User talk:Cyberpower678: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 10:06, 4 September 2017

This user is offline, or has forgotten to update this message since starting a wikisession.

_{(If there have been multiple edits from this user in the last 60 minutes and the most recent one wasn't to activate this template, it is safe to assume that this user forgot.)}

Senior Editor II

—CYBERPOWER (Around)
Click here to find out why my signature changes color.

Hello!! I am Cyberpower678. I am an administrator on Wikipedia. Despite that, I'm still your run of the mill user here on Wikipedia.
I specialize in bot work and tools, but I lurk around RfPP, AfD, AIV, and AN/I, as well as RfA. If you have any questions in those areas, please feel free to ask. :-)
For InternetArchiveBot matters specifically, please see meta:InternetArchiveBot/Problem for common issues or meta:User talk:InternetArchiveBot to leave a message
I also serve as a mailing list moderator and account creator over at the Account Creation Center. If you have any questions regarding an account I created for you, or the process itself, feel free to email the WP:ACC team or me personally.
At current I have helped to create accounts for 2512 different users and renamed 793 other users.
Disputes or discussions that appear to have ended or is disputed will be archived.

All the best.—cyberpower

View my talk page Archives.

Requests for adminship and bureaucratship update
RfA candidate	S	O	N	S %	Status	Ending (UTC)	Time left	Dups?	Report
Pickersgill-Cunliffe	0	0	0	N/A	Discussion	00:35, 15 June 2024	5 days, 8 hours	no	report

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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.

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Bot changes in ruwiki

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

Bot adds link http://bozza.ru/art-94.html, which is already present in {{cite web}} invocation.
Bot adds deadurl=yes, while link is active and not dead.
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@@ Line 85: / Line 85: @@
 Why it is happening (that is definetely not an "rescue") and what can be done to solve this problems? — [[User:Vort|Vort]] ([[User talk: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.—[[User:Cyberpower678|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">CYBERPOWER</span>''']] <span style="font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:Cyberpower678|<span style="color:olive">Chat</span>]])</span> 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: <code>url=</code> and <code>archiveurl=</code> 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) [ [http://www.webcitation.org/6tDtdX334 example] ].
+:: — [[User:Vort|Vort]] ([[User talk:Vort|talk]]) 10:06, 4 September 2017 (UTC)