This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.
This user has 53% energy left.
This user has autoconfirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has rollback rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has pending changes reviewer rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has account creator rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user has template editor rights on the English Wikipedia.
This user is a global renamer.
This user has extended confirmed rights on the English Wikipedia.
Trout this user

User talk:cyberpower678

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Cyberbot II)
Jump to: navigation, search
Yes check.svg
This user is online, or has forgotten to update this message after finishing a wikisession.
(If there have been no edits from this user in the last 60 minutes, it is safe to assume that this user either forgot or is lurking.)
Veteran Editor III
cyberpowerChat:Online
Click here to find out why my signature changes color.
Wikistress3D 1 v3.jpg

  • Hello!! I am Cyberpower678. I am your typical 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. :-)
  • 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 2435 different users.
  • Disputes or discussions that appear to have ended or is disputed will be archived.

All the best.—cyberpower


View my talk page Archives.
RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report
RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report

No RfXs since 15:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online


InternetArchiveBot[edit]

I was unhappy with this edit by the InternetArchiveBot.

  1. There was nothing wrong with the original
  2. The bot messed up the page formatting by removing the space before the {{
  3. The accessdate is in an invalid format; bots must comply with the {{use dmy dates}} template
  4. "bot: unknown" is an undocumented value for the deadurl parameter
  5. "df" is an undocumented value for the cite web template

I have reverted the edit, and tagged the article with a {{bots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} template Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Tagging the page with the Bonita template was excessively premature. You could have simply appended that source with {{cbignore}}.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 22:32, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. The bot converts all stray archive templates to citation templates. An update in the works, v1.3, will make this conversion exclusive to references only.
  2. That's clearly a bug and needs to be fixed, not suppressed.
  3. IABot does comply and sets the format through the df parameter, which renders in the appropriate format
  4. That value was specificially designed for IABot.
  5. It may not be documented, but it certainly exists and works.
Cheers.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 22:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
  1. I'm not sure why you want to do that
  2. okay
  3. As you can see, this not not render the date correctly
  4. What does it do?
  5. As you can see, this not not render the date correctly
  6. The {{cbignore}} documentation was unclear as to whether it would work in this case.

Hawkeye7 (talk) 23:03, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

  1. It helps with the transparency of sourcing. By converting to a cite template, it allows for the presence of an access date, which the bot can reasonably extrapolate from, and put into the citation template. Also for the WebCite templates, which are mostly populated with the short form snapshot URLs, it allows the original URL to be present and visible, should the archive ever go down.
  2. (blank)
  3. I was just recently informed that I need to use the dmy-all value and not just dmy to get all dates to render correctly, so this is a bug that needs fixing.
  4. It mimics the deadurl=unfit, with some minor differences. @Trappist the monk: can enlighten you on that. This value suppresses the rendering and linking of the original URL. deadurl=yes links to the archive, but also links to the original.
  5. Same as 3.
  6. {{cbignore}} works on anything the bot touches. It's parsing engine is quite intelligent. It's designed to mimic human parsing as best as possible.
Cheers.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 23:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7:
  1. Because |dead-url=bot: unknown is not intended for use by regular editors, it is only vaguely documented. It functions the same way as |dead-url=unfit, used previously by this bot, except that it is semantically different and has its own maintenance category: Category:CS1 maint: BOT: original-url status unknown. |dead-url=unfit (or |dead-url=usurped) is intended to be used by editors who find an original url that may once have supported an article's text but now has been taken over for the purposes of advertising, porn, malicious scripts, or whatever. When these kinds of urls are found, |dead-url=unfit causes Module:Citation/CS1 to hide that url while at the same time retaining it for historical purposes. This bot was using |dead-url=unfit which has contaminated Category:CS1 maint: Unfit url so now we don't know which of the 9k-ish original urls in that category are unfit and which the bot knows to be live but doesn't know if they support their respective articles.
  2. Yeah, cs1|2 documentation generally sucks. But, in this case you are wrong. |df= is documented for all cs1|2 templates that use {{csdoc}}. See Template:Cite web#Date.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:08, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

There's a problem with this edit by the bot: For the access date, it inserted the date the archive was captured, not the (presumably) current date when the bot accessed the page. This date precedes the founding of Wikipedia, which correctly caused it to be flagged as an error. --Floatjon (talk) 15:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II[edit]

I can't believe no one hasn't already asked you this but fer chrissakes adjust the bot so it stops spamming talk pages. The edit summary in the pages' histories is more than enough notice that the external links have been modified. Such notification is in fact precisely what they are there for. The talk page is for actual talk about the improvement of the article which "double checking bot edits" doesn't actually fall under. The only pages where anyone ever follows the bot's instructions, verifies the link, and makes a mark are well-curated pages where they would have checked the new links anyway.

At minimum—if there is some policy that requires such notifications—make them as minimal as possible, as a single text line without images: I have just added archive links to one external link on X. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether.. Right now, it's an eyesore. Nothing else being written is important, creating a category with 180,000+ entries neither you nor anyone else is whittling down is not helping anyone, and it is a needless piece of makework to require other people delete them by hand or craft other bots to follow around cleaning up after you. — LlywelynII 02:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Get a consensus if you want it changed or shut down. This bot has been doing this for over a year now, and is approved to do so.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 02:44, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello C. As you know I worked on these for several months. Eventually I got burnt out on them though I do still do a few from time to time. They are worth checking due to the fact that some of the updates do not work. I have wondered if some kind of edit-a-thon might be organized to reduce the number in the category. I have no idea how those work but I thought I would mention it to see what you think. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 16:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I also have been checking the links and consider the talk page message a useful prompt for doing so. I've gone to the trouble of listing failed links under a separate {{sourcecheck}} with |checked=failed, thinking that it might be useful feedback. I think myself a little unusual in going to such trouble. On even my most active articles, I have little competition to complete this task. I neglect to change archived messages on pages I'm new to, even if I check the link, since changing archived material is generally discouraged. The failed links that go undetected should be either relisted or reworked with time, especially since the bot seems to work on automatic pilot in checking for failed links. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:38, 29 September 2016 (UTC)