and cons to handling comments or simply filtering them out. By filtering them out, it ensures proper handling of the template without breaking the output. The cons, the comments are removed. The pros to keeping them in place as part of the template is that the comments remain, but that leaves a dangerous possibility of misparsing the paging and disrupting the article. It's happened too many times that I went with filtering the comments out of the templates to ensure safe parsing.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 00:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- In my opinion the information should be preserved in some way, even if it is only to post it on the talk page. I know the bot already posts on the talk page, but dozens of such posts (possibly hundreds) have come up in my watchlist. I'm not going to be checking out all of them, and I'm sure other editors feel the same way. Better visibility of the text removed might encourage me to do something about it in important cases and the information is there for future editors who visit the page if I don't. SpinningSpark 16:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to say, it's a technical limitation of the bot, and I've tried to fix it several times, without luck, so there's unfortunately not much I can do about it.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 16:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Now that's twice you've said "technical limitation" without really explaining what that means. Surely if the bot has the technical capability of removing some information, it has the technical capability of pasting it back somewhere else? I didn't really understand how trying to keep it in the template could break the output, but in any case, posting to the talk page could not possibly break anything in the article. SpinningSpark 16:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- A Technical limitation is when software or hardware is limited by software or hardware, and cannot attain a certain function because of these limitations. In this case, the way the parser has been built/designed, there is no known way to add this ability in. I've been wrapping my head around this particular problem for a while now, but when it handles the comments, it's likely that it ends up getting misparsed, for example comments in the "accessdate" parameter prevents the bot from properly reading the time stamp.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 16:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- But again, why does that stop the comments being posted on the talk page? You've given a reason for removing the comment from the accessdate field (the example, by the way, was in the author field), but having removed it, subsequently posting it on the talk page is not going to break anything. SpinningSpark 19:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- You've lost me, what's this got to do with the talk page message?—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 19:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've been suggesting that if you can't cope with comments in the template, then you could transfer those comments to the talk page rather than throwing them away altogether. SpinningSpark 19:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh? What do you suggest I do? Where should I place these comments. Would you like to give me an example message?—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 19:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Didn't really pay any mind to the format. Something simple like "hidden comments removed: <field1><comment1><...>" would do. SpinningSpark 19:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh? What do you suggest I do? Where should I place these comments. Would you like to give me an example message?—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 19:33, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've been suggesting that if you can't cope with comments in the template, then you could transfer those comments to the talk page rather than throwing them away altogether. SpinningSpark 19:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- You've lost me, what's this got to do with the talk page message?—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 19:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- But again, why does that stop the comments being posted on the talk page? You've given a reason for removing the comment from the accessdate field (the example, by the way, was in the author field), but having removed it, subsequently posting it on the talk page is not going to break anything. SpinningSpark 19:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- A Technical limitation is when software or hardware is limited by software or hardware, and cannot attain a certain function because of these limitations. In this case, the way the parser has been built/designed, there is no known way to add this ability in. I've been wrapping my head around this particular problem for a while now, but when it handles the comments, it's likely that it ends up getting misparsed, for example comments in the "accessdate" parameter prevents the bot from properly reading the time stamp.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 16:47, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Now that's twice you've said "technical limitation" without really explaining what that means. Surely if the bot has the technical capability of removing some information, it has the technical capability of pasting it back somewhere else? I didn't really understand how trying to keep it in the template could break the output, but in any case, posting to the talk page could not possibly break anything in the article. SpinningSpark 16:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what to say, it's a technical limitation of the bot, and I've tried to fix it several times, without luck, so there's unfortunately not much I can do about it.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 16:21, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- In my opinion the information should be preserved in some way, even if it is only to post it on the talk page. I know the bot already posts on the talk page, but dozens of such posts (possibly hundreds) have come up in my watchlist. I'm not going to be checking out all of them, and I'm sure other editors feel the same way. Better visibility of the text removed might encourage me to do something about it in important cases and the information is there for future editors who visit the page if I don't. SpinningSpark 16:16, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Report bug – url was fine before
Hi. Not interested in negotiating login procedure at tools.wmflabs.org, I'm afraid. A change made by your bot, reporting a dead url at For You Blue, was incorrect – the link to pop archives.com.au is fine. Just thought you should know. Cheers, JG66 (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- What do you mean negotiate? You click the login button and you're done. The point of the tool is so that I don't get overwhelmed with reports like these, and focus on improving the bot.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 16:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
More U.S. Census sites
Hey, once again InternetArchiveBot reported links to the US Census as dead which worked perfectly fine: the ones not marked as dead at Talk:Flowery Branch, Georgia. I know I reported the first one on the whitelist, but not sure about the second one. Have a happy new year! Graham87 16:57, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- The first and third were actually working, the second one is dead.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 18:22, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Edit summary error
[1] - seeing some of these recently. -- GreenC 00:24, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- That was User:PlastikSpork's fault.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 00:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ahh .. i'll remember Dec 30 -- GreenC 02:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Instructions for checking
I almost edited your "InternetArchiveBot" FAQ.
- Q: The Bot left a message on the talk page saying the revised links need to be "checked". What does this mean?
- A: The instructions on the talk page for "External links modified" refer to "instructions on the template" -- the instructions are at Template:Sourcecheck.
- In this case:
- edit the "External links modified" section
- locate the {{Sourcecheck|needhelp=}} in that section
- insert the parameter "|checked=true" or "|checked=false" in that template as needed
- preview and save your edit
I would also suggest that a wikilink to the template's instructions be added to the statement "you may follow the instructions on the template below". IveGoneAway (talk) 00:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- The checked parameter already exists and the template itself has template usage documentation. The real instructions are on the rendered output itself.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 14:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Cyberbot I clearing template sandboxes
It appears that Cyberbot I recently started clearing additional template sandboxes (like Template:X17) starting December 17. Though it appears it is also making 0-byte-diff revisions as a strange side effect. Is this expected? — Andy W. (talk) 02:18, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Looks like a MW bug.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 02:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- This sounds like the problem I recently reported. It looks like something worth reporting, but I wouldn't know where to do that. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure Phabricator is the place to do it, but I'm not sure which projects to include. Maybe the village pump to get things going may be appropriate.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 14:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- This sounds like the problem I recently reported. It looks like something worth reporting, but I wouldn't know where to do that. Dhtwiki (talk) 05:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Permanent dead links?
Please could you explain why Internet Archive Bot marks links as "permanently dead" when an archive URL is already included? Example 1; example 2; and example 3 (there are many others). Also, the FA criteria requires consistency in refs yet IAB changes the layout: example 1; example 2; and example 3. I did ask you to look at this months ago in mid-October. SagaciousPhil - Chat 10:22, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Can you please file a report on Phabricator and include the Project "InternetArchiveBot" so I can keep track of these reports, otherwise I just forget them.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 14:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have no idea how to use Phabricator. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's quite simple actually. My bug reporter, which will soon be an actual form to submit to make it easier, lays it out pretty nicely. If you still have problems, let me know.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 14:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- The Terms of Service on that "bug reporter" state I have to accept that I could be blocked if I make a mistake on it (before I can even see what I'm expected to complete) so please would you accept my report to you here instead? Thanks. By the way, when are the errors likely to be fixed or will I have to go through the (already lengthy) list and manually fix them? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- My awesome helper, User:Green Cardamom runs a bot that fixes lingering errors of InternetArchiveBot. He might be able to help you there. As for the report, I'll create it for you, but to clarify, the ToS is for the entire interface, not the bug reporter alone. Sorry for the confusions. Users have to accept it to use the interface, and it's a simple disclaimer that says, if you are being disruptive, you will be dealt with in the same manner as on Wikipedia. It's nothing to worry about if you haven't gotten yourself blocked recently on Wikipedia.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 15:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- The Terms of Service on that "bug reporter" state I have to accept that I could be blocked if I make a mistake on it (before I can even see what I'm expected to complete) so please would you accept my report to you here instead? Thanks. By the way, when are the errors likely to be fixed or will I have to go through the (already lengthy) list and manually fix them? SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's quite simple actually. My bug reporter, which will soon be an actual form to submit to make it easier, lays it out pretty nicely. If you still have problems, let me know.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 14:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I have no idea how to use Phabricator. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:21, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'll investigate adding a feature to WaybackMedic to remove stray dead link tags - sounds easy but maybe not. I think the bugs should be filed (separately) at Phab: the other being conversion of compact cites into expanded cites when there is only 1 or 2 stray cr/lf in the cite. Not sure how to fix those at the moment. -- GreenC 16:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Phabs.[2][3] -- GreenC 23:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'll investigate adding a feature to WaybackMedic to remove stray dead link tags - sounds easy but maybe not. I think the bugs should be filed (separately) at Phab: the other being conversion of compact cites into expanded cites when there is only 1 or 2 stray cr/lf in the cite. Not sure how to fix those at the moment. -- GreenC 16:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
RfA
Just in case you weren't aware (as the conversation was happening on my talk page), your RfA is queued up at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Cyberpower678 2 awaiting standard answers and acceptance. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:07, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
C'mon, get your skates on - we're about to break a record for simultaneous RfAs ;) Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 14:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- 6 in a row! Goodness me. You're a great editor Cyberpower - I'd be happy to support :-) Patient Zerotalk 14:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Admin
The rack of green in the chart at BN is indicative of this being a really good start to the year for admin candidates.
I've had a look back at some recentish RfAs and found yours. It was about 18 months ago and was within a whisker of success. I'd like to encourage you to go through it all again, but the big question first is...
...do you think you've addressed some of the more substantial oppose issues during the intervening months?
Cheers and happy new year (and of course it's fine to say "no way, not again" - I know RfA is bruising) --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:49, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh gwarsh - I missed the section above this. Get in there! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Lol, thanks. I plan to have it live before the end of the day. Just need to make sure it's presentable.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 16:55, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Get ready for my questions.... he he... Lourdes 17:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Re: your answer to Q.3 -- harassment and threats? Are you serious? Probably something you shouldn't joke about. wbm1058 (talk) 21:26, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- I'm not. I was receiving death threats to me and my family on and off wiki Christmas Eve. It was rather disturbing.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 21:28, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Ick. Best I can determine from the IP, they were halfway around the world from you so not really a physical threat. Hope they're gone and that was just a one-off. wbm1058 (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Actually that IP was a proxy. The real IP is unknown. :/ It stopped 3 days ago. I got harassed all throughout the new year.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 00:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Ick. Best I can determine from the IP, they were halfway around the world from you so not really a physical threat. Hope they're gone and that was just a one-off. wbm1058 (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Webcite redirects
Hi, the webcite redirect problem probably should be looked at ASAP. The links are not being added to the database as being archived, it could be a large percentage of webcite links skipped. -- GreenC 18:33, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- I answered on the ticket. I'm doing some major bug squishing in preparation for the release of 1.3beta.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 01:56, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
the template doesn't exist, and hence, I have reverted this edit 98.230.196.215 (talk) 00:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- It appears to have been deleted. I guess I need to expedite my work a bit to get the moved over to the new template. Thank you for the heads up.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 01:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Cyberbot I bug
Hi! Just noticed that on Ferret's RfA, the tally at the top says there's one neutral vote, but there isn't one. Enterprisey (talk!) 01:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- It sometimes happens with the new comments section below the neutral section. The stray # will have the bot thinking that. I simply indented it, so it should go away.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 01:59, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Archiving broken links after move to new site
Hi there. I noticed that User:InternetArchiveBot is periodically archiving URLs of this form. I suspect all the talk page links there are due to edits such as this where the bot reports an archive edit it makes. The links to that site are broken, but the pages still exist at a different site. See what I wrote here and see also {{National Inventory of Canadian Military Memorials}}. Easiest would be if the links had been fixed/redirected when they (the Canadian authorities responsible for this) made that website change, but I am not sure if we should rely on that (see here). I am slowly fixing the links from the CMP (Chief Military Personnel) site to point to the VAC (Veterans Affairs Canada) site, though I now see they too are moving their website! See here: "We are in the process of moving our services and information to Canada.ca. Our current Veterans Affairs Canada website will remain available until the move to Canada.ca is complete.". (At this stage, I am not sure if the CMP and VAC are two different government sites using the same underlying memorials database, or the same memorials database being moved around different servers.)
Going back to the links from CMP, I was not sure what to do when an archive URL to the old site existed. An example where I left the archive URLs in place is here. An example where I removed the archive URLs is here. I do intend to fix them all eventually, but I think they will need to all be checked at some point as in looking at this I found some errors. Either from the person who added them in the first place, or where the ID they use changed. Maybe it might be better to run the archive bot over the links after I have finished checking them all (in a couple of weeks)? Carcharoth (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- The bot is fully autonomous, and I do not control where it chooses to run next on Wikipedia. Sorry.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 22:38, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Moving the follow-up here to a new section. Carcharoth (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Updating your FaQs
- This question was originally a follow-up to another question, now split off to its own section instead. Carcharoth (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Over on the FAQ, the question "The Bot left a message on the talk page saying the revised links need to be "checked". What does this mean?" doesn't have an answer. What is the answer to that question? Carcharoth (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hello. Did you miss the question above? I tracked down this edit that added those questions to the FAQ page. Do you have that FAQ page watchlisted? Carcharoth (talk) 00:45, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Trying again with the above question (apologies if this comes across as a little annoyed, but I was hoping for some response by now, though I can see you have other things to deal with as well). I noticed a similar question above, with your reply here. I think you need to address this, as your bot is still leaving links to that FaQ (e.g. here) and many people will go to read that FaQ in addition to or instead of reading the instructions as rendered in the template output. It is confusing to have a FaQ that isn't being actively maintained (you haven't edited it since March 2016), and has been edited by others with what looks to me like unhelpful additions, as pointed out above (e.g. here, same link as above). Carcharoth (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yea, sorry about that, I was going to respond to you, got interrupted, and then forgot. To answer your question, for some reason it wasn't watch listed, I thought it was, so those questions were not added by me, but it does appear to be a FaQ, so I'll fill that in in a moment. As for the other question, doesn't appear helpful at all and I will remove that.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 02:50, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
Current AfD's listing
I'll back you for anything up to honorary founder if you will only fix Cyberbot I's AfD listing. It gets updated with new AfDs but doesn't purge the closed ones, and the listing has grown to enormous size. With thanks: Noyster (talk), 11:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Should be fixed now.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 20:33, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
InternetArchiveBot still using deprecated wayback template
Just noticed an edit here where InternetArchiveBot has added Template:Wayback, which is deprecated. Could it use the recommended Template:Webarchive instead? Thanks. Batternut (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Please see T151182.—CYBERPOWER (Happy 2017) 15:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Precious anniversary
 | |
| power to support | |
|---|---|
| ... you were recipient no. 716 of Precious, a prize of QAI! |
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
URL errors
Hi. Sometimes when InternetArchiveBot updates a page, it creates a URL error, such as this. It doesn't happen all the time, but crops up every now and again. Thanks. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 10:57, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is something Wayback Medic can find and fix. I'll make a module for it and run it backwards on the edits by IABot since it started in August, then follow forward on new edits. It's similar to a bug WaybackMedic already fixes (example) but will need new code since it's a recursive cite template harder to parse. -- GreenC 17:31, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
RfA tally errors
Hey Cyber. I've noticed in a couple of RfAs now, your bot has interpreted a post to "general comments" as a vote for "neutral". Someguy1221 (talk) 03:01, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yea it's a little glitchy there, something I need to fix. You can fix it by indenting the pound (#) symbol in the neutral section.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
RFPP bot
You obviously have a lot going on right now, but I noticed a possible glitch on the RFPP bot's behavior re: create-protected pages. It looks like the admin protected it 00:32, 7 January 2017, but the bot, as of 00:53, 7 January 2017 (UTC), didn't see it as protected. Maybe not handling that form of protection in the api response? Or maybe trying to tie the RFPP template response to the action? Laggy replica? I dunno *shrug*. :P Figured I'd give you a heads-up. --slakr\ talk / 03:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Yes. It's looking for full protection and not create protection. Unfortunately, full protection only exists on existing pages.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
InternetArchiveBot bug
This edit removed a hidden comment that should stay in place (a warning to editors not to fix what appears to be a typo). Is it necessary for the bot to remove comments? (Sorry for posting here, but I don't have the time/inclination to register with bug reporting websites) Optimist on the run (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, in order to correctly handle the template, it has filter out the comments. It's a technical limitation of the bot I've racking my brain about for a while. I still haven't come up with a solution. :-(—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:22, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Using regular parameter names rather than their aliases
Hey Cyberpower678. I was just fixing up citations in my nuthatch article efforts and noticed in Beautiful nuthatch the edit by InternetArchiveBot here. First, that's really useful and important work, thank you. The reason I came by though was that I noticed the bot used alias parameter names for all three parameters it placed, rather than regular parameter name – respectively: deadurl rather than dead-url, archiveurl rather than archive-url and archivedate rather than archive-date. AFAIK, it doesn't make any difference on a surface level, but, especially when we are doing anything en masse, it seems doing it as close to perfectly is an ideal to strive for. (Imagine, for example, if the bot uses an alias rather than the regular parameter 100,000 × and then there's some reason to deprecate that alias.) So I think it would be better to modify the bot to place the regular parameter names. Best regards--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 20:59, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- I would love to and IABot used to do this, but unfortunately some existing cite templates are not using the CS Lua modules that support those hyphenated parameters. They instead use the old aliases, so to ensure consistency across cite templates it encounters, it uses then non-hyphenated parameters. I also doubt that those parameters will get deprecated at any point in the future as other users are still regularly using the non-hyphenated parameters.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 02:26, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Courtesy ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding a large number of trivial edits made by an IP that you had previous dealings with. The thread is Large number of trivial edits by IP user. —Farix (t | c) 22:09, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
German fortification of Guernsey: External links modified message
Hi I tried the bug report site for the Internet archive bot, but it requires a log-in. I have a suggestion for improvement concerning the External links modified message on the Talk page for articles the bot has edited. The message suggests "You may set the |checked= to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change." It is not obvious to the uninitiated how or where to do that. I tried, and failed (https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=German_fortification_of_Guernsey&action=history). Perhaps the message could be idiot-proofed? The edit made by the bot was good, by the way. Thanks and best wishes --Frans Fowler (talk) 14:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Setting the checked parameter refers to the template left by the bot on the talk page in the talk page message. As for the tool, it requires a login to add accountability for changes made to the bot. Just click on login to attach your Wikipedia account to the tool.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ahaa! Thanks again. Done --Frans Fowler (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations
ahead of time, I may not be around later. Please consider my previous advice, do not get even more wedded to this place than you already are, for you own sake!! :) Leaky Caldron
- I'll try, and thanks for the congrats. :-) I just love writing bots. They're a whole lot of fun, especially when they work. :p—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Where's the list of articles that InternetArchiveBot has archived and needs checked? Comment
Sorry to bother you, but I can't find the list of articles that Cyberbot or Internet Archive Bot had modified and then placed a "Please check my work" tag on. Can you help me find it again? Gsnerd (talk) 20:58, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- The category has been deprecated.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:59, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- So there is now no way to find such a list? This was the main source of my wikipedia-helping edits (as opposed to fixing typos as I find them.) Gsnerd (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- The category became way too massive and wasn't serving much of purpose.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- okay :( I had hoped to shrink it. Thank you for your help. I'd give you a barnstar for making the bots but I don't know which is most appropriate, so here's my appreciation!Gsnerd (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- One tends to hand out the "Technical Barnstar" for that. ;-)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 01:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- (talk page stalker) @Gsnerd: Here is a list of articles on my watchlist which Internet Archive Bot has updated but for which I never got around to checking the edits, in case that's of any use to you. Not all of the articles have a message on their talk page and some of them may already have been checked by other editors. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 08:36, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- thank you DH85868993…. Gsnerd (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- One tends to hand out the "Technical Barnstar" for that. ;-)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 01:48, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
- okay :( I had hoped to shrink it. Thank you for your help. I'd give you a barnstar for making the bots but I don't know which is most appropriate, so here's my appreciation!Gsnerd (talk) 21:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- The category became way too massive and wasn't serving much of purpose.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:04, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- So there is now no way to find such a list? This was the main source of my wikipedia-helping edits (as opposed to fixing typos as I find them.) Gsnerd (talk) 21:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Technical Barnstar |
| The archive bots are very helpful! Thank you! Gsnerd (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2017 (UTC) |
welcome to the mop corps
| Congratulations on your successful RFA! Long overdue that I get to spam your talk page with the words of wisdom I received from the puppy after my RFA passed – almost ten long, sordid, why-am-I-still-here? years ago: |
|
| DISCLAIMER: This humor does not reflect the official humor of Wikipedia, the Wikimedia Foundation, or Jimbo Wales, because if it did, it would be much, much better. All rights released under GFDL. |
A cup of coffee for you!
|
Welcome to the admin corps, Cyberpower678! You're trusted with global rename, so you can certainly be trusted not to delete the Main Page or block Jimbo Wales. Have a cup of coffee before you begin practicing your "mop-fu" skills; I made it myself! —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:42, 11 January 2017 (UTC) |
A brownie for you!
|
Congratulations! Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 20:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC) |
Just so you know
I tweaked your userpage a bit to say that you are now an administrator (you had previously listed all your rights which are covered under admin privileges). Hope you don't mind. Oh, and congratulations! You deserved it :-) Patient Zerotalk 12:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 13:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- No problem, take care. Patient Zerotalk 13:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Congratulations...
...on your successful RfA. Good luck with your new responsibilities. Maxim(talk) 21:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Ditto, :P Mlpearc Phone (open channel) 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations CP678! Welcome to the team :) take things slow and ask questions often! Now...I've got a cunning plan for an adminbot.. -- Samtar talk · contribs 21:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations for adminship !! CAPTAIN RAJU (✉) 21:27, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Hooray! 181 supports puts you in the record books. I know you will be a good admin and I am delighted that I got to nominate you. --MelanieN (talk) 21:28, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Many congrats C. Well deserved. MarnetteD|Talk 21:36, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations! You'll be a great admin. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations!!! --joe deckertalk 21:51, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations mate! You'll do a great job! Now go to work!! ;) Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 21:58, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congrats! Glad it went well. WJBscribe (talk) 21:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Mz7 (talk) 22:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- 2nd time's the charm! I wish you well with the mop. —MRD2014 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congrats - best of luck! GABgab 22:33, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congrats, friend! Sorry I didn't !vote, felt I had a little too much COI since we have crossed paths professionally. But I knew you didn't need it :) You know where my door is if you ever need help/advice/etc.! Cheers — MusikAnimal talk 22:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Well done, Cyberpower678! :) Acalamari 23:16, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congrats! Long overdue, IMO. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- About time! RfA wouldn't be the same without your bot helping it along, and this is well deserved. Well done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 23:53, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
- Thank you everybody. It definitely feels different to have my signature get highlighted blue and with all the extra buttons. I'll be sure to put them to good use. :-) <joke>My first order of business, create an elitist group and block all who should oppose. Muahaha. >:D</joke>—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- @Samtar: What's the idea for an adminbot? :-)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congrats buddy, I knew you'd get there someday.--v/r - TP 00:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations, Should've been done ages ago tbh!, Anyway late's better than never :). –Davey2010Talk 00:26, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations from me too. Well done. Lourdes 01:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations! Enterprisey (talk!) 02:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations! And thank you for your many contributions in using your skills to help the project in technical areas. Good luck and best wishes. Donner60 (talk) 04:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- WELL DESERVED. Keep up your great work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congrats to a fine Wikipedian. P.S. Don't forget to check in on that Timeshare article from time to time, and make sure it stays protected. I know you will.
Pocketthis (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations and well deserved mate! Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 14:30, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congratulations. Nice turnout at your RfA, and thanks for running and for your volunteer work here. It will be interesting to see what types of plans you have in store for the future Cyberbot III. North America1000 15:13, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Brother...
I congratulate you for your successful adminship, now, will you redistribute your oats, brother?--AldNonUcallin?☎ 16:41, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Congrats
- Congrats. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:21, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congrats! I knew it would work this time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 18:03, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congrulations!! (Oops, already had done this, but what the heck, two congrats are better than one. :p ) --joe deckertalk 00:28, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Congrats! If you get a little stressed out - short blocks on @Oshwah: help! (try 9.1828920 weeks!) SQLQuery me! 05:15, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
URL normalization issue
The way that the Wayback Machine treats URL normalization has been causing trouble for IABot. For example saved versions of http://www.usagi.org/doi/seiyuu/kitamura-eri/ and http://usagi.org/doi/seiyuu/kitamura-eri/ can be found at https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.usagi.org/doi/seiyuu/kitamura-eri/. Because one of the URLs listed triggers, erroneously or not, a 404 HTTP code your bot may consider the link to have died. Hopefully this can be fixed soon. Regards. – Allen4names (contributions) 20:07, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Can you provide a diff as an example. I don't fully understand the problem. Are you referring to the URL truncation issue you reported?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 21:01, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is what I can get on short notice. – Allen4names (contributions) 21:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- But that's a WebCitation. Still not seeing it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- Bad day I guess. Sorry for troubling you. – Allen4names (contributions) 00:05, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- But that's a WebCitation. Still not seeing it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
- This is what I can get on short notice. – Allen4names (contributions) 21:21, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
There is a different problem in Allen4names's diff. Because 1.2.7 is unaware of {{webarchive}} it added a {{webcite}} .. the {{webcite}} will get converted to {{webarchive}} by WaybackMedic as part of the template merge consensus .. ending up with duplicate {{webarchive}} for the same URL. Guess I can add a function to WaybackMedic to search for duplicate {{webarchive}}. -- GreenC 03:31, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
- With the webarchive template on the ignore list, it's not seen by the bot since it's not directly attached to the EL. The bot will remain shutdown until 1.3 is out now, which will support the new template.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 03:54, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
UTRS Account Request
I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. —CYBERPOWER (Chat)
- Activated. Thank you for volunteering. --v/r - TP 01:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)