User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 40

Archive 35

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Senior Editor II

Beitar Illit

These edits to Beitar Illit were no good. The first archived link does not contain any useful information, and the second one archives a working page (government website) so is not needed. Debresser (talk) 09:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

IPU

Hello. This is my third request for you to stop InternetArchiveBot falsely archiving links to www.ipu.org. If I see it on my watchlist again I'm afraid I will be blocking the bot. Please sort it out. Thanks, Number 57 11:18, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I've reset the runpage, and PS there's a run page.—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Online} 12:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Number 57 13:59, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, there's a typo in my sentence. First instance of the word runpage should be domain.—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Online} 14:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

TBH I have no idea what you are talking about and I can't see anything in your contribution history that gives me a clue... But as long as it will work properly now, I'm happy! Number 57 14:04, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

It should unless someone is actually applying dead link tags to the URLs. The bot's algorithm itself doesn't see the URL as dead. I just checked. I'm thoroughly reviewing all of the reports.—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Online} 14:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

No rescuing needed

Another edit where no "rescuing" was needed. Please ensure that this link is treated as active. Alansohn (talk) 15:46, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

• Yet one more edit with a link to [1] that doesn't need "rescuing". Alansohn (talk) 21:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Cyberbot false positive?

Greetings, Cyberpower. Your usually exceptional bot appears to have mistakenly flagged an RFPP request as being incomplete: see this comment, despite my protecting the page here nearly an hour before. Just thought I'd let you know. Vanamonde (talk) 07:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

please set the checked parameter below to true or failed

What does "checked parameter" mean? How do I "set" it? (Question arises from note on this page Talk:Benjamin_Victor_Cohen.) Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:22, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I just figured it out. Bottom line: you need to dumb this down a bit. How about changing "(documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}" to "learn how to do this at {{Sourcecheck}}"? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:28, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Re: removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete

I removed the AfD template because the procedure was closed. I don't see why it has to be kept. --Una giornata uggiosa '94 · So, what do you want to talk about? 23:07, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

False-positive dead link

In this edit IABot marked the second link as dead, as permanently dead, when it worked for me. Could you check this? Dhtwiki (talk) 23:17, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Category:Requests for unblock template

Hi! As of my writing this, it's got a notice above it that says "This table is out of date. Contact User talk:Cyberpower678." Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} 02:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

this section - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I made a couple edits and now the notice is gone, maybe it just needed to be refreshed. - Mlpearc (open channel) 02:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

It was probably a cached page.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 02:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot duplicating page number in pdf link

This edit is another that I've seen where IAB duplicates a page number in a pdf link. Alansohn (talk) 15:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Sandbox

Hi Cyberpower678. There seems to be shift from people using Wikipedia:Sandbox to using Draft:Sandbox (see [2]?). Currently we only have Hazard-Bot making the occasional sweep, but I think we're now going to need the full sandbox-sweeping crew. Care to ask Cyberbot I to join in? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:10, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

I need to get my sandbox script back up to par.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 00:12, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

No worries, I know you're probably busy. It looks like the other bot-ops aren't too active. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Dead link false positive

In this edit, the bot has marked three perfectly functional links as dead. McLerristarr | Mclay1 05:42, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot

In Billy Hughes, the bot flagged this external link as permanently dead (diff), but the link seems fine to me. Just thought I would mention this in case it indicates a bug of some sort; I have reverted the edit. Kerry (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot ref syntax issue

Hey! The archiving bot did a small syntax break here. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 12:05, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Derp. Seems to be a rare bug.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

St. George's College, Mussoorie

The page has been blanked.Xx236 (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

I saw that as well. In this edit the bot Cyberbot II erroneously blanked St. George's College, Mussoorie while apparently attempting to remove a {{Pp-pc1}} template. —RP88 ^(talk) 13:39, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like a momentary failure. It even ignored the run page.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:48, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot setting deadurl=yes when it isn't

Hello. With this edit, the bot set deadurl=yes for links to the site rsssf.com, but they're not dead. The same thing has happened before with this site: I reported another one a few weeks ago (archived here) when you suggested the site appeared unstable. Thing is, I've used that site heavily over several years and have never found it down or any individual page to be inaccessible. I'm not a technical person, but I'm wondering if there's some sort of conflict between the site's setup and the way the bot accesses it which doesn't occur when browser-using humans access it? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 09:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

When I accessed that page, on my browser at that, it intermittently failed to load for me. I'll investigate further. My investigations usually are silent.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

{{webarchive}}

Hi, anytime you want to convert over from {{wayback}} and {{webcite}} everything is ready. The TfM closed consensus to merge, the merge bot is completed just waiting for Bot Approval to run. The doc pages for the old templates now reflect deprecation. -- GreenC 17:50, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I need more links. BRFA, and discussion request. The bot is incapable of converting old archive templates to the new ones as it's not something that routinely happens. A separate bot will have to do it. So code changes will need to be made to IABot, which was planned for the 1.3 release.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I wrote a merge bot. Webarchive template merge. Links there. Example trial edits. -- GreenC 18:15, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi could it s possible to add wikiwix in the webarchive template Wikiwix service archived since 2008 more than 100 million Francophones and Anglophones source links on Wikipedia. Our system is based on a detection of real-time links on Wikipedia and backup the content of external links without compromising the noarchive tag. Pmartin (talk) 18:52, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Follow up on talk page of {{webarchive}}. -- GreenC 19:38, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

Can you please change the font in your signature. --Brynda1231 (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 17:47, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I use a font changer that changes the text on my screen to my settings. (it doesn't affect your screen) --Brynda1231 (talk) 18:29, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

That still doesn't explain why I should change my signature I've been using since 2012.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 23:37, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Expiry no longer necessary for pending changes protected pages

Hi. The expiry of pending changes protected pages is now detected automatically, so Cyberbot II no longer has to specify an expiry param. Cenarium (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Another working link that needed no "rescuing"

Another edit by IABot that incorrectly marks a link as needing "rescuing", this time to this working link. How can this be fixed? Alansohn (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Any update? Alansohn (talk) 12:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm quietly investigating the dead link reports, so most don't get responses. I haven't gotten to yours yet, but this is an ongoing project I've been working on which will help make these reports easier to file and handle, as well as other things.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:20, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Working link doesn't need "rescuing", certainly not in 400 different articles

Per this search, there are 411 articles that include this link. The link has been working, is working and will work for the foreseeable future, yet IABot has already tagged a few dozen of the articles containing this external link as needing "rescuing" and is one target to tag several hundred more such articles. IABot is making edits such as this one that are completely unnecessary, waste the bot's time, waste Wikipedia's resources and waste my time reviewing non-errors.

As can be seen from the editing history on this talk page, I'm not the only one with this issue. What can be done to fix the problem and what can be done to end these spurious fixes? Alansohn (talk) 14:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm deploying an update as I type this that will change the way tagged dead links are handled. Currently when a URL is tagged dead, since the config value 'tag_override' is enabled, it overrides the bot's judgement about it's live state and applies that override on to other instances of that URL on other pages. So when it's tagged somewhere, and the bot sees it, it starts flagging the rest of the same URLs as dead on other pages. This update changes that so when someone tags the URL as dead on one page, it doesn't override that judgement internally but still respects the tag and handles it as if it were dead, however other URLs that aren't tagged will not be affected. This is the most prevalant cause and reason behind why the bot has a seemingly high false positive rate. However the domains will still need to be reset, so keep these reports coming. This update should radically reduce this problem.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot changing url=

See this diff, specifically the last citation (Tourist Drives of Western Australia). The bot changed url=http://www.tourism.wa.gov.au/Publications%20Library/Tourist%20Drives%20of%20WA.pdf to url=http://www.tourism.wa.gov.au/Publications for no reason that I can see. - Evad37 [talk] 09:24, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you file this on Phabricator and include the project InternetArchiveBot? That way it makes keeping track of it easier.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:30, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Edit summary FYI

The bot is leaving edit summaries that mainly say "maineditsummary." See [3]. I'm assuming something is misconfigured somewhere; if this is intentional you can ignore my message. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 15:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The API gave the bot an empty config file.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

IABot apparently confused by url inside a comment within ref tags

The ref cited a pseudonymous blog, so a comment was added within the ref tags to assert reliability of its author based on content in the about page of the blog; the comment included a bare url. Both reference url and comment url are equally dead, i.e. both redirect to the blog's error page. With this edit, the bot spotted a dead url, but left the actual reference alone, and beautifully formatted the bare url in the comment. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 10:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

That's great to hear, but are hinting at some sort of bug I should be aware of. I'm currently working really hard to push the next release of IABot which is huge, especially for the Swedish Wikipedia, and am trying to make sure it's near perfection before doing so.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd have expected it to add an archive link to "rescue" the actual reference, which was and is a dead link; it didn't. Wouldn't expect it to touch the bare url in the comment at all, let alone format it up as a cite-web. Sorry if I didn't express myself clearly. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 15:51, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It's probably because the other URL wasn't seen as dead yet.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Template:Wayback

IABot is using a deprecated template. Its page says to use {{webarchive}}. —ATS 🖖 talk 20:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

After IAB updates to webarchive a script will convert any wayback in the system to webarchive. -- GreenC 21:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot not too sophisticated in respecting citation formats (horizontal vs. vertical)

In this edit IABot has converted a mostly horizontally formatted citation to vertical format on the basis of an inadvertently placed line break. Perhaps its logic could be enhanced in this regard. Dhtwiki (talk) 23:56, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

I could make it so if there are more than one newline markers it converts to vertical. I don't want to over complicate this. This bot already has a high level of complexity.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:26, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is it converting at all? I can see the bot reading a random newline as vertical format and placing unwanted newlines around just its own entry, in order to respect the current format. Such behavior would also be easier to correct, when there's a miscue. I don't understand why it goes to the trouble to insert newlines around parameters that aren't relevant to the changes it's making. Dhtwiki (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It's because the string it's processing is deconstructed the analyzed and then rebuilt after processing. It reduces the complexity and errors in syntax. Otherwise this just starts to get needlessly complex.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 00:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot's Edits at One-state solution

I might be looking at this wrong, but it seems as if the Archive Bot actually removed links to archived versions and replaced them with dead links in this edit. Could you take a look? Thanks. R. A. Simmons ^Talk 22:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It reformatted the cite template. This is normal. It still links through to the archive.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 22:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Failed link update

Bubba Cascio this edit - link was fine so I'm not sure why the bot considered it a dead link. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:08, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Special:Diff/748647253

User:InternetArchiveBot bot wrongfully checked the source to be dead, and then also broke the pre-archived archive-url at archive.is by inserting Wayback Machine URL garbage. Reverted in Special:Diff/748665892. 80.221.159.67 (talk) 15:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

There was nothing wrong with the edit except that the there was an encoding issue with the URL. The URL was considered dead by default since the archive URL is already there.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

{{dead link}} embedded in citation templates

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T150472

[4] Seeing many like this. I'm having a hard time scripting a solution. There are 100s maybe thousands. -- GreenC 17:42, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Now have a solution but it has to be AWB as not perfect.[5] Do you want a phab ticket? I may have also overestimated the number, will see as I go through the tracking category with the AWB script. -- GreenC 18:18, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes please.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

archived link substituted for wrong link

bot made correct archive link to one instance in article Buoyancy compensator (diving), but substituted same link in another correctly working link in see also section instead of the dead link just below. • • • Peter (Southwood) ^(talk): 05:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Can you file this on Phabricator and add the project InternetArchiveBot? This will help me to keep track of the bug report.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot inserting redundant copies of already-archived links into references.

Your bot (User:InternetArchiveBot) is inserting second copies of Internet Archive links into references that already have them.

This is not an improvement on this.

With respect, I'd have assumed this would be a basic check for a (self-proclaimed) "very advanced" bot.

Ubcule (talk) 11:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Indeed that does seem like a bug. The bot should be able to tie those two together, unless the original URL is different from each other.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 12:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The two archive URLs appear to be identical. Even if they weren't, I'd assume it would make sense not to (automatically) place a second archive link if a working one already exists. Ubcule (talk) 18:57, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

URLs must be identical, otherwise it won't acknowledge the attached wayback template as it's archive, unless it directly follows the original URL. In this case it doesn't, because a bunch of text is stuck between the two, so the bot has to do extra thinking to tie the two together. The other archive template would be seen as a stray.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 19:48, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

That sounds like a limitation of the way the bot is currently programmed rather than anything inherent? Ubcule (talk) 12:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It's intentional by design. Non-matching original URLs usually indicate that they're separate.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Regardless, can you file this on Phabricator and add the project InternetArchiveBot, so I can keep track of it?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Undid revision 741842811 by InternetArchiveBot (talk)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T150478

• I've undid this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=4.2_kiloyear_event&diff=prev&oldid=741842811. Please check. — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 20:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• Another: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=11th_Politburo_of_the_Communist_Party_of_Vietnam&type=revision&diff=738405044&oldid=706124394 — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 20:04, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Abu_Dhabi_Cultural_Foundation&type=revision&diff=742323982&oldid=669683200 — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 20:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

  These are all stale. The current version is 1.2.6.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 20:20, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

So are you saying that all of the articles/citations that an old version of this bot messed up are going to go unfixed until someone working through the backlog fixes them? Or what are your plans for those? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adam_A500&diff=prev&oldid=742458087 — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 04:42, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

until someone working through the backlog fixes them - I don't know how many articles were impacted by this bug, but the tracking category for url errors shows about 500 articles through the "A"s. So it should be possible to limit the search in those 500. The method to find this bug is tricky because of the nested {{ {{ }} }} deliminator, complicated by the possibility of other cite templates within the same ref. I'll see what I can do. -- GreenC 14:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm finding these all the way through the 'Zs' in that category [6]. — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 03:43, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Another one is where the bot adds a 'dead link' tag into the citation before the 'cite' template ends, instead of after [7] — TheJJJunk ^{(say hello)} 03:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm working on a script to find and fix these. If you see any other url problems that are repeatable and scriptable let me know. I'll run the script through the 10,000 articles in the tracking category. -- GreenC 15:15, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

User:TheJJJunk and Cyberpower - I've create a script and ran AWB against the 10,000 articles in the url error tracking category. It found and fixed about 300 pages. Less than half were related to IABot the rest were old errors from elsewhere (edits made by an IP editor in February were a large portion of them example). It un-embedded {{dead link}} tags from within other templates (example); and added a space between the URL and {{dead link}} (example). It also fixed the recursive embedded template problem (example). -- GreenC 19:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Query web archive

Apparently there is no stopping edits such as this so just have your bot remove {{Query web archive}} (in most cases) from main space instead. Any remaining problems can be dealt with on a case by case basis. Regards. – Allen4names (contributions) 19:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Easier said than done. That bot would have to first be able to recognize it. This is a bot to be deployed on 200 other Wikipedias in the future, each with it's own formatting rules. So it makes recognizing something for removal, which is something the bot doesn't already do. You can however tag that URL with cbignore. It's a blank template that should have no impact on the template but instructs the bot to leave the URL that precedes it alone. Much easier solution when you encounter these scenarios.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 19:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, I am working on an update that will have the bot ignore URLs inside unknown templates, but that's planned for the 1.3 release I've been working on for the past few months.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 19:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Allen, once I've completed the merger of {{webarchive}} (which supports multiple archives), I was going to start discussions about {{query web archive}}, it's a problematic way to do web archiving. There are only about 500 uses and I hope we can do something with it. -- GreenC 19:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Cyberpower678 and Green Cardamom: I have already start one at Template_talk:Query web archive § Future of this template but have not recieved any replies. Your comments there are welcome. – Allen4names (contributions) 19:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
• Found something worse. – Allen4names (contributions) 20:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Archive for internally-redirecting link in External links sections

Hi, I'll preface this by saying this probably isn't a big deal. I'm curious about the bot making edits such as this; in this case, the external link it replaced wasn't "dead", it simply redirected to a new 'home' page (http://www.sciencebuff.org/ now redirects to http://www.sciencebuff.org/site/ ). As this is a link in an "External links" section, this seems less than ideal as it now serves an outdated page; however I can imagine it would be useful to do such changes for links in references (since it likely indicates a change in content, and the updated link may no longer support the referenced text). Curious if this is desirable bot behavior. Thanks for the otherwise excellent and extremely time-saving work, by the way. Antepenultimate (talk) 23:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It is intentional and can be shut off when the community necessary to do so.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 23:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot repeatedly rescues working links from www.rsssf.com

Hi, the InternetArchiveBot repeatedly rescues working links from www.rsssf.com, see for example here. http://www.rsssf.com/ usually responds very fast and the links are working properly so don't know why InternetArchiveBot does this. Could you please fix that? --Jaellee (talk) 14:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)