Jump to content

User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 29

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 25←Archive 27Archive 28Archive 29Archive 30Archive 31→Archive 35
Senior Editor II
Senior Editor II

Happy New Year, Cyberpower678

Pratyya (Hello!) — is wishing you a Happy New Year! Welcome the 2016. Wishing you a happy and fruitful 2016 with good health and your wishes come true! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! May the 2016 go well for you.

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:User:Pratyya Ghosh/Happy New Year}} to their talk page with a Happy New Year message.

A Dobos torte for you!

7&6=thirteen (☎) has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.


To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

thanks for tweaking Tazio Nuvolari 7&6=thirteen (☎) 22:52, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot summarized 67 archived URLs but really only archived 4

Hi, Cyberpower678. Cyberbot II archived 4 URLs but the edit summary says 67 were archived. Where are the 67? Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:27, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II summarized 55 archived URLs but only really archived 3

Hi, again. Cyberbot II archived 3 URLs but the edit summary says 55 were archived. Where are the 55? Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 13:17, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot rescued 3, which you can see in the edit summary and archived 55 live links into the wayback machine, which you can't. It's a behind the scenes operation.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 14:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Your bot's signature

The syntax highlighter reveals CyberbotII's signature needs tweaking. Closing the sup and span tags should fix the problem. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

I haven't had any issues with Cyberbot's signature though.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 14:26, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Cleaning the sandbox once per hour should wait a few minutes if edits have been recently made

As seen in this, which had mildly inconvenienced me. lowercase sigmabot II, though now dormant, once had this functionality. →Σσς. (Sigma) 06:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kim White (2nd nomination)

Could you run the bot and notify all the projects now listed on the talk page. A number of the projects weren't on the talk page when you earlier did this earlier today. Any assistance would be appreciated. Thank you. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't have a bot that does that.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 17:27, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. Sorry for the bother. Happy New year! 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:47, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II

Hi Cyberpower678. I disabled Cyberbot II's DeadLinksBot task because it seemed to be stuck in a loop just continually updating User:Cyberbot II/Dead-Links Log. Hope that was OK. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 10:12, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

CB 2 on Parkour

This edit does not appear to archive 62 links. Mostly an aesthetic bug. --Izno (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

It's not a bug. Please read the edit summaries more carefully.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 14:24, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
"Rescuing 3 sources, flagging 0 as dead, and archiving 62 sources" (emphasis mine). Where in the edit are 62 sources archived? I see 3 references changed (the rescued references presumably) but no additions of archived links besides. Pray tell how I should read it more carefully. :) --Izno (talk) 14:35, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
If it's meant to be a comment on how many sources are already archived--that's not how English works. "62 sources already archived" would be more (most?) appropriate in that case. --Izno (talk) 14:37, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
No it's saying how many live sources it sent to the wayback machine for future, hence archived.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 14:39, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
The archiving is a behind the scenes process and can't be seen on wiki.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 14:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Indeed, I see that from a read of the section or two above. It seems I'm not the only one confused by the statement. Is there space in the edit summary (or maybe you consider it duplicate information?) to add "archived N sources to IA" or similar? --Izno (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking it'd be easier to make an FAQ and point people there instead. :p—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 14:42, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
That would work too. Same question of "space in the edit summary" of course. :P --Izno (talk) 14:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Question on CyberbotII/IAbot

Hi there Cyberpower. Great work you are doing. Always glad to see that so many sources get archived somehow and that archives may sometimes exist when a source goes missing or dead.

However, I am generally totally confused as to how the process works, whether is it thorough or light, manual or automatic, on a large subset of Wiki article pages. For example, if I wanted to know that all of the Mid/High/Top importance articles monitored by WikiProject Spaceflight have their sources auto-magically archived somehow, I have no idea how to do that. Are their configuration parms I could set to ensure it is done by the bot? Or can I just sit back and know that CyberbotII/IAbot are automagically ensuring all sources used on the English Wikipedia are archived somehow, or maybe are archived after a day or a week or so?

Can you help me on this? Cheers. N2e (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

IA archives any new links added automatically. At current Cyberbot only handles articles with dead link tags on it. It will handle all of wikipedia when ready to do so.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 19:23, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Super. Thanks for the quick response.
So if I understand this correctly, IAbot is actively watching all articles in the English Wikipedia for any new links, and is archiving them as they are added, hourly, continuously, etc.
Question: is there any way for a project, or other subset of Wiki articles, to request that IAbot run through a set of articles and ensure archives exist for their sources? Thanks. N2e (talk) 19:28, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
No. I do not control IABot and there is no need to do that. IA patrols recent changes and archives the new links added, I believe continuously. Cyberbot will however patrol all of Wikipedia and add archive links accordingly. Right now its operational scope is only pages that have dead link tags on it.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 19:32, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. Got it. I think I now understand how this works. N2e (talk) 19:41, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sorry, it's RFPP again

I know I only ever seem to bug you about the RFPP task but it's always got weird quirks. Anyway, you know those new parameters that got added recently to {{RFPP}}? Well, the bot doesn't recognise them just yet so it just needs to be able to recognise pf and cpif. Also, did you see my suggestion regarding missing {{pagelinks}} templates for some requests that pass through RFPP and how the bot could possibly reconcile this parsing issue by adding the template? tutterMouse (talk) 16:36, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll get to it as soon as I can.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Limited Access 17:15, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
When you say 'it', do you mean the new parameters of the self-correction suggestion? tutterMouse (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
Both.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Limited Access 18:43, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Clara Henry

Hi, could you please make your bot take a look at the sources for two articles, Clara Henry and Oba Chandler. To check for dead links. Would appreciate it. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 00:44, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Oh, and Tiffany Cole, Celeste Beard. Thanks again.--BabbaQ (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
That's not how the bot works. If your article has dead tags on its sources, it will get to it eventually.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 00:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok. Cheers.BabbaQ (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

problems with xtools on toollabs

Hello, you are listed as the first contributor on the xtools on toollabs. Therefore I write to you. I have some problems with this tools:

  • If a username contains non-ascii characters, sometimes some of the links do not work. For example in the editcounter clicking on the number of edits for another project does not display the edit counts but a form where I have to enter the username again
    • But at other times the Url is working, but the generated Url is forwarded with a 301 status code
  • The links on the editcounter leading to commons, meta and wikidata generate Urls with the projectnames commonswiki, metawiki and wikidatawiki, that do not work. The Urls need to be corrected to commons, meta and wikidata
  • The link to wikiviewstats displays "no webservice"
  • While OAuth login works flawlessly for me with phabricator and crosswatch, it is erratic at best with the xtools (sometimes maybe dependent on the chosen language)
  • Even if actually logged in xecho doesn't show any notifications for me
  • The display of the XTools.js-gadget is always logged out for me
    • Clicking on articleinfo in xtools.js causes a 301 forward before displaying the results
    • Clicking on languagetool in xtools.js causes a 404 status code

Can you help with this? --° (Gradzeichen) 07:34, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry. My involvement with xTools is very very minimal at this point. After another user significantly rewrote the tools, it's been nearly impossible for me to maintain them. I'm also involved in a rather big project for the WMF right now, and don't have much time for anything else at the moment.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 15:41, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
So who should I ask? --° (Gradzeichen) 15:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Ideally, de:User:Hedonil would be the one to ask, but he's been missing for quite some time. You could try MusikAnimal (talk · contribs) or Elee (talk · contribs). In the best case, you should open an issue on GitHub.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 15:58, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I will ask MusikAnimal. --° (Gradzeichen) 16:05, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Another issue is that the links under "SUL editcounter" have URLs that start with "https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/". The hyphen between "xtools" and "ec" should be corrected to a slash. Other issues (no namespace prefix before colon, "Article" not in English, and "https://http//" URLs) have already been fixed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

The hyphen is correct.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 17:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Oops, the slash should be corrected to a hyphen under "SUL editcounter". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 17:51, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Why don't any of you advertise on places like WP:VPT to find new potential developers? (And don't look at me: I only know HTML, CSS, and JavaScript/jQuery, and in any case I only do that every now and then as a hobby.) I've been aware of this developer problem for some time, and I once even read through the long September exchange on the xTools mailing list. But it seems much more logical to me that you publicize this issue on-wiki instead of arguing on some obscure mailing list. Biblioworm 22:04, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
    We did. It went on the on the watchlist notice for a few days. Nothing much came of it.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 22:13, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
    Right. See Wikipedia talk:XTools for "what came of that". There were some promising inquiries, but... I'm juggling so many balls on this project that I can't help but drop some of them. My mid-July Tools Access Request was approved, but then I never got around to try to get into "Bastion SSH access". So many challenging doors to pass through to do anything useful here, and as soon as you pat yourself on the back for successfully opening one, you discover another equally challenging door was hiding right behind that one. And you don't know how many more doors there are... I could try to find out, but that means dropping other balls that I know nobody else is going to pick up. Eventually I may try to pick up this one again. I'm curious to know who finally got the "Article" not in English (it appeared as a Chinese character) fixed, though I understand if they want to stay "behind the curtain". Some interesting stuff at this link which was given just below. Wbm1058 (talk) 14:48, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
    I could possibly offer some assistance in getting you in to xTools. As I understand it, someone is active on the GitHub, that has the latest version on xTools. Someone with more time than me has been actively repairing the code. Kudos to them, anyone is free to join the maintenance crew by submitting updates to the repo.
    Thanks, it's still on my back-burner, so I may take you up on that eventually. I found the update "Display mainspace name as 'blanknamespace' message in wiki's content …" over onGitHub (committed 14 days ago), guessing that's the one that got rid of the "Chinese character". Indeed I see someone from WMF in San Francisco has been submitting several changes, and there's even one from someone in Wikimedia-London. Won't spill beans here, but anyone who knows where to look can see who. Nice to see that they're finally helping out. Wbm1058 (talk) 15:29, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Somebody has been twiddling with Xtools! gadgets. (Kudpung—MusikAnimal—Wbm1058—Biblioworm—°—Hedonil) as now the Created by: portion of the toolbar is blanked out. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
Not sure I recall what it looked like before, but credit is still given at the bottom of each page in the xtools suite:
© 2008-2015 · Cyberpower678 · Hedonil · MusikAnimal · Technical 13 · TParis · X! • View Source • Bugs • #wikimedia-labs WebChat
Translations are powered by translatewiki.net and Intuition.
If you click on "View Source" you'll see that the most recent changes were committed 15 days ago.
I see that clicking on "X!'s Tools" (on the very top left) still gives me a "301 Moved Permanently" error, as does the link at the bottom of the "view source" page:
Repository for xtools The Wikimedia tools available on https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/
– Wbm1058 (talk) 13:00, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Two years ago ...
power to support
... you were recipient
no. 716 of Precious,
a prize of QAI!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Minor RfPP vagary

Hey there, happy new year. Just to point out this edit where the bot pinged itself. I assume it's because the original request wasn't signed. Not a biggy. GedUK  12:08, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

I'll keep that bug there. It's a rather silly and non-serious one to laugh at.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 15:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/adminstats/?project=de.wikipedia.org&begin=2015-01-01&end=2016-01-01

Hi, Would it be possible to show all admins of a Wikipedia, so also those with no (0) logged contributions in a certain time period? That would be very interesting. Thank you --Zulu55 (talk) 15:31, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I don't consider myself active xTools anymore.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 15:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

What am I supposed to do with this?

Hello. Thanks for thinking of me, but I don't know what I am supposed to do with this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Highland_Park,_Los_Angeles&curid=1868780&diff=698656599&oldid=585686412#External_links_modified. Thanks, from one who has BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:39, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Follow the instructions that Cyberbot gave you.—cyberpowerHappy 2016:Online 20:51, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

archivedate in Vehicle references

First off, thanks for a very useful bot that runs around missing up the broken archives - much appreciated. But there is a minor tweak that I hope you can put in. On many of the vehicle articles the references use the 'yyyy-mm-dd' date format. But Cyberbot II only inserts 'mmm dd, yyyy' or 'dd mmm yyyy' formats into |archivedate=. Is it possible to add the 'yyyy-mm-dd' format based on the existing value of |accessdate= (preferred, which nearly always has the day of the month) or |date= (which often has only month and year but no day)? Then I won't have to tweak its updates so much. Thanks.  Stepho  talk  07:11, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Book reports

Hello, has Cyberbot now stopped generating the book reports? Thanks, —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 13:41, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

AfD Table updating

First of all, thanks for creating User:Cyberbot_I/Current_AfDs. However, it seems to not be properly updating. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Shawn_Hogan_(darts_player), which was closed at the end of November. There are perhaps several dozen discussions that have been closed, though this is the oldest. Smith(talk) 21:46, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II and Internet Archive

Regarding this edit diff. The {{wayback}} template is not designed to be used inside citations. See Template:Wayback#When_not_to_use "Avoid using this template for bibliographic citations." The {{cite web}} templates provide this mechanism through the archiveurl= + archivedate= + deadurl=yes parameters. -- GreenC 16:25, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

There are tools that are capable of both converting from a bare URL to a cite template + adding the correct archiveurl parameters. However after adding the wayback template, those other tools won't work and it will be required to manually remove the wayback template before converting to a cite template. -- GreenC 16:34, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
That is not within Cyberbot's scope of approval. If there is a cite template, it makes use of it, but if it's a bare url, it will attach a wayback link. It is not up to the bot to convert URLs to cite templates, because stuff like that requires human review.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Ok understood. I may be wrong that the template shouldn't be used in non-templated references. There appears to be some consensus for that. Never mind :) BTW in cases of truly bare URL (just the URL and nothing else, or only surrounded by a []) I would hope there is scope of approval for the bot to add a basic cite web template - there wouldn't be need for human review. -- GreenC 18:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
I think you may misunderstand that message. With bare urls inside reference tags, it will use the way back template. For citation templates, the bot uses the parameters. For bare urls not in reference tags, the bot modifies the link directly and points it to an archive to avoid disrupting the and article. This has been extensively proposed, extensively tested, and approved. Hope this helps. Cyberbot will not change any formatting and has been extensively designed to handle various formatting methods on Wikipedia and to respect and maintain said formatting.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 18:39, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

No I understand. Here are two scenarios:

  • Scenario 1: <ref>http://somewebsite.com</ref>
  • Scenario 2: <ref>[http://somewebsite.com "Some unknown text (title, work etc)"]</ref>

In the first case, there is no reason to use the wayback template. Simply convert it to the cite web template eg

  • Scenario 1 (post bot): <ref>{{cite web |url=http://somewebsite.com |archiveurl=.. |archivedate=..}} </ref>

There is no need for a human here, and no need for the wayback template. In Scenario two there would be need for the wayback template. -- GreenC 00:16, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It still goes outside the bot's scope of approval and would require significant compromising rewrites of the code.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 00:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
The scope/consensus issue can be addressed. Is the code open source? -- GreenC 02:35, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes it is.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:02, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

The bot adds parameters like "archiveurl" and "archivedate". Nowadays we use "archive-url" and "archive-date" with a dash. Would be great if the bot could also switch to that. Debresser (talk) 21:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

During early development of the bot, those parameters were being used, but for reasons I cannot remember I switched to the other version to resolve an issue I was encountering.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 23:05, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II

Hi Cyberpower678. Do you have a feel for how soon Cyberbot II will start running across the whole of Wikipedia? I'm trying to decide whether it's worth my while fixing dead links using Checklinks - if Cyberbot II is going to start running across the whole of Wikipedia in, say, a week's time, I'll probably save my effort. (The other advantage of letting Cyberbot II do the work is that unarchived links get archived, which doesn't happen if I fix the links myself using Checklinks). On the other hand, if Cyberbot II isn't going to start running across the whole of Wikipedia for, say, 3-4 months, then I'll probably keep fixing dead links myself in the meantime. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 23:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II is already fixing dead links on pages that are tagged already. It will run on the entire wiki hopefully soon.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:31, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
My watchlist's already overflowing with Cyberbot II edits. It's great to see. NebY (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II removes text unrelated to the archived resource

Hello Cyberpower, see diff/678274710, where the text English translation: "[http://dbhs.wvusd.k12.ca.us/webdocs/Chem-History/Planck-1901/Planck-1901.html On the Law of Distribution of Energy in the Normal Spectrum]{{dead link|date=December 2013}} was removed without explanation. In think that when modifying a citation template invocation, then nothing outside the invocation should be touched. Petr Matas 10:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That looks like an old bug fixed a while ago.—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:20, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

XTools - "extended"

As you seem to be the person who created the XTools editcounter: what does "extended" mean at my page? Do I have to change something to see these special statistics? --Ali1610 (talk) 13:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Archivedate format

Cyberbot II sure is creating a lot of work for me lately. I think about 40-50% of my changes this last week have been cleaning up after this bot. Its changes are useful but I have to change many of them to be consistent with the yyyy-mm-dd style used for references in many vehicle articles.  Stepho  talk  20:56, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've had a look at a few articles you've been cleaning up on, and sorry to say, there is nothing I can do. The majority of articles use formatting the bot uses and articles that need a different format have template somewhere in the article designed for bots to detect and adjust formatting. An example is {{usedmy}}. The bot looks for these tags and formats accordingly defaulting to {{usemdy}} for articles without formatting tags. The good news, Cyberbot won't touch those links after this.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:17, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Archiving bug

In this edit your bot looks like it was confused by the {{Full citation needed}} template and didn't quite format the archive template correctly. Just a heads up. Modulus12 (talk) 16:48, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Actually it's because someone attached the template directly to the link. That's bad formatting. The bot looks for the start of a link and continues until it hits a whitespace. That then gets interpreted as a link. In any case I will make an effort to refine the parsing system.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

archiveurl and archivedate vs archive-url and archive-date

Hi! Your bot made this edit, which put a correct internet archive url into the citation, but used the parameters archiveurl and archivedate instead of archive-url and archive-date, which caused poor formatting in the reference output. Inserting the hyphens into the reference citation made things work nicely again. Argyriou (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

They have identical functions. It was you adding the title parameter that fixed your problem.—cyberpowerChat:Online 19:53, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
That's weird. Not having a title causes the archive linking to not work right? I'll believe it - I looked at some template syntax once and it looked like LISP with curly braces instead of parentheses, so I suspect it's easy for that to happen. Argyriou (talk) 00:25, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

archive failure

I've started looking at the archive links you are creating, and I am very impressed.

I am working my way through a list of articles where you have created an archive link, and up until now, all have checked out fine.

I ran into one today that did not work:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Heidi_Burge

When I click on the archive link, I get a “shell” associated with the University of Vrginia, but no content. Given the large number of links you are working on, I don't know that you have time to track down issues, but I wanted to bring it to your attention.

I tried locating the right page at web.archive.org but failed.

My fallback plan is to track down the information from other pages (I have found some of it, but not all).

Thanks again for the work you have done, it is tremendous.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:04, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot will be happy to hear that. Unfortunately, while the accuracy of Cyberbot is very high, it will not always generate a working link to use. It's unfortunately unavoidable.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Is there an 'ignore' list for the bot?

Hi,

First of all, thanks very much for your bot. I do appreciate the work that it does.

It has been checking a lot of EastEnders related articles recently, an example is Abi Branning. However, some of these articles will not need checking because their links have been checked by myself recently using Checklinks. Is there any way to get the bot to ignore some articles rather than create it more work?--5 albert square (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Not at current. Cyberbot II is still in development.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:42, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for the response :)--5 albert square (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

My names jeff

Your bot(cyberbot I) readded the deletion template I had placed and removed as another user put the speedy deletion tag on at about the same time. I am going to revert your bots edit as both are not necessary. Please advise if there is something I should have or could have done differently.Krj373 (talk) 22:01, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Here is a Barnstar for you

I am particularly impressed by the cyberbot II edits that I see routinely. personally i feel this is of immense value to wikipedia.

For creating and maintaining Cyberbot II
Devopam (talk) 09:05, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Technical Barnstar
For your work on Cyberbot II, a well-implemented and highly useful dead link-rescuing bot, I hereby award you the Technical Barnstar. GregorB (talk) 12:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II: "archiving 99 sources"

But Cyberbot didn't really archive 99 sources. He just archived a handful. Thought I would point out this potential (?) bug. Yanping Nora Soong (talk) 08:57, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

I really need to make an FAQ.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:14, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker). Or, a fresh bangin' edit summary That one tricked me too! I was going to stalk an answer here, but I took a nap instead. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 23:10, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cyberpower678. You have new messages at Cyberbot I's talk page.
Message added 23:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I just wanted to let you know that I have just reverted a change made by 67.241.15.174 as I thought it to be possible vandalism on page User:Cyberbot I/Run/Meta-cont page. if it is not please do revert my change. Cheers :) Hot Pork Pie 23:47, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

OMG, weren't even ment for you.SORRY!!!Hot Pork Pie 23:54, 20 January 2016 (UTC)


Okay now I'm going bed confused......HOPE YOUR HAPPY WITH YOURSELF!!! Hot Pork Pie 00:03, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi and thank you. I assume you're confused because my bot's talk page redirected to me. I own Cyberbot so when people have questions, the talk page will redirect to me where they can ask it.—cyberpowerChat:Online 00:36, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

It added spam

Somehow, the bot added a spam link with this edit. It was reverted. Prhartcom (talk) 15:02, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

No it didn't. It did it's job.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:09, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) The original link was still active, but apparenly usurped by an unrelated spam site. Can't really blame the bot in such a special situation (the spam was already present before) - I have removed the original URL manually and added the functional non-spam archive in 3 other topic-related articles. GermanJoe (talk) 16:31, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Oh is that what happened? That's unfortunately unavoidable. The bot isn't responsible for links already on the page.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank-you, GermanJoe, your efforts are appreciated. Cyberpower678, in the future, we would all appreciate it if you would investigate the evidence presented to you and not just reject it argumentatively. Prhartcom (talk) 00:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
I didn't. The bot didn't add a spam link. The spam link was already there and the bot added a working archive link to the page. The bot is doing what it's supposed to.—cyberpowerChat:Online 01:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
We know. Read above; GermanJoe explained that. My comment obviously is to your originally unhelpful, outright rejection of any problem. There was a problem and now it is resolved. In the future, there is no need to take the defensive. Check the evidence that people bring you in good faith and see if you can solve it. Prhartcom (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
"We"? Just for the record, I disagree with your opinion (please don't assume to speak for other editors). The initial response may have been a bit short ;), but Cyberpower is maintaining several bots at once and is usually quite helpful. Considering that the problem was not caused by his bot, he is not obliged to research unrelared issues in his free time. You should cut him some slack for a relatively minor misunderstanding. GermanJoe (talk) 08:11, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Cyberpower,

German Wikipedia uses a bot + human approach since 2012 to fix dead links. See Project Link Maintenance. The bot (Giftbot) checks the of links and automatically suggests Web Archive, if available there (example).

Greetings, --Kopiersperre (talk) 18:00, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. As Cyberbot continues to develop, it will eventually go global. Setting this feature up should be pretty straightforward given its current capabilities.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 18:50, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot I and Current Events portal

Hey Cyberpower! In case you weren't aware, I wanted to let you know that it looks like Cyberbot I has been erratic in creating "new day" pages at Portal:Current events over the last few days. For example, I had to create the one for January 20, 2016 and somebody else had to create the one for January 23, 2016. So, in case there's any issue here, I thought I'd let you know. (I know I read elsewhere that someone (the WMF?) did something that has affected the performance of bots within the last few days – dunno if this is related...). --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:29, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

WMF changed the way bots now login, because they want to progress to using AuthManager ASAP. This meant that bot owners would have to erm... mess around. Cyberpower did all of that. However, the wiki was rolled back to the last version yesterday due to a security issue, so those changes are causing the bot to fail working now. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
It's still not working correctly: Cyberbot I failed tonight to create the entry for Portal:Current events/2016 January 24. So it's failed to do it the last two days in a row now... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:18, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
I'll have a look to see what the culprit is.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:16, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
This task only runs once every 24 hours, and successful or not, it leaves it at that. I believe the failures involved were caused by the bad tokens initially, and the session invalidation (forced logout), due to MW bugs. Cyberbot I itself seems to be fine, and I note it created the portal for the next day already. If it keeps failing let me know.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Tasks down

The bot tasks fell over due to a change in the API meaning bots need to use OAuth or Special:BotPasswords to login whenever that springs into action. You might already be aware but if not then that's why there's a heap of badtoken errors in your logs. tutterMouse (talk) 14:13, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

An announcement was posted on the Bot Owners' Noticeboard and he read it. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:30, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Cyberpower made the changes but all wikis were rolled back yesterday, so it's failing. :3 --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:38, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
This was a different issue. Yesterday's sessions were forcibly invalidated, causing Cyberbot's cookies to go bad. I restarted the bots to refresh the cookies. Cyberbot does not use the BotPasswords but uses OAuth instead, and I'm pretty sure that hasn't been rolled back. I think.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
The phab task is still open but I think Legoktm probably ran the resetGlobalUserTokens.php script. In which case, you're correct. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:43, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Don't worry, Cyberbot uses the fancy stuff. :p—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Pull request for Xtools

I'm tired of that annoying redirect. [1] --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

 Done—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:41, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 14:45, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Book talk

Hello, has the bot stopped generating the Book reports now? —Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 11:46, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

I'm still in the process of moving it to a new login method. I forgot that this bot is completely separate from the rest.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:17, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Bot updated. I have started it on a run now.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:26, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
For helping to clear out the backlog at requests for account creation after nearly a week of being done! Kharkiv07 (T) 19:55, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Cyberpower678. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 14:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

1989. COOL BEANS! 14:58, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II

Hi Cyberpower678. Am I right in thinking that Cyberbot II fixes dead links which are tagged with {{dead link}} in articles which have been changed "recently"? If so, is there a specific time period after which articles "drop off Cyberbot II's radar"? e.g. if I tagged an article with {{dead link}} two weeks ago and Cyberbot II hasn't processed it yet, should I fix the links myself, or is there a chance Cyberbot II will still process it? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 12:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II checks all articles with a tag. Not just recently changed articles, so it will eventually get to yours.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Sig problem

The syntax highlighter reveals a problem with CyberbotII's signature. There should be a close to span inside the two right square brackets at the end. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)


  • Unrelated, but your own signature is probably a problem too; it does not contain a direct link to your userpage or user talk page. You link through redirects, but this will probably cause problems with, in particular, participation reports which I believe are coded to look for signatures. It's also makes it more difficult for users to ping you directly because they can't copy and paste your actual username from the raw text of your signature. –xenotalk 12:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
    They can still ping me with C678. Besides I am grandfathered in because I've been using a redirect sig for 4 years now. When the policy discussion took place about redirect signatures, it was closed as passed, but to let sleeping dogs lie. Consider me a sleeping dog. :p—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Victoria and Albert Museum article - feedback

Hello, I just tried to check the two dead links the bot fixed on Victoria and Albert Museum. The second link is fine, but the first provided a dead link to the archive because the source (the Times) is now behind a paywall. When this happens the only thing one can do is look for an older dated version of the archived page that hopefully predates the paywall, and sometimes that doesn't even work depending on how the source set up their paywall to block archiving. Wasn't sure how else to report this. I can set the check to "done" as I did check but wanted to let you know one link was no good, although it may not be the problem of/ fault of the bot. TheBlinkster (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

At current there is no good way to ensure 100% reliable archive fetching. It does it's best however to get a working copy. it attempts to add the link based on the given access date or when the link was first added to the article.—cyberpowerChat:Online 17:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

RFPP template problem

Hey - MusikAnimal is on vacation so tag, you're it. :-)

There's a problem with the 'already done' (ad) parameter of {{RFPP}}. Its output is supposed to be 'Already done by administrator Katie' (for example) with 'administrator Katie' being a link to my user page. The actual output, though, is a link to User:By administrator KrakatoaKatie, which is, of course, nonsense. I used this template just a few minutes ago on a request for J.P. Manoux, if it helps.

Looking at the code, the same problem exists with already protected (ap) and already unprotected (au) as well. If 'by administrator' is taken out, I think that would fix it but it's really beyond my capability to make the edits and still have the end output what it's supposed to be. Can you help? Katietalk 22:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Try using the template now. It should work Korrectly. <-- see what I did there? :p—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:51, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Multiple passes?

Hi Cyberpower678. Can Cyberbot II process the same article multiple times? i.e. if it only fixes some of the dead links in an article (as it did here), is there a chance it will come back again and fix more/the rest? Or does Cyberbot II only process an article once, and if there are still dead links left afterwards, they need to be fixed by human editors? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It will eventually. When Cyberbot completes one run, it will do another. It's designed to check and re-check articles.—cyberpowerChat:Online 17:44, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Cool. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 20:29, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II not always updating talk page

Hi Cyberpower678. Cyberbot II doesn't seem to be always updating article talk pages at the moment. Is that intentional/expected? Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 08:13, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Bad session cookies probably caused the bot to fail intermittently. I restarted the bots, and it seems to have fixed it.—cyberpowerChat:Online 17:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 20:30, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that, and was trying to figure out if there was a good reason for it; thanks for the explanation and the restart.--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)--S Philbrick(Talk) 20:43, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

This seems to be happening again. DH85868993 (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

According to the operational logs, this is a separate incident. It appears the MW API is returning an edit conflict error, but is still letting the edit go through. However the response is telling the bot that the edit failed. In those cases, the bot forgoes posting to the talk page. It would seem another MW bug was detected.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Example log output:
Analyzing Mercury Rev (84192)...
Rescued: 1; Tagged dead: 0; Archived: 0; Memory Used: 32.75 MB; Max System Memory Used: 240.5 MB
EDIT ERROR: editconflict: Edit conflict detected
Though it could also be an indication of a talk page edit conflict happening.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:07, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Maria Montazami

The bot rescued two sourced at Maria Montazami but never posted its notification of archived sources at the articles talk page, like it usually does.--BabbaQ (talk) 11:53, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

The same goes for Andrea Myrander and a lot of other articles as well. While it posts its notifications at some talk pages. Very weird. @Cyberpower678: --BabbaQ (talk) 12:17, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
See section above.—cyberpowerChat:Online 17:48, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Updating watchlist notifications

Hi Cyberpower, would you look into having Cyberbot update the watchlist notification automatically for RfAs? I know it's a sensitive place, but perhaps the bot could update a cookie and the number within its javascript space that could be transcluded onto the watchlist page? Just a thought. Thanks! Kharkiv07 (T) 18:36, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I can't. I would need to be an admin. Feel free to support my RfA in the future though. ;-)—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:31, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
No, but you could create a page that you'd have another admin transclude to that page, that's what I was saying. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:10, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed your response as a result of the many threads being started here. That sounds like an interesting idea. I'll put it on my list.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
It has been done. Thanks for the consideration, though. Kharkiv07 (T) 17:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I was wondering since I can't remember if you've already said this or not, but in which order does the bot go through the articles? I know you've said it goes through all articles with {{dead links}}, but is there a specific order, or does it generate the "queue" of articles to check "today" at random or is there asome logic behind it? (t) Josve05a (c) 21:14, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

It checks whatever order the API returns it to the bot. I think it may be by pageid.—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:16, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Warning left on my talk page

Cyberbot left a warning on my talk page about removing an AfD template pertaining to a discussion that I started. I think the message was in error as a result. ElectricBurst(Electron firings)(Zaps) 03:57, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Once it's started the template cannot be removed until it ends. So no error.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 05:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report

I noticed that this template is now the width of the page; is there any way it can be set to display smaller? (Like it did until today :-)) All the best, Miniapolis 16:51, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Fixing the page formatting of that RfA.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The link to the 'crat chat may be the problem; I wonder if a piped link would be possible, but it'll be gone in a bit and things should be back to normal. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 18:02, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Odd citation correction

Hi! Cyberbot II is usually right-on with archive links and adding them to cite templates. But today there was this edit. The link was fine, but I had to look up Wayback because I'd never seen it before. The documentation states that it should never be used in citations, but only in "External links" sections. I fixed it manually, but I thought you might want to know about this behavior.

I see that whoever added the "dead link" template accidentally split the closing bracket of the citation. Would this have affected the bot's adding the wayback template instead of incorporating the archive into the original cite?

Is there any time the wayback template should be used by the bot?

Thanks. — Gorthian (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Good catch. The bot attempts to keep consistent with accepted formatting policies. That stray bracket does however cause it to misinterpret the citation template as a bare URL, in which case it appends the wayback template to the link. One of the bugs needing to be fixed is the regex that catches the sources on an article, which seems to leave out a good chunk of URLs.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:04, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
Aha. So it thought it was a bare URL, which would ideally be in the "External links" section, so that template would be appropriate. Thanks for the response! And good work! — Gorthian (talk) 20:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Bot wars!

I *think* however it might be on Cyberbot this time... See the protect log for 2015–16 Chelsea F.C. season. The pending changes protection ended at 22:21 UTC. MusikBot removed the {{pp-pc1}} at 22:23 UTC, then Cyberbot II added it back, even though the PC had expired. MusikBot again removed it, and seems like Cyberbot is now satisfied. Maybe this is an edge case, not sure? — MusikAnimal talk 22:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Could have been a MW caching issue, but out of curiosity, when did MusikBot take up the task Cyberbot II does quickly and well, since 2012?

supercount and hewiki.

hello Cyberpower678.

so, we have a new namespace in hewiki, called "Gadget" (namespace #2300).

unfortunately, the hebrew name for this namespace is גאדג'ט. note the single quote!

apparently, the supercount tool does not sanitize the namespace names, which cause it to fail: see [2]

tbh, i do not look at my own stats frequently enough to notice (so i have no idea how long the problem existed - prolly ever since the "Gadget" namespace was added to hewiki...), but another user asked me about it, and your name appears as the point-person in the FAQ, so here i am...

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 20:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
 Thank you very much! peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Bot down

Is the bot down? Or will it have another task than archiving dead links from now on?BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on some new updates to the bot.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:49, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Cyberbot I/AfD report bug

There's a really minor issue where the bot will think a page has a redlinked AfD tag when it really doesn't. I think it happens when the tag has spaces between the '=' sign in the parameters, e.g. "page = Title" instead of "page=Title", where it will think the discussion is at "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ Title" (note the space) instead of "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Title", where the template links to. Could you fix this if you have time? As I said, really minor issue. Thanks, ansh666 05:29, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

DeadLinksBot disabled

Hi Cyberpower678. I disabled DeadLinksBot because it was deleting reference names - see this edit and this one. (I have restored the reference names in those two articles, but no others). Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed the bug.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 05:37, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. DH85868993 (talk) 07:52, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot issue with allmusic

On checking the archive links on Wilco_discography both have a message about TOS issues not an archive copy. Not how many have this issue or if it is still going(edit was dated 16 Jan). Haakonsson (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case the links need to be replaced. I or Cyberbot really can't do much about that.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

RFA-Tally, again

Just a quickie, Cyberbot I seems to have stopped updating User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report and User:Cyberpower678/Tally overnight. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:57, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a MW bug, I think, that's causing session to be erratic and causes Cyberbot's attempts to edit Wikipedia to fail. I'm discussing it with anomie right now.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
And with that the bug has been found and squished and bots have been restarted. Bots should be up and running again.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

supercount, again.

hi. this one is not just hewiki, it's enwiki also. the issue has to do with contributors with contributions in enough namespaces to justify an "other" slice in the pie-chart. clicking any slice expands the namespace list, but the expanded list shows all the namespaces as "Topic", except the first one that reads "Main", and the list becomes practically meaningless. peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II added article to Pages with URL errors

Hi Cyberpower678! In this edit, it seems that Cyberbot II's change added the article to Category:Pages with URL errors. Could you please have the bot use |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/ instead? Also, when I go to the archiveurl in that edit, I get an error saying "Wayback Machine doesn't have that page archived", so I removed it from the article. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 23:22, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

That would appear to be a bug. It could be a bad response from the wayback API. I'll have to look closer.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 23:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
Your bot is still adding pages to the maintenance category - see this edit. Would you mind stopping the bot until you can tweak the code? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 01:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
When I spot check Cyberbot's other contribs, I don't see that same problem so I think disabling is a bit overkill. I'm still looking for the cause.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 01:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
Here are some more edits (I stopped looking after 10 edits): [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. GoingBatty (talk) 02:33, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
I found a pattern to these edits. I'm looking for the moment the bug arises. Give me a few minutes.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:35, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 Fixed per [13].—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:17, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Two more bad edits that look like they occurred after the fix: [14], [15]. GoingBatty (talk) 21:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with those edits.—cyberpowerChat:Online 00:32, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
On Family Guy, the bot changed {{cite web | url =https://web.archive.org/web/20010702021728/www.parentstv.org/publications/cyberbites/ecyb20000505.html| title = E-Alerts| work = Parents Television Council| accessdate =July 26, 2011}} to {{cite web|url=www.parentstv.org/publications/cyberbites/ecyb20000505.html |title=E-Alerts |work=Parents Television Council |accessdate=July 26, 2011 |deadurl=yes |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20010702021728/www.parentstv.org/publications/cyberbites/ecyb20000505.html |archivedate=July 2, 2001 }} which leaves |url= without http://. I had BattyBot fix it in this edit.
Same issue with the "GreenMind" reference in Woodstock 1999, which I had BattyBot fix in this edit. GoingBatty (talk) 01:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
That's because the archive URL omitted it too. Cyberbot doesn't alter links when fixing references. I can however program it to check for missing protocols.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:07, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
FYI... CheckWiki #62 pick up url's without http://. Bgwhite (talk) 08:31, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again! Thanks for your continued work to tweak your bot. Here are more edits that added the page to Category:Pages with URL errors: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25]. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello again! Since your bot is still making edits that break the references (e.g. [26], [27], [28]), I have clicked the disable link for this task so you have a chance to tweak your code. GoingBatty (talk) 14:49, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
I have disabled the bot on labs for the time being so I can test my patches on my local machine. I believe I have fixed the parsing engine to properly format URLs. Before testing, I will be implementing some additional bug fixes before proceeding.—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Online 19:37, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
 Fixed per [29].—cyberpowerChat:Offline 05:15, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
Looks like it broke one more: [30] GoingBatty (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm why do you do this to me Cyberbot?—cyberpowerChat:Online 00:59, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
It looks like the cause of this is a result of Cyberbot saving broken entries into the DB from the time before it was fixed. I'm purging all the bad entries right now.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done Purged 4653 links.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hey can i get your help on my talk page so it looks nicer? I love how you'res looks!

Kody1492 (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I would be helpful. I set this up years ago.—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:12, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
But could you try? Please? I'll give you a cookie!kody1492 Talk 15:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
When I have more time perhaps. I just had 5 cookies. :p—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Limited Access 16:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, ok. Thanks. LOL!--kody1492 Talk 13:49, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Wayback template in article text

Hi again! Today, Cyberbot II added three archive links to Rocky Flats Plant, but it used {{Wayback}} instead of the usual {{cite web}}. As I found out a few days back, the Wayback template is supposed to only be used in the "External links" section. These were bare-URL citations, so obviously the bot treated them as external links. But doesn't it check to see if the URL is wrapped in <ref> tags? Do named refs make a difference? I'll go back and fix these manually, but I hope the bot won't be making a lot of this kind of change. Or else I'll be coming to you to ask for a bot that will correct Cyberbot II! ;-) — Gorthian (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot does not alter the formatting of the source, nor is it approved to do so. A wayback template is used for any external link, including those in references, and uses the citation template's archive parameters if it is present. External links are not just links the "External Links" section of an article. If the bot is to change the format of bare links, it can have unintended consequences. In addition to that, Cyberbot should not be blamed here. If it's supposed to use cite web, for example, then the person, that added the source, should have used it to begin with. :p —cyberpowerChat:Online 23:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, they should have (stern voice). I wonder if, finding an external link wrapped in <ref> tags, it would be better if Cyberbot just left those dead links alone? Having now reformatted the three citations in that article, I think the bot did save me one step in the many-stepped process by having working archive links to insert. The {{Wayback}} template produces less-than-desirable results in the list of references, however. But now that I think about it, leaving bare-URL links as they are would be even worse. Never mind. — Gorthian (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I brought this up before as well. There's no reason Cyberbot can't convert bare links to a basic cite web template. Or, leave alone. The reason is this: there are other tools to semi-automatically convert bare links to cite web + archive URL. However if the Wayback template is inserted by Cyberbot, those tools won't work and it must be done 100% manual. So it's actually creating more work for someone to later clean up. The best solution is for the bot to make a simple cite web - the idea that anyone might object makes no sense as our guidelines recommend to not use bare links, and there is wide consensus for using citation templates. BTW by "bare links" I mean <ref>http..</ref> or <ref>[http://..]</ref> .. I agree that if it has other text it should be left alone. -- GreenC 15:58, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I'll look into it. It would seem there is consensus for this. It would require a bit of modification to the bot to implement.—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Limited Access 16:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Did you change it already? Because this is perfect! — Gorthian (talk) 17:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Not yet. That's an upgrade/fix from a few days ago. Originally programmed in Cyberbot is to fix external links not in references. Due to a bug, Cyberbot never found external links, until now. Because it is outside of a reference, and because Cyberbot doesn't know where in the article the link could be, it replaces the external link directly to avoid disrupting the formatting of the article. I won't be able to update until tomorrow afternoon. I'm very busy at the moment. I have an exam tonight.—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Online 21:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Good luck with the exam! — Gorthian (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 Done How's this? It has a little of everything.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 04:57, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
That's a vast improvement! You're right, there's a little of everything there. In the first one, the bare URL (inside a named ref) is made into a {{cite web}} citation. The second one is the same. The third one, though, is a bare URL inside an unnamed ref, and the bot goes back to old habits and pastes the {{wayback}} template on the end. The fourth one, a true external link in the "External links" section, is handled very nicely.

I can't help but wonder if it's behaving differently between named and unnamed refs. But as I said, it's still a big improvement. Thank you! — Gorthian (talk) 05:30, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with named references. The third link has text in the external link. For obvious reasons, the bot will not convert those. There's no way the bot could ever accurately handle those.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 05:34, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
But it handled the last one just fine (no wayback template); that has text in it also. The only difference between the third and fourth edit is that the third is wrapped in ref tags. — Gorthian (talk) 05:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
There are some fundamental differences however. When converting the link to a cite template, it can do it easy without external text, but if there is some in the link, where will it put it? That can only be decided by a human. When replacing the link with another one, as it did in the last one, it's not displacing the text, it's leaving it where it is, and that is systematic.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 06:02, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I understand. I was thinking that it could not create a cite template—just modify the URL as it did in the external link. But then I realized doing that would destroy the history of the original URL once someone did make a full citation out of it. Your fixes have made the bot much more useful. I'm grateful for all your magic hard work. — Gorthian (talk) 14:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi-- it looks fine, good work, thank you. I'd recommend one relatively easy change: the ordering of the arguments in cite web. The order is outlined at {{cite web}} in the Usage subsection "Full parameter set". So in this case it would be {{cite web |url= |archiveurl= |archivedate |dead-url= |access-date= |. It won't technically matter, but it's typical to follow this order and will likely match how other templates on the page are ordered. - GreenC 15:09, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

The order of named parameters is immaterial. The crucial thing is that you don't specify the same named parameter more than once. The order given at Template:Cite web#Usage is merely a suggestion, it is not mandatory; and deviating from this will not affect the behaviour of the template in any way whatsoever. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Fine, put accessdate first. When people show up here complaining you can tell them it doesn't matter and nothing is mandatory. When looking through dense wikisource working on templates it makes a big difference to visually scan for fields based on location. accessdate almost always comes last and it's frankly weird to have it come first. But you're right, it doesn't matter and no one has any right to complain because Cyberbot can do it anyway it wants. Be a rebel. Want to have an RfC and see what consensus is? -- GreenC 21:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
You do realize I didn't make the comment you responded to right?—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:54, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Yes, Redrose64 is not you. I was responding with your audience in mind in case you were swayed by Redrose64's argument. -- GreenC 22:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Bot leaving {{dead

Bot has been leaving {{dead inside the cite template, see [31] [32]. Anomiebot then comes along and makes things worse. I don't recall seeing this error before until the past ~4 days. Bgwhite (talk) 08:28, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

That is rather strange, it could be because there is a template for the URL of the cite template. I'm working on updates to resolve it. Do you have more recent examples? I do note I deployed a couple of updates yesterday.—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Online 14:30, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
CheckWiki runs every day at 0z. So, the two above were from the last run. I'll see if there are any errors after CheckWiki's next run. Bgwhite (talk) 22:06, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
I saw no errors from today's CheckWiki run. Bgwhite (talk) 21:33, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

hi

hello Hassuona (talk) 14:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Online 15:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

deadlink.php: function getTemplateParameters

Hi, noticed it's not checking the template for embedded refs or wiki comments. It may not need to but wanted to make sure. -- GreenC 16:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Why would it need to check for references in a template? Is reference being embedded in a reference? And what do you mean by wiki comments?—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Limited Access 16:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
You're right I was just testing to see if that would work, it didn't. For comments like:
{{cite web |url=https://wikipedia.org <!-- use https --> |title=etc.. }}
-- GreenC 16:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Good catch, that could cause problems especially in link source detection. I'll put in a fix.—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Limited Access 16:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok great. I came across it before when running another script. I don't have much experience in PHP so can't offer help with coding but could tell it wasn't checking for ! -- GreenC 16:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Blockage in Cyberbot I

Most likely know this but many tasks on Cyberbot I aren't running, guess this is part of a scheduled upgrade or a strange outage, haven't decided which. Bot's getting much flakier than I remember these past few weeks, WMF stuff with the logins? tutterMouse (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Labs deleted the logs Cyberbot writes to causing them to stall. They were trying to truncate large logs but apparently ended up deleting them. I have restarted them, again...—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Online 22:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Oh, would explain the blank logs everywhere. Will shorter logs be written instead? Probably a Labs flaw in not being able to handle large logs, shorten some of them and the timespan they cover would be too short. That restart button you mentioned before seems like a good idea the more I consider it (and the more the bots fall over each time Labs janks up something). tutterMouse (talk) 07:06, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The funny thing is that they were only supposed to truncate large logs, as greater than 1 GB. Cyberbot automatically regularly purges those logs at the beginning of every month, to keep space down. There is no way they could grow to be that big. There is also, still, no explanation as to why the actual log files got deleted, causing the bot to hang as it has nothing to print to. As for the interface, I agree.—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Offline 07:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Khovd (city)

Hi, further to this edit of yours I have tried to format the ref via cite web but it does not currently work, saying it needs a certificate. Do you know how to incorporate the way back link within the cite web template? Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 18:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

(by talk page stalker) It can't be incorporated directly. When I run across those, I create the cite template from scratch, copying the Wayback URL for the |archive-url parameter. — Gorthian (talk) 19:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Gorthian: What exactly do you mean by 'create the cite template from scratch'. The wayback url seems to have some kind of extra parameter to access the web page, which I'm not sure how to add. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 23:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
@Eldumpo: You can use the link that the template makes to go to the archived page (click on the word "Archived" in the ref), and copy the URL from that page to put in the |archive-url parameter of the cite template. By "from scratch", I meant that I either type in the {{cite}} template manually, or use a tool like MakeRef to fill in the fields. — Gorthian (talk) 00:17, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot/SandBot template?

What does Cyberbot's SandBot use as a source for the "reset" state of the sandbox? Is it hard coded? I had wanted to try some changes to the default state of Template:Template sandbox, since the current version includes instructions on using parameters that are written vaguely enough that they are indecipherable to someone that doesn't know how to use parameters, but useless and redundant to someone that does. As a result, most of the edits to the sandbox are just people replacing the example parameters in the instructions with article subjects. I tried changing Template:Template sandbox reset to bring it more in line with Wikipedia:Sandbox, but it doesn't appear that that template is actually being used for anything. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 04:05, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

The text is hard coded. I was trying to get the replacement set up quickly, so I didn't bother looking for the templates to substitute.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 05:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

AfD message on new user talkpage - too welcoming

Hello, just a minor bug but Cyberbot I creates a duplicate Level 2 "Welcome" header with an empty section on a newly created user talkpage, when it leaves a "Removing AfD template" warning (see here). The redundant Level 2 "Welcome!" header is generated in Template:Welcome - but could be suppressed with "heading=no". GermanJoe (talk) 18:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Stop Cyberbot_II botching {cite magazine} as {cite |1=magazine} etc.

On 12 Feb 2016, Cyberbot_II was botching cites by changing "{cite magazine|...}" to be invalid "{cite|1=magazine|...}" or same for {cite_court} etc. See page: "J. Scott Campbell" (diff6120). Please stop and fix soon. Thanks. -Wikid77 (talk) 01:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

The bot was not set to recognize those templates, but it does point out a bug because it mistook it for a {{cite}} template. I have added the two templates to the bot's configuration. It should handle them correctly now.—cyberpowerBe my Valentine:Offline 05:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Now it's changing {{cite web | to {{cite web |1= | (diff). Doesn't break the page, but is probably not on purpose. --PresN 14:11, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 Fixed—cyberpowerChat:Offline 05:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, in this edit bot added a {{wayback}} template rather than adding the |archiveurl= and |archivedate= to the {{cite news}} template as it usually does. Keith D (talk) 13:39, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

It's been doing that a lot lately. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:18, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
It looks like there's a bug in handling multiline citation templates. I thought I had fixed that.—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 Fixed per this.—cyberpowerChat:Offline 06:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Appears still to be doing this as per this edit. By the way would be good for the bot to leave the multi-line format as is to make the diffs easier to read. Keith D (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, but the bot takes the entire string and reconstructs a new one to reduce errors in the editing process. A search and replace may introduce more errors into the templates, and makes the programs needlessly complex.—cyberpowerChat:Online 19:43, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

no actual archive URL was added

Hi, see this edit - no actual archive URL was added, I realise that 1 January 1970 is UNIX zero time: I don't see the point, so I reverted. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot uses the unix timestamp to process the archive date, but a lack of one defaults to 0. No doubt a bug needing a look at.—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
 Fixed—cyberpowerChat:Online 01:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

King Island - Munoz photos link

Hi - I checked the two archive links Cyberbot made to King Island. I put my notes on the talk page. One of the new archive links was ineffective because it just shows the current page content, a not-found message. Anything to be done here? Dankarl (talk) 01:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The link will have to be replaced, with a different link.—cyberpowerChat:Online 01:27, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I noticed recently you(the bot) have been tagging a lot of deadlinks on Australian related article, this is just to advise that from 21 february until the 26 February that a major Australian archive Trove which holds sources used in most Australia article will offline for an upgrade so your bot will return a lot of false positives(in the 100,000's links) could please allow for this outage in the checking. I have included a typical source to help you with this. "[No heading]". Western Mail (Perth, WA : 1885 - 1954). Perth, WA: National Library of Australia. 19 October 1933. p. 52. Retrieved 16 February 2016. Gnangarra 07:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

The bot's dead link detection system isn't yet advanced enough for it to be turned at the moment. As such you don't have to worry. It only handles pages tagged with a dead tag.—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Question about removing active NPOV issues in talk pages

I recently undid one of 'your' archiving tasks, because it archived active NPOV issues. One of the other editors of the page 'undid' my unarchiving. I guess that these behaviours are typical in these kind of NPOV disputes. Do you have any suggestions on how to avoid archiving during active NPOV disputes? Is there some way that I can make sure all of the NPOV comments remain on the page? THANKS! Sushilover2000 (talk) 00:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Huh??????—cyberpowerChat:Online 00:46, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) See this. General Ization Talk 00:48, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm still confused. What does this have to do with me?—cyberpowerChat:Online 00:49, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Nothing, as far as I can tell. General Ization Talk 00:51, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For context, see history at Cristina Fernández de Kirchner and its talk page. Not sure what this has to do with Cyber and/or their bots though. To answer OP question, archiving is done after a discussion has seen no activity after a certain amount of time. Start a new discussion if you feel like it's worth pursuing. ansh666 00:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I see.—cyberpowerChat:Online 00:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't see. Why did the bot remove an active discussion? I linked to this page from the changes made by the bot. Should I be querying someone else? Sushilover2000 (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
You never linked me anything, nor do I have an archiving bot. You are looking for a different user. I'm not sure how ended up here.—cyberpowerChat:Online 01:29, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The only bot activity I see on that page is Cyberbot II ("Notification of altered sources needing review #IABot"), which, for the benefit of the OP, is not an archiving bot. General Ization Talk 01:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Er, sorry, misspoke. I think the bot the OP has an issue with is Lowercase sigmabot III. General Ization Talk 01:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The discussion was not active. The last comment was made over a month ago. ansh666 01:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

2006 Lebanon War‎

See 2nd and 3rd edit: [33] -- GreenC 23:55, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I saw them, now what?—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
I was going to delete those sources from the article a few months ago[34] but forgot about it. The URLs generate an automatic download prompt for saving a file. Maybe that's why it didn't put in the correct Wayback URL? -- GreenC 00:13, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea what those sources are supposed to do. You can't expect a bot to know that either. Cyberbot makes a reasonable attempt to accurately fetch a working link based on the time it was initially added to a page. It works in most cases. There's nothing more it can do at current.—cyberpowerChat:Online 01:09, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't disagree. But notice it created this template: {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150511123403/http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=31&ar=yoman |date=11 May 2015 }}. It should be {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/*/https://web.archive.org/20150511123403/http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ai=31&ar=yoman |date=* }} I know this URL because that's what the bot posted on the talk page. The bot got the right URL on the talk page, but missed it in the article. -- GreenC 02:54, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
You may want to reread the wayback template documentation. The bot is using the template correctly. Your application will only break the template and disrupt the formatted output.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 03:23, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
You're right. I conflated the cite web template method of at full URL with the wayback template format. Sorry for the confusion. -- GreenC 04:46, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

NXT TakeOver: Dallas protection request

The NXT TakeOver: Dallas article was request for protect 3 times for vandalism and were all declined by you, the fact that it was request this many times should tell you something, I am here politely to ask you personally to semi-protect the page. I would be very grateful if you do.

P.S. Sorry, if I sound forceful, I just want the page to be protected from trolls and vandals.

I'm neither an admin, nor do I act on protection requests. I have no idea what you're talking about.—cyberpowerChat:Online 01:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
I asked at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection for the article to be protected and you commented "A request for protection/unprotection for one or more pages in this request was recently made, and was denied at some point within the last 8 days." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.214.94.65 (talk) 01:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
That wasn't me.—cyberpowerChat:Online 01:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
It was cyberbot I. IP, please read the bot's declining comment, it should tell you all you need to know. ansh666 03:34, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Senator Sinister/sandbox/people I don't like

In the review of User:Senator Sinister/sandbox/people I don't like, I think Cyberbot II was trying to remove the protection notice and instead blanked the page for some reason. Not that anyone particularly cares, it was a copy of Marco Rubio after all, but either the edit summary needs to be adjusted or something went off. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Question

When the bot has rescued sources it says in the edit summary, just as an example, Rescuing 2 sources, flagging 0 as dead, and archiving 29 sources. What does the archiving x sources mean? Because it rescues sources but no archiving happens, from what I can see atleast. Just wanted some kind of clarification out of interest.BabbaQ (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

It's a behind the scenes process. Nothing onwiki ever happens. I'm probably going to remove it from the edit summary.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 23:59, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Suspected bot error

You posted this on my talk page:

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Sayed Haider. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 16:41, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

This is confusing to me -- I did not remove the AfD from stated article, I added a request for speedy deletion due to non-notability. Am I missing something here? I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 16:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually now I understand what happened. This was self-induced -- I initially entered the template for Afd via Twinkle, then changed it to a db. Before I could do so, Afd template had already been entered. I enjoy sandwiches (talk) 17:06, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Possible IABot bug

Hi Cyberpower678. In this edit, IABot claimed to have rescued 3 sources (and listed 3 archiveURLs on the talk page) but actually only updated one link. Note that this was 10 days ago, so you may have already fixed the error. Regards. DH85868993 (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

The primary reasons for that happening is that Cyberbot attempted to fix the other 2, but something went wrong in the process, so it ignored them on the article. But the intended modifications are still in it's memory and it will post what it attempted to do on the talk page. Until the bug can be fixed, those sources will need to be fixed manually. At least Cyberbot doesn't destroy the 2 sources. :p—cyberpowerChat:Offline 05:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Adminstats question

I suppose it would be moot to ask if people who had their Account Creator right removed could still have access to the template, but is there any way that we could make the template less jarring for those who no longer use it, such as a courtesy blanking or something? I just discovered that mine now makes it look like I illegally tried to set it up or something, so I was wondering if there is a better way (even archiving the last template one and stating that it is old data) than an all-bold statement stating that I can no longer use the template. Let me know what you think, as I would be happy to work out an alternative with you. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyberpower678/Archive_29&oldid=1142949058"