User talk:Cyberpower678

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)
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

No current discussions. Recent RfAs, recent RfBs: (successful, unsuccessful)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/OAbot 3

Hello, sorry if I disturb you in the midst of busy times. Could you help proceed with this OAbot task? Headbomb has helped trial the functionality but I understand he'd prefer not to handle the actual approval himself. Your experience would be appreciated in deciding what to do about the links to CiteSeerX in particular: they're supported by Help:Citation Style 1#Identifiers and WP:COPYLINKS appears to explicitly greenlight them with "It is currently acceptable to link to Internet archives" (CiteSeerX is an open repository which archives academic sources, makes them accessible via OAI-PMH and extracts structured citation data from unstructured PDFs). However, a couple users have concerns. Nemo 08:05, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Nemo bis, I'll take a look at it later today.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 07:19, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Let me know if I can help figure it out. Nemo 14:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Internet Archive and (quality of) bibliographic metadata

Hey, grabbing you based on your (otherwise unrelated) association with the Internet Archive…

Over the years, in my work here, I've kinda vaguely observed that the bibliographic metadata at the Internet Archive for scanned books is pretty poor. But over the last year or so I've been spending my time more over at Wikisource, and thus looked a bit closer at the issue; as well as watching the efforts at Wikidata related to books and bibliographic data. And my conclusion now has clarified to be: IA's bibliographic data is utter crap.

Just now I needed to look for scans of W. B. Yeats's works, and searching at IA it turns out they have these listed under "w. b. (william butler) yeats", "w. b. yeats", "w. b. (william butler) yeats", and "yeats, w. b. (william butler), 1856-1939", and probably a bunch of others hidden behind a "More" button. They have modern editions listed with year of publication set to the when the original was published. They have edition listed with the editor as the author, and with the author nowhere in the metadata. Publisher and place of publication is missing for most works. And let's not even get started on copyright status.

Meanwhile—between Wikisource, Wikidata, and Wikipedia—we're crowdsourcing a ton of this metadata in a structured or semi-structured format; more often than not compensating here for lack of good metadata there. And, like Worldcat, there seems to be no good way to feed our efforts back into their data.

This strikes me as… well, not to put too fine a point on it… blindingly stupid.

Can you think of any way to at least start addressing this? I don't particularly mean in terms of "Let's make a bot that scrapes… and then …"; but rather is there avenues or channels for discussing common interests and ways to take advantage of each others work? If I through Commons, Wikisource, or Wikidata (usually all three) have added a bunch of structured bibliographic data for a scan of a work, and have tagged the scan as being a particular IA identfier (i.e. it's the Source field over on Commons), what mechanisms might work for feeding that back into IA's metadata? That might be a bot that they control and so can trust that cherrypicks stuff they want on our side; or we could build some framework for them to trust us to provide that data directly. A formal cooperation—mediated by the WMF—that lets trusted users here edit metadata on their side directly? Maybe they could support adding a Wikidata ID from us, and a widget in their web interface that just shows information from Wikidata (rather than overwriting their own data)? There's got to be a bunch of different ways and models for working together, and plenty of common interest and mutual benefit to be had.

It's just… it drives me batty that they have three+ different free-text strings identifying the same author, and that everyone in the world will have to waste time on that, when I could have clicked a "merge authors" button and added William Butler Yeats (Q40213) and just fixed it for them.

To the degree you talk to anybody over there that might be interested in this kind of stuff, giving them a poke about it might be worthwhile. (I'm assuming the benefits to the Wikimedia side are obvious, so won't go into that). --Xover (talk) 11:11, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

The Internet Archive generally imports MARC records from whichever library is participating, they don't correct upstream errors. Merges are supposed to happen on openlibrary.org as much as possible, not on archive.org itself. Nemo 14:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Shift 2 Unleashed talk - 3 external link sections

There are 3 external links sections on the talk page, and they look like duplicates. Could this be reduced to one talk section? Rcgldr (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Trouted

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You have been trouted for: making a bot Kugihot ^{❯❯❯ Vanguard} 15:22, 14 October 2019 (UTC)