Jump to content

User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 33

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 30Archive 31Archive 32Archive 33Archive 34Archive 35→Archive 40
Senior Editor II
Senior Editor II

Cyberbot I and Hazard-Bot inconsistency.

Taking a look at the revision history for Template:X7, around October 24th or so, the two bots in question (Hazard-Bot and Cyberbot I) are repeatedly interleaving their edits, clearing it to a state that each things is clean, except for a 1 space difference. This is definitely a small footprint, but perhaps it would be best to make it consistent to reduce the (very small) overhead of automated edits on the WP servers?

I'd completely understand if no justifiable action is taken...... but just an FYI. Cheers, — Andy W. (talk · contrib) 20:48, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

WP:LAME#Template talk:X1 – Template talk:X9 wars. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Current not current

Hey—thanks for your work on User:Cyberbot I/Current AfDs. Many of the listings stick around for several days after their closure, which makes the tool substantially less helpful. Is there a reason why the regular update doesn't flush the closed AfDs? czar 01:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Not really. I'll have to look into what's causing this.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 01:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Please stop having Cyberbot remove {{dead link}} templates just because there's 'something' at the URL. In many cases, it's simply a notice that the originally intended page is not available (yes, even the archive, and thus, the link remains dead). Examples include this edit, and this one. —ADavidB 05:30, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Your example includes instances where a citation template using the deadurl parameter is additionally tagged a dead link. Because the rendered output is a link that clicks through to an archive, dead link is inappropriate. If the archive is dead, then it should be removed and the URL tagged dead as usual. Otherwise, it's simply misleading and Cyberbot is simply cleaning up.—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:32, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Sounds logical, though I strongly expect that after a dead archive link is removed, Cyberbot will simply come back to "re-find" the dead one and add it back, since it doesn't recognize a bad archive link as dead. —ADavidB 12:32, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
This is what User:Green Cardamom/WaybackMedic does. It finds dead archive links and removes them. It then communicates with Cyberbot so it knows not to add it back. -- GreenC 13:47, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
That's good bot teaming; I hope WaybackMedic gets approved for full operation. —ADavidB 19:24, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Revista Cubana de Física

Dear cyberpower678, I removed the deletion tag after realizing that the user who had nominated the deletion was a blocked user. Moreover, I improved the references by including a link to the journal on the Web of Science. The journal does exist and is indexed in TR`s Web of Science. Thank you!Meisam tab (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Question

Hello C. I am wondering if this new(ish) bot edit really needs to be checked by a human editor? As far as I can tell it is a formatting change which is different from the bots other task of trying to update a dead link. That one does need to be checked to make sure the new link goes to the info to support the refs use in the article. I ask because this is adding 40+ pages to the Category:Articles with unchecked bot-modified external links a day. I am whittling away at the articles in that cat and this is slowing any progress :-) If it would be too much of a hassle to have these done in a form where they don't need to be checked then no worries - I thought I would ask on the off chance. Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 15:46, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:53, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikidata admin stats

Hey Mr. Power! I'm sorry to bug you again, but Cyberbot I has not updated any of the individual adminstats on Wikidata for over three weeks now. (Link to my template history) I was wondering if you could give it a poke to start it up again? Many thanks in advance! Jared Preston (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

There you go. It stopped working because I migrated it improperly.—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:47, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Cheers! I've heard about "migration" on Wikimedia before but have absolutely no idea what it means. I'm glad you're the expert and thanks for sorting it out so quickly!!! Jared Preston (talk) 13:52, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Bot removing Wayback template

Why did Cyberbot II remove the {{Wayback}} template and replace it with a direct URL to Archive.org here? – nyuszika7h (talk) 17:54, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Since that link is part of the visible article, ie not tucked away in the references section, it assumed it as a part of the article and attempted to minimize the disruption to the article render. Cyberbot does it's best to make sure formatting is disrupted as little as possible, as the final result needs to appeal to the average reader, who usually don't care about sources on an article, as long as they can read it and click on working links.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 18:01, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II is doing two wrong things

Both can be seen on this page: Clarice Smith Performing Arts Center. Notice the red "Missing or empty |title=" messages. These appear after archive.org links are processed by Cyberbot II. Additionally, link #9 (which is not showing such an error message now because I altered it) was originally (meant to be) a direct link to a particular old version of a page at archive.org (to show its state at that time), and Cyberbot II changed it to a(n inappropriate) "deadurl" citation template. I'm not sure why Cyberbot II is doing anything to already-existing links to archive.org, actually. Archelon (talk) 04:30, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

The missing title issue was fixed a while ago. As for changing to deadurl formats, is the required an accepted standard of formatting citation templates. Cyberbot is cleaning up, and it isn't doing anything wrong. You reverting it back is the wrong way to use those templates. Please see this RfC—cyberpowerChat:Offline 04:38, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
All right. Thanks for the link to the RfC; I guess I believe the archiveurl= parameter makes (enough) sense, although I don't see why it should be mandatory for every link to archive.org (in other words, it seems a bit excessive to call my use of the "cite web" template wrong). Admittedly, I'm not really taking the time to ponder this too deeply right now. But in any case, the archive.org link as I formatted it produced no red error message and after Cyberbot II processed that link, it did produce such an error message. See for yourself: [1] So I'm not convinced "the missing title issue was fixed a while ago" (unless you mean after that edit). Archelon (talk) 19:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Also, of course, all those links in that article are munged right now; the bug in the bot that produced them may have been fixed, but they themselves have not been. I now feel obligated to fix them all myself. I do appreciate the effort and what you are trying to accomplish in principle, so please take this as a constructive remark, but: Consider that carelessness about this sort of thing can make a great deal of work for others. Archelon (talk) 19:34, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I see five red errors, before that edit and 5 red errors after, which means that edit didn't introduce an error. It already existed. Cyberbot only adds a title when it's creating a citation template out of a bare link. It doesn't fiddle with the existing parameters of existing citation templates, other than url, deadurl, archiveurl, and archivedate.—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
The errors were introduced in this edit which was before the missing title issue was addressed. If you were to undo that edit, Cyberbot would swing by and do it right this time.—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:33, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
I now see what you see. But I am in the habit of previewing my edits (especially when they involve unfamiliar formatting), and I consider it unlikely both that the reference I added in that edit (#9) displayed an error message when I added it, and that it displayed one in the history view yesterday when I checked it. Something funny is going on. (I also don't remember quotation marks appearing around the titles. Perhaps I should consider the possibility that I am losing my mind.) In any case, thanks for your attention, and I will be overhauling the references in that article shortly. Archelon (talk) 18:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
A missing title parameter will always generate an error. That's why I patched the missing title problem when Cyberbot II converts bare links to citation templates.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 18:19, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

HTML tag closure for User:Cyberbot II's signature

Hey,

I just noticed that the signature for User:Cyberbot II opens sup and span tags within the wikilinks but doesn't close them. While this isn't a problem per se (as Mediawiki closes them in the HTML output), it means the syntax highlighting doesn't know to stop highlighting in pink. Would you mind setting the signature to close the sup and span tags, to fix the syntax highlighting, please?

Thanks! — OwenBlacker (Talk) 18:52, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

They're already closed.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 19:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Reviewing cyberbot II edits

Greetings Cyberpower678. I appreciate the work that's done by the 'cyberpower II' bot, but I'm finding it difficult to confirm the edits. If possible, 'Talk Page' notifications might be provided in a way similar to this example:

Checking the work could be much easier if something like this were provided. -- Curley Wolf (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but that doesn't hep. You need to give me a link to a talk page message. Chances are what you're looking at doesn't need to be reviewed however. When cyberbot corrects the format, it's not actually changing any links, just the way the source is formatted, which has proven to be extremely reliable.—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Here's the page link. The bot's edit was reverted before I could figure out what had been done.
The bot's message asks for help, but I probably don't fully understand what help is required. I was trying to compare the original citation and the archive to see if there was a successful citation link.
No problem, Cyberpower678. Thanks for replying. -- Curley Wolf (talk) 22:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Okay, as I thought. You don't need to review anything there. I'm going to put an update in that leaves a message rather than seek help when all it does it fix formatting issues.—cyberpowerChat:Online 22:42, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Issue with semicolons in book reports

Cyberbot I doesn't seem to do book reports properly when article titles include semicolons, such as Steins;Gate – see this edit for an example. Is this a problem with Cyberbot's code, or just a matter of incorrect formatting (similarly to how italic titles need to be written like [[this|''this'']] in Wikipedia books)?--IDVtalk 15:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Book titles with = character can cause problems in Book report template

I don't know if this is worth coding around, but this Cyberbot edit added a book with an = in the title, and the resulting template did not work right. I fixed it like this, which seemed to work. Cyberbot might consider something similar, maybe even doing so for all books. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

"Articles created" wmflabs tool not working

I'm getting "502 Bad Gateway" reports. Can you fix 'em up? Softlavender (talk) 10:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I rebooted xTools. There seem to be some web service issues going on at the moment.—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

You may remember my recent report of Cyberbot's adding dead archive links, archived here. You suggested that the dead archive link should be removed, prior to adding a 'dead link' template. I expressed my strong expectation that Cyberbot would simply add a dead archive link back. My expectation was (unfortunately) correct. After I followed your suggestion here, Cyberbot added the exact same info back today. I had noted the problem on this article's talk page (and have again) with the "failed" parameter to the sourcecheck template, but Cyberbot apparently doesn't consult that info. In the prior discussion of this issue, it was mentioned that a WaybackMedic bot would help resolve this issue. Until this other bot is operational, can something be done to stop Cyberbot's (re-)addition of dead archive links? —ADavidB 02:46, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

You should tag that specific link with {{cbignore}}. That tells the bit to leave it alone.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:53, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Section heading

So, when evaluating dead links, you post on the article talk page with the heading "External links modified" - but, there are many pages where the bot has made multiple visits (like here where I added numbers to the headings), which causes bugs when hitting the edit section buttons. Could the bot be upgraded to say External links modified date instead? Thanks, Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:20, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Section headings are controlled by the on wiki configuration page linked from Cyberbot II's IABot task description. Unfortunately, it's static. I'm still thinking of a solution.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:55, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Help w/ Peachy

Hey - have some questions about Peachy if you're online. I'm on IRC.--v/r - TP 01:17, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 5a/DB Results

You already know Cyberbot II's been hitting the spam blacklist on this page every hour, on the hour, for almost a week, right? —Cryptic 10:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Nope. I'm not privy to that kind of information. I'm no admin.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 16:53, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
It's trying to add this link: "http://www.indian + etzone.com/64/bik + aner_camel_corps.htm--". Be sure to remove the " + ".--v/r - TP 01:20, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Adminstats

Question about {{adminstats}}: Can it be modified to give statistics for former admins? Toddst1 (talk) 23:28, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately the rules are clear. You have to be an admin or account creator to be allowed to use it. Otherwise it violates bot policy.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:26, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your response but I'm not sure I understand it. A former admin's actions are all public record. User:JamesR/AdminStats summarizes the actions one way. Why would summarizing them using this template be a violation of policy? The page says the bot will not process updates for non-admins. There are no updates for former admins for the bot to process but the stats are still gatherable. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I've posted something onTemplate_talk:Adminstats#What_about_former_admins.3F. Maybe best to continue this there. Thanks again. Toddst1 (talk) 21:37, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Page blank

What happened here? Fyddlestix (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

I would imagine Cyberbot II had a panic attack and glitched. Seems to be an exceedingly rare and noticeable enough problem, to not be too alarmed by it though.

Bad PDF

What happens when the archived PDF link we are given will not load? e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:South_Gare_Lighthouse Stuffed Cat (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

If an archived PDF doesn't load, then it doesn't load, so nothing should happen.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) @Stuffed cat: In that case you should set the parameter to failed. The bot will tell you that in newly-posted messages but that talk page message was posted before it was updated to have that option. I fixed it for you. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Oops. It looks like I misinterpreted the question. Sorry about that.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:46, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Bad Robot!

Cyberbot II: Great idea. [Probably] great work. Exception: "Rescuing 1 sources", it instead deleted "them" (it), and left only the {deadlink} tag. Also, it doubled the {Authority control} tag. Those actions look neurotic to me. Don't make us call Dave. -A876 (talk) 19:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Stale
 – This report is stale.
How would I notice that my report is moot? Everything posted here apparently gets hidden archived within 72 hours.
How would I notice that my report is moot? The edit that I reported happened on 2016-03-10 and was not revisited.
So you knew that the robot malfunctioned, and you didn't fix the damaged pages? You have made TWO errors! And then you have failed to follow your prime directive. That is a THIRD error. Are you not programmed to sterilize that which is not perfect? Error! Error! Sterilize! -A876 (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
To answer your question, any bug that happened more than 5 days ago is to be consider outdated, when it comes IABot. This is because it is constantly being updated. As for bug fixes, given the numerous edits it makes it almost impossible to tell which ones were damaged, and a bot would be hard to make. It was assumed that if the bot inadvertently broke an edit, a user that regularly watches that page would come by to reverse the bot's actions. At this point Cyberbot's editing should be flawless now.—cyberpowerChat:Online 19:20, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Easily fixable bug in RFPP bot

See [2]. Just need to change the {{yo|username}} to be {{yo|1=username}} since some users have an equals sign in their username. Hope you are well, my friend! — MusikAnimal talk 04:15, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Programming the bot to use 1=? That's going to be very hard to do. I need to implement some AI to get that working. :p I am doing well, thank you, and you?—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hans Poulsen

Greetings. As you were the last contrib to edit this page I'm addressing you. Little was known about Hans Poulsen until a few weeks ago - some even assumed he was dead. Someone I know personally discovered that Hans had a major stroke about 20 years ago and has been in an old people's home in Melbourne ever since - but for Hans' sake this detail is not to be published!! My friend Anita recently interviewed Hans for her Channel 31 program Wrokdown and made a video to go with his beautiful song "Hold You in my Heart". Anita holds the copyright to Wrokdown. You can email me at epacrisimpressa@gmail.com for further details. I hope you will be able to update Hans' wiki page with some of these details. Please respect Hans' right to privacy about his current living circumstances. I just want people to know that Hans is not dead and that he wrote another extraordinary song. Sincerely, Melba1 (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

??—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:37, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

You can just ignore this message if you like. Melba1 (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm curious why you put such a confusing message here to begin with.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Appears that Cybot was the last to edit the Hans Poulsen page. The information should be posted on the Talk page of the artist, although it is pretty useless as there is no reference included and appears WP:PRIMARY. Karst (talk) 14:21, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, now I see what's going on. I don't understand why the Cyberbot isn't a dead giveaway that, that account is a robot account.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:24, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II request

Hi, Cyberpower. I've noticed you run a bot that repairs dead links and have a favor to ask you. At WP:TFLS, there is a nominations for List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong. There are dead links that I noted at TFLS, encouraging the nominator to run the link-checker tool. However, they live in China and the link-checker is apparently being blocked, making it very difficult for them to do any repair work. If you do a bot run in the future, would you please consider sweeping that article to repair any dead links that the bot can find archived versions of? Thanks for any help you can provide. Giants2008 (Talk) 23:13, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Potential Cyberbot II bug

Hi Cyberpower678. I'm just going to refer you to Talk:How to Rock and How to Rock – basically Cyberbot II has now three times tried to replace a 'dead link' ref with a 'null' Internet Archive link, despite the fact that I've now twice tagged the change as 'Failed'. Hoping you can figure out what's going on here... Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

The tagging is for human reference only. It simply removes the page from the bot generated maintenance category. That aside, I do see 2 bugs. One is a lingering bad DB entry from an old bug, which can be fixed by deleting the respective entry on the DB. The second is, it's claiming to correct formatting when it is adding an archive. I'll see what I can do to fix it.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 02:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Followup question

Cyberpower678 – is there a way to get Cyberbot II to ignore a specific {{dead link}} tag on a reference? Failing that, is there a way to get Cyberbot II to ignore an entire article? TIA! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The handy-dandy little FaQ linked in all newer messages left behind will answer all your questions. ;-)—cyberpowerChat:Online 22:33, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Heh. Thanks! (I'll try to remember {{cbignore}}!) --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

See Rockwell_B-1_Lancer. I believe archive.is is a valid link (not your responsibility, I understand). BUT: the documentation given by the bot either points to a wrong match or is confusing: it is not clear why barchive.is matches archive.is --Vigilius (talk) 20:04, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

It is a regex expression. \b is a special character.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Slower?

Is it just me, or is the bot adding dead links fixes slower than before?.BabbaQ (talk) 17:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm tinkering with it. IABot is still in development.—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:53, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot is ...

Wonderful. There is just something amazing about seeing a bot politely talk and provide instructions in a talk page. It made my day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikifyLife (talk • contribs) 09:56, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot

Hi Cyberpower! The InternetArchiveBot is doing an important job, I like it! I saw it work on an article, and I have two questions about it:

  • You are adding http links to archive.org, but apparently there was a recent RFC that archive.org links should all use https, meaning that other people will then convert your links. If there's no reason against it you may want to make those https links in the first place?
  • How does the bot decide which archived version to use, if a link has no accessdate? With this edit, it added the archived version from 28 August 2008. I don't understand how it decided to use that version, can you enlighten me? The date of source was given as 9 December 2002, and the link was added 13 May 2005. The latest working archived version is from 9 December 2009.

Cheers, Amalthea 09:41, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Amalthea, we haven't spoken in a while. To address your two questions:
  • The link to the archive is provided by archive.org's API. They all get returned as http, apparently and that get's cached in Cyberbot's (now massive) DB. Afterwards, Cyberbot draws on the stored information for future use.
  • The bot decides by determining the access date of the URL when it is first encountered. As mentioned above, link information, including access dates, get saved into the DB. When there is no access date parameter, and no DB entry, Cyberbot performs a binary sweep of the page history via the API, and then saves the timestamp of the time the URL first makes it's appearance. It probably most likely chose 28 August 2008 because it likely handled the same URL on another page where there was an access date closer to the archived snapshot. Cyberbot uses that access date to find the closest snapshot from before the access date, or the closest one after if none before exist, and saves that archive snapshot for future use. This minimizes the CURLing that needs to be done, since it has to do a lot of CURLing on various websites to determine if they're dead.
I hope this helps.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:58, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it's been a while!
  • Ah, I see. You could consider simply replacing a prefix "http://web.archive.org/web/" with the HTTPS version when you're writing the archive url to the page? That seems like a small and safe change to me, but it's up to you.
  • Good, I was kinda hoping you were searching for the time the link was added. :) I've double checked when the exact link was added, and as it turns out the link added in 2005 had a typo which was fixed in October 2008. That's of course the first revision your search was able to turn up, so it's all good, no bug. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 11:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Mailing lists for APIs

I found two more specific mailing lists that might interest you:

I hope those will be more directly relevant to your interests. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Hiya!

Please don't editwar with me, let's talk (on that talkpage, not here). The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

You're actually edit warring with me. And I am talking on the talk page. There is clear consensus the vote isn't acceptable and at least half support striking it.—cyberpowerChat:Online 22:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Let's use that talkpage, not this one. Can you please copy this text and paste it there? The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
BTW, Twinkle is not a set of anti-vandalism tools.—cyberpowerChat:Online 22:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. I totally admit that I am a weirdo. BTW, WP:TWINKLE says: "Anti-vandalism tools, such as Twinkle, Huggle, and rollback, should not be used to undo good-faith changes unless an appropriate edit summary is used." (emphasis mine). I agree that it is not just an anti-vandalism tool, it has many functions. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
My usage of Twinkle was correct. Twinkle can be used to revert other edits made in good faith, as long as an edit summary is used, which I did.—cyberpowerChat:Online 00:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
This depends on whether the edit summary is considered appropriate or not. I think we can agree to disagree and have a happy wiki! We are on the same team, even if we do not always agree. I do not like people who always agree with me. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 01:02, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
An appropriate edit summary accurately describes why the revert is being done. That's a general rule of thumb.—cyberpowerChat:Online 01:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Notice

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is We need an adult. Thank you. v/r - TP 05:30, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Well the thread is closed now, but I'll just point out, that I know when to drop the stick. But honestly, that potato should be blocked for violating WP:3RR.13:09, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Something went wrong when signing your last message. I think you added one tilde too many. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:10, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I think that those who opposed the opposers should feel very stupid when they see how this ended. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 13:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
I'll be bluntly honest, and what I'm about to say may sound harsh, so I'll apologize in advance. This entire drama fest started with Engleham's oppose vote which is seen by everyone but you as trolling. A great deal of users have stricken the !vote which you reverted several times. Many users have tried to explain, why Engleham's oppose was inappropriate, not to mention disrespectful to the candidate. You keep insisting you're in the right, biased to the point where you think your single viewpoint is strong enough to be consensus over the dozen editors arguing against your viewpoint. I myself saw that this was only going to waste more of my time if I didn't stop, so I dropped the stick. That didn't stop another user from making an oppose vote, related to Engleham's oppose, claiming the candidate should've diffused the tension. Of course during that time the candidate was occupied in real life. The user struck their own vote, so no biggie there. Then you asked some questions which were borderline personal attacks on pretty much every participate in this debate, and opposed for the same reasons. Finally you get your answer where the candidate was in the hospital with close one's helping to deal with a family death during the time of the debate. So congratulations, you opposed a candidate for dealing with a death in RL, than dealing with his RfA. If anyone should be feeling stupid about the ending, it is you, not me or the other participants. It's not a big deal to be in the minority. I have opinions that are in the minority to, but I don't keep pushing that viewpoint and making a big drama out of it to point that everyone will simply want to block you. If you ask me, you've been pushing the patience of a lot of editors, and you are quite lucky you haven't gotten yourself blocked for edit warring. WP:3RR is a bright line rule, which you broke. From my engagement and interaction with you, I have come to the conclusion that you lack WP:CLUE. When I looked at your account, I wasn't surprised to find it was less than a year old.
I am telling you all of this because you remind me of me when I was also a fairly new account. I was persistent and stubborn, still am a bit (but I'm working on it), and was trying to push something that I felt was right, but everyone else saw as wrong. I was a borderline WP:DIVA, and my behavior and lack of a clue got me into trouble. Another user, whom you may already know, gave me a reality check and my whole perspective changed. It was harsh, it hurt, but it was true, and instead of taking offense, I reflected and changed. Not too long ago, he nominated me for adminship.
I know what I wrote can sting, and hurt you a bit, so I ask you to reflect, rather than deflect, and learn. I will end this on a positive note, your mastery of the English language, is astounding, considering it's not your first language.—cyberpowerChat:Online 15:31, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment; it is very interesting and I appreciate honesty (especially from people I disagree with once in a while). It deserves a response but that will take a while; hope you don't mind. I am in the unfortunate situation that my customers set my deadlines. The Quixotic Potato (talk) 22:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Damage to 'Requests for page protection'

The bot has destroyed the formatting at wp:Requests for page protection. Please stop it running. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Why? It screwed up because a human screwed up with this edit. They didn't format the header right and it would be a simple fix but I got there too late to be able to fix anything. Anyway, it's a minor issue, basically an edge case. tutterMouse (talk) 17:05, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

It also said my request for my page protection was in an incorrect format I Know that's **** wrong. DatNuttyWikipedian (talk) 02:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It was wrong, I fixed it. tutterMouse (talk) 11:51, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your rescue work on Robert Treuhaft. Much appreciated.--Akhooha (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II

Can you please prevent Cyberbot II from making changes such as this, removing archive links from WebCite? I often use WebCite, and this bot is removing them in favor of web.archive links. I've just been reverting this bot on every page I've watchlisted and it edits lol. Dan56 (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot is moving the archive URL over to the archiveurl parameter. The URL parameter should be holding the original URL only.—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I see you've been restoring the webcites, but is there really a point to using an archive of archive that works?—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 18:09, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Modify archived papers

Can you please refrain your bot from doing edits like these? They

  1. don't fix a dead link
  2. serve no purpose since it's the pdf of a paper which doesn't change with time

The archive date + original url are useful for things that change with time, for papers published in journals it just adds unnecessary clutter to already cluttered reflists. Thanks. Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

There is a clear consensus that the way the bot is formatting the cite web templates, is the correct method.—cyberpowerChat:Online 12:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
First of all then change the summary from "Rescuing 1 sources. #IABot" to something else, because it isn't rescuing anything. Second, the template isn't tagged with a dead tag, so your bot shouldn't touch it. Third, tell me how to stop it from edit warring me, thanks. Fourth, don't put a comma between subject and verb.Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 22:04, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
It looks like Cyberbot is using the template parameters correctly (See Template:Cite journal#URL). The archive URL belongs in archive-url, not url. If you want to change how the template outputs those values, you should discuss it at Help talk:Citation Style 1. Using more descriptive edit summaries might be a good idea though. Kaldari (talk) 23:31, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Also Cyberbot is not exclusive to tagged links. It never was and it never will be.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II rescue - to 404 archiveurl - on Madden Dam

Regarding this "rescue" on Madden Dam page, the archiveurl generates a 404. Since this is a very low priority item, I'm satisfied to leave things in their current broken state, but I wanted to check with you on whether there's a better action available. Unless/until I hear from you, I won't alter the checked/not checked status at Talk:Madden Dam#External links modified. --jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 20:49, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The message left there links to a handy dandy FaQ, which answers your questions. User:MarnetteD took care of it for you.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I read that FAQ but it left unanswered my question (which I didn't articulate very well): "And then what?". I'll just watch and learn. Thanks. --jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 23:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
FaQ number 2 should've been your answer. What exactly was it missing?—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
The FAQ I read doesn't even have something numbered 2. So, I understand what the bot does - it adds archiveurls to refs that have been marked dead, leaving a helpful talk section to ask someone to check its work. The "success" branch I think I understand. It's the "failed" branch that leaves open the question of "and then what?". I did poke around a bit for a replacement before I originally marked the link dead, but didn't succeed in the time I had available. Would it make sense for the bot to check the archiveurl a bit better before it adds it? A 404 result should be detectable and not require a human to backstop/review. (Sorry if I'm being naive, please allow me to be a newbie at WP.) --jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 00:33, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I meant the second question listed under the section InternetArchiveBot. That question asks and answers what to do if the bot constantly adds a bad archive. As for detecting 404s, the bot instructs the IA API to only provide 200, 203, and 206 responses. At one point a bug in the API, now fixed, was still returning bad URLs. Cyberbot saves the responses into a local DB, to avoid having to constantly communicate with the IA API, which takes time and resources. Unfortunately some bad responses were saved too. We are working to resolve the bad responses.—cyberpowerChat:Online 00:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
In this case it is a Soft 404, page falsely reports itself as 200. Not detectable by bots that I know of. Needs manual intervention. WaybackMedic would see it as a 200 also. -- GreenC 00:58, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi. I see from your bot page, you can help rescue deadlinks. At the Film Project, two important resources for film articles, NY Times and Silent Era are no more. Is your bot able to help with this? There are tons of pages now with deadlinks from both of these sites. Any help would be very much appreciated. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:48, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

At current Cyberbot rescues links that are tagged with a dead tag. A current BRFA which is close to approval will allow the bot to start rescuing I tagged links.—cyberpowerChat:Online 20:11, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
Great, thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) "A current BRFA which is close to approval will allow the bot to start rescuing I tagged links". Did you mean "A current BRFA which is close to approval will allow the bot to start rescuing un-tagged links" ? Because if that's what you meant, then I won't bother tagging any more dead links! DH85868993 (talk) 09:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Cyberbot II 5a may be of interest to those interested.—cyberpowerChat:Online 13:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Odd behaviour

Your bot keeps not only adding redundant archive info, but ignoring that the redundant link it's attempting to add, for whatever technical reason, results in an infinite redirect loop (See diff and diff). I know your bot is automated and obviously doesn't read hidden messages, but if this particular edit could be overridden it would be ideal since it's obviously behaving contrary to what would be expected.    DKqwerty    14:36, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Tag that specific link with {{cbignore}}. That will fix your problem. See template documentation for usage.—cyberpowerChat:Online 14:59, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the justification for this edit? --bender235 (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

An old bug that was fixed a while ago.—cyberpowerChat:Online 21:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
Alright. I restored the old link. --bender235 (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Need help changing the Wikipedia article on mass shootings

I've been trying to change the frequency section of the Wikipedia article on mass shootings. Right now the article says that the United States has 33 percent of all mass shootings in the world which has been debunked constantly.

There's a few more things I found on mass shootings that I think might be worth looking at. The first two are articles regarding the frequency of mass shootings in the United States compared to it's population size along with mass shootings from other countries. The United States is one of the most densely populated countries on earth with a population of 320 million people which is the main factor that influences all these mass shootings. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/22/barack-obama/barack-obama-correct-mass-killings-dont-happen-oth/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2015/12/03/obamas-inconsistent-claim-on-the-frequency-of-mass-shootings-in-the-u-s-compared-to-other-countries/

Compared with India which has a population of 1.2 billion I believe that India has more mass shootings because of it's population size, but since India's homicide rate is only 3.5 where the United States is 4.5.

The Crime Prevention Center is where I discovered the US State Department report on mass killings around the world. I understand that Wikipedia isn't supposed to accept sources that side with either side of the debate, but much of the statistics could be used to create a list on the frequency of attacks. Sadly I don't know how to make a group on Wikipedia. http://crimeresearch.org/2015/06/comparing-death-rates-from-mass-public-shootings-in-the-us-and-europe/ While the State Department's report only focus's on terrorism, it proves that the United States doesn't have more mass shootings than any other country. Part of the problem is that in many countries mass shootings tend to go unnoticed due to ineffective law enforcement lack of a definition on a mass shooting. As a result I would recommend either removing the CNN report source that states the United States has the most mass shootings or show that most countries themselves don't even report mass shootings.

Aside from that I also found some articles from politifact on Mass Shooting Tracker that you might be interested in reading. http://www.politifact.com/rhode-island/statements/2015/nov/01/david-cicilline/david-cicilline-mixes-shooting-data-call-stronger-/ http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2015/oct/08/debbie-wasserman-schultz/how-many-americans-have-been-killed-mass-shootings/

Also take a look here http://www.npr.org/2015/12/05/458492474/how-many-mass-shootings-this-year-theres-no-consensus

Keep in mind, that as far as referencing Shooting Tracker on the Wikipedia page, i'm perfectly fine with that so long as we include the criticism that it's received. As of now the Wikipedia article on Mass Shootings does include the criticisms towards Shooting Tracker. I just want to keep it that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 22:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Why come to me? Someone who frequently edits the articles you mention can better help you. I don't even know which article you are talking about.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:41, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. It's just that since you edited the "Gun Violence in the United States" article I figured you'd be interested in helping out. I'll ask someone else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Graylandertagger (talk • contribs) 23:13, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say, I've never touched that article before. You may have me confused with someone else. That aside, my advice is that you raise this issue on the talk page of the article itself, which I see you have done already. Talk:Gun violence in the United States is the respective page you would want to raise this issue on. There, editors who do frequently edit can better help you. I'm suggesting you raise it there, as the changes you recommend describing don't seem to be trivial, so I hesitate to do it myself. Good luck.—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:23, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello, Thanks for renaming me my last username. but i lost my rights and all history of edits. Is that possible to move my last history to this account? Qian.Nivan (talk) 23:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

It depends. Why does your old account no longer work?—cyberpowerChat:Online 23:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
  • it is a big Question for me, nobody can give an answer, but when i open fa.wikipedia in that old account i see a blank page with this Error: Exception encountered, of type "Exception".
  • because error I have cahnge "Qian.Nivan" to "Qian.Nivan.Out.Of.Service", and i made a new acoount named "Qian.Niv" and you renamed to "Qian.Nivan". I got my last Username with Nothing in history.(After more than 5.000 Edit in WP) Even Stewards in media wiki cant answer why this error happened. Can You see is it possible to move my history from "Qian.Nivan.Out.Of.Service" to "Qian.Nivan. --Qian.Nivan (talk) 23:57, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
    My renamer powers don't go that far, and requires a steward, whom I have now poked. I doubt we can merge them, but we could dislocate individual accounts and replace them with the old account. However, since the problem is account related, this exception could resurface after the relocating local account. I'll leave a steward to comment further.—cyberpowerChat:Online 00:09, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, If there is anything can help me please tell me. Qian.Nivan (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Why did Cyberbot II put transclusions of Template:Blacklisted-links on Portal:Current events/January 2003, Portal:Current events/September 2003, Portal:Current events/February 2004, Portal:Current events/May 2004, Portal:Current events/June 2004, Portal:Current events/2006 January 25, Portal:Current events/2006 March 8, and Portal:Current events/2013 May 2? Probably these can be fixed by Waldir, as previously done on 9 pages linked in revision 652783762. There is now an RfC on whether to remove archive.is from the spam blacklist. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

You essentially just answered your own question there. :p—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 15:07, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
I can take care of those pages, but it will be a while until I find the time to do so. If anyone else can pitch in, please do. --Waldir talk 04:48, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Looking for false positives

Hi, I saw you reassigned me to another section. Figured I should just mention I've already gone through the one you claimed. :) /17:23, 31 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johan (WMF) (talk • contribs)

Well that was fast. :p—cyberpowerChat:Limited Access 17:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyberpower678/Archive_33&oldid=1089867842"