User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Senior Editor II

Moving comments

Please don't move my comment in a threaded discussion as you did here. I had carefully placed my comment where it was in an attempt to diffuse a situation. Moving it served no purpose and makes the context confusing. Jonathunder (talk) 14:32, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I also found it inappropriate to wedge your comment in between mine and Eric's. FYI, the comment of yours doesn't strike any note to me in diffusing a situation. It came across as a sarcastic response.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:49, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Singular vs. plural

In the edit summaries in the history of User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report, I see the plural form when there is a single RfA or RfB. The singular form should be used instead: "Updating RFX Report, 1 RFA, 1 RFB (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))", "Updating RFX Report, 1 RFA, # RFBs (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))", or "Updating RFX Report, # RFAs, 1 RFB (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))". GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not going to code in some extra checks to check for the single case. Sorry, but my time is best spent elsewhere.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 06:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Archiving bot wibble

Hello, I'm not sure what happened at Chris Dieker, but Cyberbot II shouldn't have used the Wayback Machine link selector as an archive link and set its date to 1 January 1970. Graham87 05:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

To save resources and conserve the limited bandwidth available, Cyberbot will skip querying the archives, if it can find the same link somewhere else on Wikipedia, that already has an archive. When Cyberbot encounters a URL, it saves information about to a DB, including the acquired URL. In short it sampled that URL from another page, and applied it to this page. I went ahead and accessed the DB, and replaced the link in the DB with an appropriate archive, and locked the entry in place, so on wiki entries won't overwrite it again.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 06:14, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

RfX Report & Cyberbot I

Hey, Cyberpower678. So, right now User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report is reporting one "Neutral" vote in Jo-Jo Eumerus' RfA, but there's no "Netural" vote (just some 'General comments' below that). Any idea why Cyberbot I is miscounting this?... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

It looks like the problem is already fixed. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 06:04, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, it was "fixed" by fooling Cyberbot I by "commenting out" the "Oppose" section entry. So Cyberbot I is still capable of making that same mistake in the future, AFAICT. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 07:31, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

It's an easy workaround. I don't think I really need to modify the code, at the moment. :-)—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 08:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Strange edit by the bot

Not sure what happened here. Perhaps a GIGO error. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

An active already exists for that URL. Adding more is unnecessary, so that would explain the removal. Why it switched the parameter to no is another question. I'll have to look into it.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 15:41, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Run pages

Would you like some semi on that? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:38, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes please. :-)—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 21:36, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Adminstats

Hi, I have discovered a problem with the adminstats , it's really totally unimportant to fix, but would be great if it worked as intended . The problem is that when you sort any of the columns in number order it WON´T look like this 1 , 2, 3 , 4, 5 , 6, 7 , 8, and so on. Instead it looks like this eg 1 , 1572 , 2, 3 , 3702 , 4, 5 , 5643. So it becomes a rather strange order. Could you possibly fix this? Theo Meier Ström (talk) 12:03, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It seems to sort just fine for me.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 16:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Theo Meier Ström: The problem is it treats the numbers as text, which could be solved by zero-padding the numbers, but they seem to sort correctly for me in Firefox 47 on Windows 10. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:37, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

And on Safari.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 16:39, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot

Please turn off the Cyberbot II! It is breaking refs on hundreds of pages. I have reverted many and it just comes back and breaks them again. As a non-admin I don't seem to be able to turn it off and stop the damage. This one article is a good example of how it breaks the ref, how I reverted it and annotated the talk page to show the error and then how it broke it again. Please stop it ans fix all the pages it broke! - Ahunt (talk) 22:57, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Ahunt, please don't revert the bot. It is correct. It would be incorrect to have an archive.org URL in the url field. Archive's belong in the archiveurl field. See template documentation. The url field holds the original un-archived URL. -- GreenC 00:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Check the edits: it is breaking the URLs and they don't display, leaving all the refs broken. - Ahunt (talk) 01:33, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You only gave 1 example. The archive.org timestamp in this case has a * which was there before the bot. The bot moved the URL from the url field to the archiveurl field, that is all. It is up to a human to determine the correct timestamp and replace the * with with a working snapshot date. The bot did the correct thing by moving the archive.org URL from the url field to the archiveurl field. -- GreenC 02:11, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

That is one of many hundreds of examples where the bot has broken the refs. I can list them all so far if you would like. The problem is that the bot is misinterpreting the link. The links are to the Archive.org history pages and not a specific archived page. This is intentional in each article, as it shows company website end dates. The bot then comes along and breaks the reference by applying the wrong reference template. The refs were fine before, now they are all broken and the correct ref link does not display to readers. It needs to stop and all be reverted. - Ahunt (talk) 11:29, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

How does an archive snapshots list page show a company website end date?—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 11:34, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Determining company "going out of business dates" is difficult, as most companies do not announce that they are closing down. The best information on when a company has ceased operations is often when the Archive bot notes that their website has gone "404" and so this information is included in the article. The basic point is that there are reasons to cite the Archive history in a ref and not specific archive pages. The bot is not discerning these working refs and is instead breaking them all. What makes it even worse is that when a human editor determines that the bot has made a mistake and reverts the bot, the bot immediately comes back and makes the same mistake again. It should only change a page once, not repeatedly. - Ahunt (talk) 11:42, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Here is the list of articles in which it has broken refs from my watch list. There may be many more:

The bot is continuing to break refs on more and more articles, so here is what needs to happen: 1. Please turn the bot off. 2. Fix the script so it ignores refs that link to archive.org history timeline pages (ie ones that are not specific webpage snapshots) and 3. revert the bot's edits to the pages on the list above. - Ahunt (talk) 13:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I looked through some of those and can't find any problem. You probably need to be more specific than saying "the bot is breaking refs". Point to an example, describe what it did, and explain why you think it is a problem. Be highly specific in your rationale, not just "it is broken". -- GreenC 15:40, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Green Cardamom and Ahunt: As far as I understand, the problem is that linking to the timeline is intentional, but using that as a reference sounds a bit WP:OR to me. I suppose it works for the year and perhaps the month depending on the frequency of the snapshots. Anyway, not all such references intend to link to the timeline. If you want the bot to stop changing it in cases where this usage is intentional, put {{cbignore}} before the closing </ref> tag. nyuszika7h (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You might make the argument that using the archive timeline to determine when a company went out of business is OR, but in almost all cases it is the only ref there is. So I usually cite it and phrase it as something qualified like "the company appears to have gone out of business in 2007", or something similar. It is the best information that is available in many cases and is better than saying "the company was in business in 2004 (last ref) but was not in 2016". It would be great if companies kept their websites going after they go out of business and then posted, "we shut down on 1 October 2007". I have found one case when a company did just that, but most just stop paying their bills and disappear. Overall it is not ideal, but it is the best that can be achieved under the circumstances, using what refs are available, at least in most cases. - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes but the * was added by someone else - not by the bot. The bot didn't add the *. That is up to a human to untangle, it has nothing to do with the bot. The bot only moved the URL from one field to another, per template documentation. -- 16:17, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, actually it should still link to the timeline even after it has been moved to the other field, though it doesn't make much sense to have January 1, 1970 show up as the archive date when the intention was to link to the timeline, though {{cbignore}} can be used in that case, as I said. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:35, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Since that archive doesn't have a specific time, it defaults to the epoch of 0, which converted is that date you mentioned. For some reason though, the cite templates are thinking that the archive time is misformatted, and therefore is refusing to link through to the archive. The seems to be an issue with the Lua module driving it.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 16:38, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Trappist Monk knows more about it. It generates an error to flag users to fix, and is added to Category:Pages with archiveurl citation errors. -- GreenC 16:59, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Can you shed some light here?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The particular use-case that Editor Ahunt describes was not one that we considered when we changed Module:Citation/CS1 to flag wildcard and non-specific timestamps as errors. Use of an archive url in |url= is poor practice but not proscribed. I agree that this use-case seems like OR and in fact, can mislead a reader, even one who understands what it is that Ahunt is attempting. There is nothing in that article or that reference to say: "we draw this conclusion: the company went out of business c. 2005 because the website domain name went 404 shortly thereafter" – even though that is exactly what the editors of that page are doing.

A quick glance at the archive.org listing for Alliant Aviation shows that snapshots of that domain name are available from 2003–2016. If a reader chooses a 2016 snapshot (and why not, that is the default calendar display page, s/he might conclude that our article is wrong and that Alliant Aviation is in business. Usually, a reference supports a statement in a Wikipedia article by explicitly stating some fact. In this Alliant Aviation case, our article states a fact and then leaves the detective work to the reader. I think that this is not a practice that should be supported. The bot did the right thing because GIGO.

Module:Citation/CS1 does not have anything to do with the Unix epoch. It is not clear to me how that even enters in to this conversation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, that is exactly the case, the template the bot is using can't handle the archive history timeline link and thus the reference ends up broken in every case. Thanks for the tip on using {{cbignore}}, I'll use that to stop the bot breaking the refs and manually fix the refs. I agree that using website history is not an ideal way to discern when a company goes out of business, but it is the best I have found so far. If you can think of a better way of figuring that out I would be happy to incorporate it instead. As noted above I don't use it to determine a precise date, just an approximate one, usually just the year, as website hosting can be paid up long in advance and sometimes the archiving is slow with large gaps, so the text used is generally pretty tentative. - Ahunt (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: Cyberbot handles the archive time in it's memory as a unix epoch, and converts that into the appropriate date format. In the absence of an archive time, it defaults to 0, which converts to January 1, 1970, which when set on the archive time parameter, gets flagged as invalid unfortunately. I might consider deleting all entries with archive times of 0, and forcing a snapshot time on those without snapshot times. This will of course not solve Ahunt's problem, but as mentioned, {{cbignore}} was made for this very purpose, since the never can never get it 100% right.

@Ahunt: You can keep the bot off individual links with that template. Just follow the documentation, as written on the template page. Understand that Cyberbot can never get it 100% right, which is why that template exists. It allows the bot to continue assisting on the page without messing up specific problem links the bot is having trouble with.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:08, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

What error? Can you show me an example of such an error? If I write a {{cite web}} template:

{{cite web |title=Title |url=http://example.com |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/19700101000000/http://www.example.com/ |archive-date=January 1, 1970}}

"Title". Archived from the original on January 1, 1970.

No error. So I don't understand.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

It actually seems to be complaining about the archive URL's timestamp. diff.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:48, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is supposed to:

"Internet Archive Wayback Machine". archive.org. Retrieved 21 September 2015. {{cite web}}: |archive-url= is malformed: timestamp (help); Cite uses generic title (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

The reason why is stated in the help text:

– the timestamp portion of the url path is not 14 digits

The module wants to see a fully qualified timestamp in the url that identifies a single snapshot of the archived source. Anything else is malformed. When the bot encounters these, copying them intact to |archive-url= is fine. There is a problem with |archive-date=. The bot cannot know the archive date of a wildcard search so using a made-up date may be ok though perhaps it is better to insert a hidden comment in |archive-date=<!-- bot: cannot determine archive date --> and let the citation show two error messages. With a date, an editor repairing |archive-url= may overlook the necessary correction of the |archive-date=January 1, 1970.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Nobots on Sandbox

How about setting up this bot to ignore {{nobots}} template on Sandbox?— TOG 12:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

LOL, probably a good idea. :D—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

I was busy counting your barnstars! Well, thanks for your swift response. — TOG 13:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Bot does not recognize Wayback Machine as a source.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T139675

As shown more recently here. Notice the template cites the Wayback Machine itself. The citation supports a claim in the article text, which is in turn footnoted at note 15 (currently). Note also the explanatory {{link note}} following the citation template. Similar behavior was exhibited in this article as well: link. I will temporarily disable access to the bot for both pages, until the problem is fixed. Thank you. 72.43.99.138 (talk) 17:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

See § Cyberbot for the same issue above. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

RFPP

Hi again. This doesn't look good. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I may have to block disable the bot if this continues. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Please see Bot clerking, 15 pending requests remain. The bot messed up the page formatting. — Maile (talk) 19:30, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, I think I found the problem with a malformed report. As you were, though maybe you could look at preventing this happening again. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:54, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz and Maile66: I also made a manual fix to Special:Diff/728179855. Doesn't look like it's still happening, but just an FYI, in case it wasn't known. Cheers, — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:32, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I can always try to make it more robust, but there are literally a million ways to mess up formatting, that I couldn't possibly account for and program into the bot.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II dummy edit

So, instead of rescuing a source on alpha decay, Cyberbot II did this dummy edit. It got the right URL on the talk page though. Kolbasz (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

I haven't ignored, you, just haven't had a chance to look into it yet.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:01, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed per [1]—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 12:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Opposes

You did accidentally move the oppose votes of Kraftlos and MSJapan. I figure a friendly talk page message would be better than just reverting you. HighInBC ^{Need help? {{ping|HighInBC}}} 14:20, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Oh whoops. I didn't notice.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• It's also not necessary or necessarily helpful to blanket remove all responses to nearly all oppositional comments to the talk page. For example, User:Newyorkbrad's response to user:Majora provides useful and important context to Majora's opinion. The point at which a discussion should be moved is when it is no longer relevant to the candidate or the candidacy and would not help other users in determining the fitness of the candidate or bureaucrats in determining the strength of a participant's position. –xeno^talk 14:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

  Would you like me to move it back. My moves are by no means final.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

  It's okay, I moved it back. Just consider this in discussion moves. –xeno^talk 14:46, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

  I think I'll stick to bot work. :p I'm much more experience there. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

  There's definitely a lot of nuance involved in determining which threads need to be moved. Less rule-based =) –xeno^talk 15:53, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Consider to move the support discussion, the one mentioned on ANI, - not helpful for the RfA, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:29, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

  No thanks. I just got accused of votestacking, by @Iridescent:. I think that's the last time I try to be helpful in an RfA.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

• Please could you explain to me why you have removed the discussion under my oppose vote? I feel my final comment was relevant? SagaciousPhil - Chat 15:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

  I simply moved threads that seemed to be getting long to the talk page. No other motive was present in this action.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:04, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

  Please move it back as it was neither long nor indeed ongoing and, as I mentioned above, I feel it was relevant and not contentious. Thanks. SagaciousPhil - Chat 16:07, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

   Done my apologies.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:19, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in Wikipedia mini summer program

Greetings Cyberpower678:

It appears you have participated in an editathon in the past. We are doing a mini research study involving past editathon participants to transform and improve Wikipedia. If this sounds like something quick you would want to do this summer, please sign up to our mini summer research program.

You can read more about our project here.

Together we can revolutionize Wikipedia!

Thanks & Cheers

Wiki crowdresearch (talk) 14:56, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Modifying link names

There's a slightly screwy but not wrong rewrite here, where ref name fields got archive links added to them. I don't know if this is intentional or not. Nitpicking polish (talk) 17:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It wasn't intentional, but I'll call it a feature. :p—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 19:08, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Bot bug

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T139561

Something went wrong here. I've reverted for now.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); July 5, 2016; 15:06 (UTC)

It's coming up on my todo list.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:05, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 05:42, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Status

I copied ur status settings with same page names in my userspace but it aint working can u help me out on that --VarunFEB2003 (talk) 09:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I think that template code is a bit too complex for you to get started with. You may want to start simpler, and probably set it up from scratch to suit your needs, otherwise, you're going to have one hell of a time, figuring it out why it doesn't work.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 05:48, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot II and WebCite

I thought I should let you know that in this edit, Cyberbot II added an extra

https://web.

to the archive URL. Clarinetguy097 (talk) 00:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I fixed the entry in the DB, it shouldn't happen again.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 06:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

FYI about WebCite

Hello C. For the last couple days every link update that is to WebCite has been blank or says "server not working" then today at Talk:Roman Abramovich this page of gobbledygook (I've always wanted to type that word) showed up. I also noticed this thread Wikipedia:Help desk#Blank WebCite page that looks to be related. I hope that it is something that you can fix because it is a shame for your bot to be chugging along but for the refs to still be unavailable. I apologize it this is not enough info as the programming aspect of things is not my strong point. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 23:02, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I know that the time difference between the two of us means that you aren't online right now. I have realized that it is possible the problem might be at WebCite's end and that there is nothing you can do about it. In fact I kinda hope that is the case because if they fix it then the links that the bot is posting might start working. Naturally, I will be asleep when you see this and I have meetings in the morning (my time) so I may not see any replies until hours later. You might post anything you find at the help desk thread. MarnetteD|Talk 01:28, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

I posted a response there. It's definitely server side, and I can't do anything about it. They are currently suffering from a system failure over there, and the problem is getting worse. The archives are there, but the servers can't access them. They said they are working to fix the problem as fast they can. That was unfortunately 5 days ago though.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 06:51, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. I popped in for a quick look before heading out the door. Thanks for the info and for posting at the HD. MarnetteD|Talk 13:44, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit warring with AnomieBOT

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T139717

Hi Cyberpower678,

Can you investigate what is going on at Foreign relations of the Central African Republic.

CyberBotII and AnomieBOT seem to be fighting.

BrandonJackTar (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 19:17, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Ref blanking

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T139717

Why did the bot blank the references here? – nyuszika7h (talk) 22:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 19:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Rescue or delete?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T139717

Did something go wrong during this action? --NearEMPTiness (talk) 22:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

@NearEMPTiness: Same issue as the section I opened right above. I disabled the bot for now. nyuszika7h (talk) 22:43, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your action. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 22:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 19:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Foreign relations of the Central African Republic

There are 2 bots fighting out there on is yours. just FYI --VarunFEB2003 (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is your bot deleting the content of the reference? Anomie⚔ 17:05, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

It's not supposed to. I'm working on fixing the bug. The bot has been disabled in the meantime.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 19:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Subscribe to stats

How do i subscribe to your Cyberbots Rfa Rfb stats. Secondly can the bot deliver them without his signature. I mean only the stats no signature --VarunFEB2003 (talk) 17:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Use {{Wikipedia:Bureaucrats' noticeboard/RfA Report|showtimestamp=false}}—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:46, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

thnx a lot VarunFEB2003 (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

I wanted to tell you something the page you mentioned has an empty documentation just FYI VarunFEB2003 (talk) 08:09, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Meh.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 19:31, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Sign

How do u switch between ur signs - on, off, limited.?? --VarunFEB2003 (talk) 14:17, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

It's done through very complicated/tedious wiki markup.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:19, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Can u show it to me pls pls --VarunFEB2003 (talk) 17:02, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

How does ur status auto change i have almost developed the same thing but i need to edit the statussig page to change my status how do u do it auto--VarunFEB2003 (talk) 18:46, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Just look at my statussig page.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 05:53, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot VarunFEB2003 (talk) 07:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I should probably now note, that your are in violation of the signature policy. You may transclude templates in signatures.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 07:44, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

And it is very disruptive. It is destroying the line spacing between responses.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 07:45, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok thnx i shall correct it VarunFEB2003 (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Cyber how do u do it pls tell me (your sign) what is the code u write VarunFEB2003 (talk) 08:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

• My settings substitute the template User:Cyberpower678/Signature, which currently calls User:Cyberpower678/SignatureStandard, which in turn calls User:Cyberpower678/Statussig. It's a very complicated setup.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 09:56, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Thats too complicated for me. If u could give me step instructions on how do i put it in a sign i'd be really really grateful. VarunFEB2003 (talk) 14:52, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really have the time to give you step by step instructions on how to set this up. I set this up years ago, and I'm quite busy in real life.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:23, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you use a template to sign? VarunFEB2003 (talk) 17:39, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes. The settings substitute the first page I mentioned in my previous response.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:40, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

But isnt it against policy u told me so VarunFEB2003 (talk) 08:06, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Transclusion and substitution are two separate things. Have a read at WP:TEMPLATE and WP:SIG.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 19:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	for your hard works to decrease vandalism effects. wish you the best Amir Muhammad 14:27, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Near-Empty Edit

You might want to know that thay Cyberbot II made an edit claiming to rescue a source, but instead merely added a space. Although he got it right on the second time around 4 days later. This also resulted in multiple "External Links Modified" sections in the talk page of that article for the same link. Sjrct (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Stale

The edit made 4 days later was the bug being fixed afterwards.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:52, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

RFPP archiving question

Any idea why the request for Picarones was archived here? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:08, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

The request expired after the initial comment. It's classified as pending until an {{rfpp}} tag is placed. If the last one was a note, it expires in 24 hours if no further comment is made.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 07:56, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Adminstats losing edits

My adminstats is losing track of edits - the figure reported as "Edits+Deleted", which comes from the |ed= parameter, should never decrease, not even when edits are WP:OVERSIGHTed (except, I suppose, if the legal team have utterly erased all existence of a page); but recently it's been going down dramatically. Consider today - a drop of 538; or 10 July 2016, a drop of 933. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

I unfortunately have no control over that, as it is the replication DBs that report those figures to the bot. I've been hearing, IIRC, that the DB cluster in labs have been suffering problems.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 07:57, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Figures are back to expected levels - today's apparent gain of 595 is actually the 538 lost yesterday plus two deleted, 26 real edits from yesterday, and 29 live edits from the day before. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:28, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Error report: Removing one's own deletion templates

Today, I received a warning from your bot, User:cyberbot I for removing a duplicate deletion template that I added to the article Village AR Maitlo myself. This is a major error since I was the user who put the template there in the first place. Could you please investigate this issue, or shut down the bot temporarily, otherwise I may need to report this issue to the Administrator's noticeboard. Thank you.--LL212W (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 3)I see no error. You removed the AfD tag after the AfD was started. AfD tags can never be removed while the discussion is ongoing. I also don't see duplicate AfD tags, just one.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

And please stop making minor edits to my talk page. Review what you want to post and then submit. You're spamming my inbox.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:03, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

This was an error. The AfD tag was initially accidentally posted by me, but I wanted to post a speedy-delete template. This was the reason why I removed it a few minutes afterwards. I was using Twinkle, which automatically added the template to the page. I made a mistake, reverted my edit a few minutes later after I realised, and then received a warning message from your bot. Please see the page's history to find out what exactly happened.--LL212W (talk) 00:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I did and once the AfD discussion is open, the template cannot be removed until the AfD is closed. It doesn't matter if it was a mistake. In other words, if you mistakenly opened the discussion, close it. Also, again, please stop flooding my inbox.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 04:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. Thank you. Could you please remove your bot's tags from my talk page? Thank you in advance! :)--LL212W (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Cyber, that kind of mindset flies in the face of the purpose of WP:IAR. If it was a mistake, it should be reverted. The AfD can be CSD'd too.--v/r - TP 05:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Maybe, but the incident of the bot doing this as a result of a mistake by the user, has been rare enough so far, that an update to patch this, was low on the priority list.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 05:50, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

To User:Cyberpower678: Do you give me permission to remove your bot's messages from my talk page?--LL212W (talk) 06:41, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

@LL212W: Apart from certain exceptions, you can remove any notices from your talk page, see WP:BLANKING.

If you start an AfD in error, the thing to do is to mark it as "Withdrawn by nominator", see WP:WDAFD. An admin will later carry out the closure, there's quite a lot to do (see WP:AFD/AI) but these steps do include removing the afd notice from the article. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Help

Hello please help me make my signature better. I want the computer system to add my status(ie. Whether I am online or not) after my signature please give me the code. Please....help me Nepali keto62 ^{Questions?!?!?} 16:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Your signature looks good enough already. The code to do it is very complex and I don't really have the time to explain it to anyone at the moment.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 16:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Open sig elements

The signature your bot is using on talk page postings is slightly malformed. This doesn't seem have any adverse effect on page rendering but it does confuse syntax highlighting in some wiki markup editors.

Here's the original: ^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

Here's a fixed vers: ^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

Please consider making this change. ~Kvng (talk) 17:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

That's slightly too long to fit in the signature field, try this instead: ^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online}

– nyuszika7h (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Actually I guess it's a substituted template anyway because the status is dynamic so it might not matter... nyuszika7h (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Ugh. No thanks. :/—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 18:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I missed the fact that mine changed the color because it has to be applied inside it to work. But not sure why you're saying "no thanks" assuming you're replying to the original comment (too), when your signature is technically invalid HTML. nyuszika7h (talk) 18:25, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I meant your signature. I don't like the blue link. The MW software makes the HTML valid. Otherwise it would've broken every page it signs on. :p—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 18:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Weird IABot error

IABot did a weird thing on Wickford Junction earlier. Instead of just adding a webcitation link (which was already commented out in the citation), it attempted to add a second citation template inside the first. I'm not sure what happened - perhaps it was confused by the comment? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Already working on it. It's because the archive template is not attached to the original URL.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 20:14, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. So in the future, was the way I originally commented out the archived source okay, or should I do it in a different manner to make things easier for the bot? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the comment is messing with the bot. It's unable to detect that it's a cite template now, and thought it was converting a bare URL into a cite template. Hence the cite template in a cite template. Maybe I can get it to handle comments for gracefully.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 20:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for renaming my account! TedSarvata (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 06:29, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit counter still acting funny

The edit counter is at it again. Yesterday I reported a problem (posted here) -- the edit-counts were below par, but this morning when I checked things were back to normal with an edit-cout of 53,668. Just checked it again and my edit count is even lower than before at 52,653. I appreciate all the work and things involved, but I thought our new edit-counter was supposed to be an improvement over X!'s edit counter. Also, it often has high replication lags, just like X!'s old counter. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:53, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

I have no control over that. It's an issue with Labs' DB cluster.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 06:05, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

How does one contact DB cluster? Has anyone said anything to them about this yet? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

The DB cluster is an object, not a department, but yes the people in charge are aware, hopefully.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 07:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Your sign

I think i have partly understood your sign. Can u just tell me how User:Cyberpower678/SignatureStandard fits in with User:Cyberpower678/Signature because User:Cyberpower678/Signature links to User:Cyberpower678/SaH Thanks VarunFEB2003 (talk)

SaH, short for Seasons and Holidays, is a timer the outputs a word based on the time of the year. Signature takes that and then substitutes that specific template as my signature. Right now SaH says standard, so it's going to load SignatureStandard.

Since u are online ill ask u. I understood your setup and designed ditto same. But does SaH is manually given sthing like "EasterStandard" wont it work, does one it produces only works?? My doing it manually isnt being reflected in the sign. Can u help me out and correct my sign pls VarunFEB2003 (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

The sign above is displayed when SaH is standard. when i change it say EasterStandard it still displays the same thing as above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VarunFEB2003 (talk • contribs) 13:37, 14 July 2016

BTW, you again have a template in your signature, once again, it is in violation of policy.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That green thing u are saying? VarunFEB2003 (talk) 10:55, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online

I ll fix that. But I had a big question? I HAVE understood your setup and created a ditto similar version of your signature. Could u pls check my setup is correct and I can proceed bcuz I think when SaH says "EasterStandard" My SIGN ISNT changing. Could u pls see if it is correct. The page names are exactly same as yours. Thanks a lot. VarunFEB2003 (talk) 10:59, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Do you intend to contribute to the encyclopedia, and if so how?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 11:01, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Pls cyberpower last time pls help me once last time VarunFEB2003 (talk) 11:08, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

It's fixed.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 11:18, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Thnx thnx a lot i shall always be grateful to u. VarunFEB2003 (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	Awesome you are Thnx a lot VarunFEB2003 (talk) 11:24, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

User talk:InternetArchiveBot

Why do you keep reverting bots that fix the double redirect? You can use {{soft redirect}} if you want to ensure that if you retarget User talk:Cyberbot II or turn it into a separate talk page, it will still go to the right place. – nyuszika7h (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It's a personal preference and I might plan to make it another talk page.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:35, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, just use a soft redirect then. Double redirects don't automatically take you to the final target anyway. nyuszika7h (talk) 17:36, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

I'm happy with how it is right now. :-)—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)