User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 47

Archive 40

←

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Senior Editor II

IAB

Forwarded to Phabricator T165153 ("arkivurl= should contain actual URL, not a Wikimedia-related test URL")

[1]?! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 08:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I found another seven articles where IAB inserted the same faulty link, in one of which three times: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. JohanahoJ (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please use the provided tools to fix it. [9]—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 11:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

NO! Fixing bot-errors is the bot masters thing to handle! -- Innocent bystander (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

These tools are designed for the community to use. It's much easier going there, than coming to my talk page.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 11:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Cyberpower678, can we have a gentle reminder about WP:BOTCOMM please: "Bot operators should …ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general.". —Sladen (talk) 11:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Of course. It's not that I'm not willing to fix issues like these, but bad archives do happen, and it's not a problem that will ever go away due to numerous issues that just can't be factored in, so I created these tools to make it super easy for these users to tell the bot "Hey these archives don't work, use this one instead" or "There is no usable archive here, don't add any to this URL" or "Hey, these links aren't dead." I'm trying to gently push these users to use the tools, otherwise I may end up with unmanageable backlog of little issues, preventing me from actually improving the bot in the long haul.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:02, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

@Innocent bystander: Per my comment I just made above, I'm not trying to force the community to fix all the problems of IABot, but there are common issues that due happen, and one of them is the bot occasionally working with a bad URL. Rather than users having to put the pain and effort of providing a detailed report, they can just go to this specific tool, search for the original URL, and fix the archive URL associated with it. Changes take effect in IABot immediately, rather than having to wait for me to fix them. HOWEVER, I just noticed that there is a problem that needs me to intervene, namely it's not processing some URLs correctly. In all of those instances IABot interpreted the URL as http:///. So that is a bug needing to be fixed by the operator, being me. I'll look into fixing this as soon as I can.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:10, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The normal procedure when we discover a mistake made by a bot, it to go to the bot's user page, look up who is the owner and leave a message to that user. Your tool is probably useful for those who follow your bots progress, but I am not one of those users. My interest is not in learning new tools, its in safeguarding our articles, like I have done for almost 10 years. I saw it make a mistake in my watchlist, and I reverted it. The mistake was not one of the kinds I expect such a bot to do everyday, (like linking to a archived version of the page that does not contain the sourced information). The source was linked to one page, and the archive-link was to something completely unrelated, they had nothing at all in common. -- Innocent bystander (talk) 14:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I apologize. I didn't notice that when I initially responded, but I still encourage you to look at the tools. They are very useful, and as a matter of fact some of it is being mandated for use on this Wikipedia. They change the bot's behavior and have an immediate effect, which makes fixing little issues a whole lot easier for users and also promotes the safeguarding of articles in the future.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm afraid, I do not have very much time to spend online these days. I work part time as economic and legal counsellor today. The problem is that you never know when you get a new client, how much time each of them will take, and one of them has taken awfully lot of time the last months. Sooo..., I take a look at your tools another day... -- Innocent bystander (talk) 19:49, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

cyberbot I/Adminstats

Hello, I like your cyberbot activities in several Wikipedia laguages and project. It will be my pleasure if you help bnwiki with this adminstats bot. Will you help us? ferdous 23:08, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey there, me again! I was wondering if you could give your bot a gentle nudge on Wikidata again. Neither my stats, nor those of my colleagues, have been updated since 18 January. Thank you! Jared Preston (talk) 14:25, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll look at it tomorrow.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 00:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Archiving help

Hey, I just improved an article The Rise of Sivagami. However, all of the refs I used there were from newspapers and I am afraid the urls may rot. Can you please archive those urls or make your bot InternetArchiveBot do that and add it to the article ? I tried but some page kept popping up as I edit on mobile. Thanks 31.215.112.102 (talk) 11:54, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done here. IPs can't use the tool anyways. It requires an account to operate.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

IABot question

Hello, I have a small question about IABot. I glanced at its code, but I couldn't determine the answer. Does IABot have any way of knowing whether an archived copy of a page is really the desired page, or a 404-type page? Because what I often see when personally browsing the Wayback Machine to find a decent Archive link is that the last archived copy of a page, or even the last few years of copies, will be a page that says something like, "This page is no longer available." I then have to go further back in time to find a legitimate copy of the desired page. I'm wondering if there's a secret to knowing where the last valid archived page is in time. Does IABot have any tricks in this regard, or do its archive links need to be reviewed by a human eye afterward in order to catch this issue? I work on a smaller wiki where I've recently determined that we have a few hundred dead links, hence my interest in automating the solution. Thanks. --Iritscen (talk) 16:02, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

IABot uses a number of means to determine if the archive is good or not. IABot's long term goal is to deploy onto as many wikis as possible.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. Basically I was just asking if there is an automated way to tell the difference between an archived copy of a page where the web site says, "This page isn't here anymore" and an archive of the URL that has the actual page's contents. Here's an example URL. If you plug that into the Wayback Machine, you'll see that the last few years of archives all say "Page Not Found". You don't get a real copy of the page until you go back to 2013. I see this a lot, so I'm just wondering if IABot is able to tell the difference. It doesn't seem to me that it's possible for a bot to be that smart, but I was curious if there's some hint that the Archive provides which can help distinguish valid archived pages. --Iritscen (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

While not accurate 100% of the time, yes, the bot is able to distinguish working and non-working archives on the Wayback Machine. They preserve header codes of the archived page.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I see, I didn't know that the header code comes through and is being taken into consideration by IABot. That's good to know, thanks for your responses. --Iritscen (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot and <nowiki> tags

Hello Cyberpower678, first of all thank you for running the InternetArchiveBot as I think it does a tremendous job! However, there is one thing I have seen that it does that sort of bothers me and you might be able to help. In the title of a web reference, I have seen that the bot removes any usage of the <nowiki> tags. This creates a problem on my side since I sometime use the <nowiki> tag to display the correct header of a web article or such. For example, if the header on an article looks like this "Here is a title [and here is a sub-title in brackets]", I would like to put the full name in a web reference. However, just putting the title as it is the web refrence template will consider the closing bracket as the end of the title, which is not correct. Therefore, I need to put <nowiki> tags to make sure the title also includes the closing bracket. But I see that the InternetArchiveBot is removing any usage of the <nowiki> tags in the title and that leaves the titles of web references incomplete. Could you make sure the bot excludes the removal of <nowiki> tags in the titles? Here is an example from Swedish Wikipedia where several removals were done. Thank you in advance! --Kigsz (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to mention that ']' is a reserved character in cite templates. Using the nowiki tag to get around the reserved status is a hack that will break just about any bot. On enwiki (and others) we have {{Bracket}}. It should be possible to copy it over to svwiki a much cleaner and proper solution. -- GreenC 12:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Indeed. This is an issue I have struggled greatly with and the best solution I come up with is to strip comments and nowikis from inside the template, so the bot doesn't end up breaking the template entirely. I'm still thinking of a better way to handle it, but at the moment, there is no known solution.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Your previous bug you reported.

@Innocent bystander: I would like to point you to the ticket of the bug you reported. After having looked closer to the diffs provided, all but the second diff where the URL were templates, was indeed a bug. However, the second diff was because the URLs are broken. They're not properly formatted, and thus IABot can't read them. If you go to click on the links, the browser won't load them. They need to be fixed on Wikipedia itself. Please this comment.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Minor change to template

I made a minor change to Template:RFPP. It shouldn't affect the bot, but you never know. Gamebuster19901 (Talk║Contributions) 14:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

No it won't. Thanks.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:36, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent rescue at Donald Hoobler

On Donald Hoobler, I flagged a citation as dead and User:InternetArchiveBot found a version, maybe, on the Wayback Machine; I couldn't get to it. The Wayback Machine wants me to update my admin.php. While I'm guessing that's an issue not of your creation, I just thought I'd let you know what happened.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 15:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Sorry that's nothing I can fix on my end. It may only be temporary.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:23, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Shared IP edu

Hello. I'm asking here because you may be aware of much bot activity on Wikipedia. After reading Wikipedia:Blocking_IP_addresses I still didn't see a mention of what I was thinking of. I think that it would be easy to use a list of CIDR ranges assigned to schools to automatically add a {{Shared IP edu}} template at the top of user talk pages (if not present) when a first edit occurs for an IP address within such a range, which doesn't have a talk page yet. So I wondered if this already exists where I can add newly discovered school CIDR ranges, but I failed to find it if so. Would you know of such an existing feature? Thank you, — PaleoNeonate — 23:10, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know of any.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, — PaleoNeonate — 14:35, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot putting double spaces before single digits in dates

e.g. this edit includes archivedate=July 8, 2011 with a double space between July and 8. I suspect it's a format statement somewhere; could someone fix it so it stops happening? Yes, I know that it's cleaned up before display. Mr Stephen (talk) 17:50, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

v1.3.2 has that issue resolved.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:54, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

That's OK then. Thanks. Mr Stephen (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot adding df= to cite web

Hi C678, in this edit, the bot added |df= to {{Cite web}}. (I assume this is for "day first" i.e. DMY vs MDY,) but I don't see that as a valid parameter in the template, and when I changed it to df=yes, it generated errors, and when I changed it to df=y, it also generated errors. So I think maybe the parameter addition was a mistake? Thanks for looking into this. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a valid parameter. Try setting it to mdy or dmy. You can also append -all to either option.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: did the help text that links from those error messages not explain which parameter values are allowed with |df=? |df= is a valid parameter and is documented as such in the {{cite web}} template documentation here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: In this, I see "Invalid |df=yes". I saw the same when I switched it to "y". But to C's point, I do see that "dmy" and "mdy" works, so I guess this was my shortcoming in searching. (I searched the documentation for "df=" and thus found nothing...) Very weird though that many other templates use "df" with a "y" or "n" value rather than "dmy" or "mdy". Anyway, sorry for the false alarm. But while we're here, I do note that List of highest-grossing Indian films did have a {{Use dmy dates}} template when the bot came by. Is there any way for the bot to look for this and format the df parameter automatically? Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyphoidbomb: I don't think you answered my question about the help text When you followed the help link (you did follow it, right?), did it not sufficiently indicate what values may be assigned to |df=?

The purpose that |df= serves is to reformat dates written in the template to a specified format. This allows bots and other automated tool like citoid to write dates in a format convenient to them and so that editors may make a single edit to one parameter instead of rewriting several parameter values. There are three acceptable formats in two forms so |df=yes and |df=y are insufficient to the task.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 19:45, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: My habit is not to use the help link, rather to look at the template documentation for guidance, which I did, albeit poorly. I do understand what the purpose of the |df= parameter is, it was the implementation that was confusing, since I'm used to |df= being propagated with |df=y and/or |df=yes, like at {{Film date}}, {{Start date}}, {{End date}}, {{Birth date}}, {{Birth date and age}}, {{Death date and age}}, etc. In these templates, "df" appears to stand for "day first", rather than "date formatting". While it is certainly edifying to keep reliving how I messed up, it is getting more embarrassing, so I'm going to withdraw and repeat the suggestion I made earlier, that it'd be sweet if the bot could look for the proper formatting preference established by {{Use dmy dates}}, which seems like the entire reason such a template exists. Thanks and regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:57, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see the default value for when df is not specified or when it is specified with a null value, as here. No problem, just puzzled about the reason for this. Thincat (talk) 20:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Like all other cs1|2 template parameters, when |df= is left empty or omitted altogether, nothing happens.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining. So inserting a df=NUL has no effect? So why is it being inserted? Thincat (talk) 22:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

To allow bots and other automated tools, like citoid, to write dates in a format convenient to them. Writing dates for MediaWiki level tools is problematic for tools that must do so across the plethora of languages. For those tools, writing dates in the year-initial numeric form is best. When they do that, all that local edotirs need to do to make the templates render more readable dates is to simply set |df= to an appropriate value; a single edit to one parameter instead of rewriting several parameter values.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:53, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Cyphoidbomb: IABot usually obeys the date formatting tags on the page. Not sure why it didn't in this case.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 22:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Bot removed most of article at List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset

The IA bot edited at List of Sites of Special Scientific Interest in Somerset. It removed most of the article. I don't know what sort of bug this is but I assume this wasn't what was intended.— Rod ^talk 14:30, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Please report with this tool. I'll investigate.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:34, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't have time to create account etc at present - just going back to my daughter in hospital.— Rod ^talk 14:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand. I'll try to create the ticket and report it here when I can. Doing other stuff myself at the moment.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Cyberpower678, can we have another gentle reminder about WP:BOTCOMM please: "Bot operators should …ensure that they will be able to meet any inquiries resulting from the bot's operation cordially, promptly, and appropriately. This is a condition of operation of bots in general.". This report is blatantly a bugs in the bot, unrelated to processed URLs. The reporting "tool" is of little help in this/these cases; it is an indirect method of creating a Task in Phabricator. This can be performed directly by clicking https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/maniphest/task/edit/form/1/ and tagging with `InternetArchiveBot (v1.3)` to create the same end result. —Sladen (talk) 14:56, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Sladen, I'm starting to feel a little harassed here. I am very well aware of bot policy, and I have responded promptly, and investigated. I have found this to be a unique issue that doesn't appear to affect other articles, and I have asked the user to report this using the tool, so I can track the issue. My tool is there to make it easier for users to report issues, by only needing to focus on the content of the bug, while prefilling the rest of the information. It's proven more effective than an instruction manual on how to fill out a bug report.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:02, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Rodw: I found and fixed a bug. It was a nasty little bug the cropped up everywhere in the code when a reference exceeds 45,000 characters. It essentially broke the regex functions which was used everywhere and caused it to break everywhere. I installed sanity checks to default to a simpler function on larger references exceeding 30,000, but in doing so, it may open itself up to a new bug. Considering the bug is it may start misplacing the content it wants to place because of identical strings, 30,000 characters should be unique enough to not have that happen.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:36, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Is there any particular reason why you wouldn't just have the bot ignore references over 30,000 or 45,000 characters? This is so unique that it's just now happening for the first time after quite a lot of operating time. We're hardly losing much in the way of coverage by just skipping this case. It seems the potential effort of chasing down new bugs caused by a new simple function in the future isn't worth deploying a new bit of code for such a small edge case. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Supercount tool @ Wikimedia Tool Labs

This appears to be down? I keep getting 502 error messages... GiantSnowman 19:56, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

This is still not working, and is alternating between 502 and 504 errors... GiantSnowman 06:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. Do you have a specific link?—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Relatively unimportant glitch

Hi CP,

I noticed that Cyberbot I, when tracking RFA vote stats, appears to get a little confused when there are no neutral votes AND the default "#" sign is still there AND there are comments in the "General Comments" section below it. For example, it was showing ONUnicorn with 37 supports and 1 neutral, when really they had 37 supports and zero neutral. The bot corrected itself right away after I made this edit. Not sure if it's worth your time to tweak the bot (I'm certainly not asking you to spend the time to do it if you're busy), but I thought you'd like to know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:54, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's easier to simply tweak the template for RFA, so the # isn't there. People what to use to tally their votes anyways.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 00:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure about "easier"; it took me a while to figure out where that text lived. But done. We'll see if it sticks. Thanks for the idea. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:08, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Although apparently I forgot that I found it once before, for similar reasons! --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Abermule with Llandyssil

Hi,

For the third time, InternetArchiveBot has added an archived link to a dead page with the error message that the page cannot be found. Isn't it better to just leave the deadlink template than to have a link in the citation to an error page?

Or, perhaps there's another template other than deadlink that is appropriate and won't kick off the bot?–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

If the archive is bad, use this tool to look up the URL the archive is supposed to be of, and remove the archive, or replace it with something better.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I have used the tool to see if there is a good page - cannot find one. The page was only archived once, and it's an error page. I have removed the archive twice, it just gets readded by the bot. I have tried to find a better source and so far have been unable to find one. I am not sure what to do from here: Perhaps I should give up and just leave the link to the errored archive page in the citation.–CaroleHenson (talk) 20:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you are doing, but that tool is there to tell what IABot should or shouldn't use. If you can't find a suitable replacement for the URL, then you should delete the archive URL from the tool to tell the bot to stop using it. I see no activity from you on the tool other than you accepting the ToS.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I'm over my head. I thought it was the same tool as the ones on the article talk page. I just tried it and got the message "Missing URL: The URL you typed in could not be found. This either means you are using a protocol on a protocol relative URL, vice-versa, or IABot has not encountered this URL yet on any wiki. Try copying the URL exactly as is from Wikipedia into the search field."

I'm totally lost at this point at what to do. I'll just leave it as-is right now. Thanks for your time on this, though.–CaroleHenson (talk) 21:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

What's the URL?—CYBERPOWER (Around) 21:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

From the talk page:

"Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140729125608/http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7 to http://www.neighbourhood.statistics.gov.uk/dissemination/LeadKeyFigures.do?a=7&b=11122728&c=LD2%203RA&d=16&e=62&g=6490976&i=1001x1003x1032x1004&m=0&r=0&s=1447171003026&enc=1

–CaroleHenson (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Loads fine for me.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 22:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

For me, that brings up another page. First, a "Modify URL Data" page.

If I click on the url in "URL details", the page routes to https://www.ons.gov.uk/help/localstatistics, which is a splash page that just says where to find census data. It's not the original page where the census data was found

If I copy the webarchive url into my browser, I again get "Sorry, we are unable to display this page."

Are you saying that by clicking on "Loads fine for me" that you provided that you see the census information for the Abermule with Llandyssil that supports the statement "and had a population of 1527 as of the 2011 UK Census.[3]"?–CaroleHenson (talk) 23:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

That is the tool that let's you talk to IABot. You can delete the archive from the URL or replace it with a different archive. What you see there is what IABot will use for that URL.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:33, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks.–CaroleHenson (talk) 00:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Question about IABot

Hi Cyberpower678, I'm new in using the IABot. I read the Cyberpower678/FaQs and I can't find my problem. I am trying to fix most refs in the By Years articles of Cannes Film Festival. First I queued for the whole series, but it rescued only very few links. Links in refs like [10] which redirect to [11], the Bot doesn't seem to rescue them unless I check "Add archives to all non-dead references", which then gives me the job of manually removing all the archived refs that actually do work. Any suggestions? Thank you. Hoverfish Talk 01:42, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Redirecting URLs, are not considered dead if they redirect to a working page. When you queue up the bot, for good reasons, customizing options are not available since a large job spanning across thousands of pages can upset editors if the bot is doing something they don't like. So you are only given the options to customize on single page jobs where the edits are made straight from your account.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:48, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

However, URLs that redirect to the home page should be considered dead. Since this is one of those instances where the home page has a path in it, the bot cannot detect it as dead automatically. You can use this tool to tell the bot the URL is dead, or it needs a different archive, and it will act on it accordingly. Here is the tool with the URL you are interested in.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:51, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Cyberpower678, I will try to use this tool next, cheers. Hoverfish Talk 09:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Links to the 2007 Peru Census

Hey, I have the article about the Loreto Region of Peru on my watchlist because it got vandalised; I otherwise know nothing about the country. I noticed that InternetArchiveBot tried to add a non-working archive link to the 2007 Peru Census; none of the links on the Wayback Machine seem to be usable at all. I fixed the link to the new official site, but the bot seems to have added this link several dozen times, and there are hundreds more where that one came from. What should be done to resolve this situation? Graham87 02:42, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Cyberbot I - Adminstats on Wikidata

Hi, can you check why D:Template:Adminstats don't work more on wikidata? It is stopped on january. Ex. D:Template:Adminstats/ValterVB Thanks. --ValterVB (talk) 06:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Adminstats worked for me exactly one day in the last month. That was April 26. Since that date, I've kept the template inactive, because it returns the message: "Maile66 is not an administrator or an account creator. Therefore they have been disallowed the use of adminstats." And I just now checked it. — Maile (talk) 18:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm investigating.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:32, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Running on Wikidata now.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope. I have the template at the top of User:Maile66/AdminGuides. It used to work there. I shut down my browser and tried again, thinking that might be it. But it still shows that message. I purged the browser cache, purged the Wikipedia page. No luck. — Maile (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I fixed it on Wikidata. Let me run it on this wiki then.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:50, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It works! Thank you for being so attentive to this. — Maile (talk) 20:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for fixing it on Wikidata. After writing two weeks ago, I didn't want to annoy by writing again so soon as I know you're a busy man. It's great that it's back and working. Many, many thanks! Jared Preston (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. --ValterVB (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Please confirm"

" One or more pages in this request appear to already be protected. Please confirm."

How are we supposed to confirm? Just edit the entry to add "confirmed"? Jeh (talk) 13:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope, an admin will just close the request with an already protected response.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:04, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah - only the closing admin is supposed to confirm. Got it. Thanks you for the reply. Jeh (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

IABot user script

Hi,

I've just been using your IABot, and I'm impressed. I wonder whether you might know of a user script, that would add a left-hand menu item (or tab or button) to Wikipedia pages, which, when selected would pass the current page to the tool? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:48, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

It's linked in the page history. Is that what you're looking for?—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks and a question

Does reverting minor vandalism like this violate my tban, also thanks for the chance Darkness Shines (talk) 09:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism should always be reverted by anyone that comes across. So I would say it's okay to revert edits that are obviously vandalism, as long as everyone else will agree it was vandalism, and that your edit was strictly reverting it. I would see that as a valid exception to the TBAN. I could be wrong, and if someone raises an issue over it, I'll take the blame then.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:50, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Fascinating Information

Thanks. I am leading this kind of process on wikipedia also, continuing to spread the best current knowledge that exists within language and technology. All the Best to you. Allyhall321 (talk) 21:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

bot edits

I don't know anything about bots or bugs but an edit was made to the "General references" section (apparently rescuing a link to Amnesty International) that had nothing to do with the subject of Franklin and David Thomas (research suggests a wrongly titled article) and there are comments on the talk page concerning the bot. I would hope someone would look at this because it appears the bot is just adding what I consider a non-relevant and biased link to articles. Douglas Hamlet has the same link.

The bot is just doing its job. It is not concerned whether the link is biased or not.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:17, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't some editor decide which links a bot adds to articles or is there some AI involved? Otr500 (talk) 11:26, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

The bot only fixes broken links by replacing the dead with an archive. It doesn't decide to add new links.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I got you----thank you very much. Otr500 (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2017

News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2017).

Administrator changes

Doug Bell • Dennis Brown • Clpo13 • ONUnicorn

ThaddeusB • Yandman • Bjarki S • OldakQuill • Shyam • Jondel • Worm That Turned

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC proposing an off-wiki LTA database has been closed. The proposal was broadly supported, with further discussion required regarding what to do with the existing LTA database and defining access requirements. Such a tool/database formed part of the Community health initiative's successful grant proposal.
• Some clarifications have been made to the community banning and unblocking policies that effectively sync them with current practice. Specifically, the community has reached a consensus that when blocking a user at WP:AN or WP:ANI, it is considered a "community sanction", and administrators cannot unblock unilaterally if the user has not successfully appealed the sanction to the community.
• An RfC regarding the bot policy has closed with changes to the section describing restrictions on cosmetic changes.

Technical news

• Users will soon be able to blacklist specific users from sending them notifications.

Miscellaneous

• Following the 2017 elections, the new members of the Board of Trustees include Raystorm, Pundit and Doc James. They will serve three-year terms.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:40, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot bugs

Hi Cyberpower678, your bot InternetArchiveBot grossly messed up in this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_Minolta_A-mount_lenses&action=historysubmit&type=revision&diff=781043835&oldid=770694935

• The bot apparently misinterprets HTML comments following URLs by percent-encoding the opening comment bracket < ! -- and merging it into the preceding link, thereby messing up both the link and comment. Please fix and review and correct old edits for this error.
• Your bot removes spaces in front of |title= parameters and it adds spaces in front of the closing }} template brackets. This is an old and already reported bug still not fixed. Per our edit guidelines, we should not change the citation template formatting if it already has a consistent format - and I think we can even more expect this from bots. If the bot cannot detect and adjust to existing formats, it is best just not to remove any spaces where they exist and to not add spaces before or after parameters. Please fix.
• The talk page of the bot refers to Phabricator to file bug reports. This would be no problem if Phabricator could be used with the normal Wikipedia account, however, I don't think it is acceptable to force users to first register with another site just to report bugs about bots run on the English Wikipedia. People may not be able or willing to open such foreign accounts, and trying to force them into this in order to fix problems caused by a bot run on the English Wikipedia is wrong attitude - I consider it impolite. After all, bots are tolerated as guests in the English Wikipedia, they must stick to our rules and if they make mistakes they should not force us to become active elsewhere.

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm responding to each bullet with their own bullet.

• This appears to be a unique bug, and is likely the only page this bug exists on. Otherwise it would have been caught much sooner than now, and especially by another bot that helps IABot.
• This is not a bug, but more of a limitation too costly to fix, and I've already made it clear it wasn't going to be addressed. The bot will respect multiline formatting and single line formatting, but when it comes to formatting, it uses the most common formatting on Wikipedia. If addressing this is a big issue, I'd like to see from the community that I should invest, what will be a considerable amount of, time to fix an issue that has no change in the final render.
• Phabricator uses your Wikipedia account. Look more carefully. It would be entirely different if I asked users to report on GitHub, but Phabricator is a Wikimedia driven site, and I ask users to report there, as I can keep track of bugs more easily, and don't forget them. If users choose to refuse, fine, but in the end, some bugs on my talk page will be forgotten. Speaking of being impolite, your tone in this report is bordering on that as well.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:07, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding #1 I tested for handling of wikicomments and it does OK. I'll try to replicate this problem. -- GreenC 13:27, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I think it's just an unusual combo of data and might be hard to code for. I switched it to {{webarchive}} with the |format=addlarchives should be more friendly to bots. -- GreenC 15:52, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Sorry for posting here

Hi there, I know I'm not supposed to post here in regard to the bot, so I apologize in advance if this causes a problem. I did ckeck the tool page before posting here, but all I did was get confused, which is why I came here. The edit in question that I'm trying to figure out is this edit[12] to Mark Eyking. The edit made changes to three archived sources, but now the links don't work. In the version of article prior to the bot changes, the links work fine.[13]. Like I said above, I have no idea what this is classified as, not sure if this is what is called a bug or if it's just the wrong link. I'll understand if you revert my message, not looking to cause any problems. Cmr08 (talk) 08:37, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

It's quite alright. It's actually an issue with the Wayback Machine, and they are working on it, but it could take months. In the meantime, I am working on a workaround to address this issue.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:59, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, that's good then, because I just seen the same thing in Mark Parent article. Cmr08 (talk) 16:10, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Marty Morrissey

For the second time User:InternetArchiveBot had marked a perfectly valid links as dead, see here: Marty Morrissey. The Banner talk 23:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Use this.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:23, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

About Cyberbot II on zh

Your bot has been approved on zh:Wikipedia:机器人/申请 , but seems the bot hasn't created on zh.--Willy1018 (talk) 12:36, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

It's actually supposed to be InternetArchiveBot, and it's going to happen within the next 7 days. I didn't file that approval request, someone else did.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I got it.--Willy1018 (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Willy1018: Please see https://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Special:Translate&filter=&group=internetarchivebot&language=zh-hans&task=custom&action=translate and https://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Special:Translate&filter=&group=internetarchivebot&language=zh-hant&task=custom&action=translate and spread the word.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:38, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T166992

Hey there! Would you please consider requesting a bot flag for User:InternetArchiveBot on the Central Kurdish Wikipedia? I think it will be useful to us.—‎Lost Whispers _talk 12:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

You need to start a discussion there first and seek a consensus. If there is consensus to deploy the bot there, then I can move forward.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: It's already done. The community thinks that the more bot our Wikipedia has the better we can improve our small (for now) encyclopedia. You can request the bot flag, and I'll handle the translation. Thanks.—‎Lost Whispers _talk 14:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I need a link to that discussion so I can document it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

there you go, it has been discussed that our Wikipedia is open for bots to improve it in that section of the page, also here are a list of administrators if you needed to make sure check here. I can translate it for you if you want, the web doesn't have good translators for CKB.—‎Lost Whispers _talk 09:09, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lost Whispers:. The translator was all but useless but it looks like bot approvals request for a bot called KovanBot. I don't see how this is a community consensus for InternetArchiveBot.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: it has been mentioned by both users سەرچیا and ئیبراھیم that the community is open for new bots in that section of the page, that's what I said in my previous comment. that's not a section opened for InternetArchiveBot. Anyway, what does it take to get the bot there? Should I open a discussion myself? Because usually the bot ownsers request bot flags not other users.—‎Lost Whispers _talk 18:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I usually request approval for the bot, but I usually look for consensus that will support the bot's operation on the wiki. I'll take your word for it, and will open a Phabricator task to track it's deployment. I recommend you subscribing to the ticket, and commenting there as needed.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:16, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Please subscribe to the ticket mentioned in the above right of this section.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:25, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

@Lost Whispers: Please see https://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Special:Translate&group=internetarchivebot&language=ckb&filter=%21translated&action=translate to translate the tool.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:24, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: i have subscribed. When will you submit the request?—‎Lost Whispers _talk 17:42, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

also, should I begin the translations now or after bot flag was granted?—‎Lost Whispers _talk 17:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

I will hopefully be able to begin deployment with in the next month or two. I'm now at the phase were global deployment can happen more quickly. As for translating, the sooner the better. It's better to have it done before I start working to deploy the bot.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

translation will begin today.—‎Lost Whispers _talk 17:51, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Syntax mangling at WP:RFPP

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Syntax mangling at WP:RFPP. TheDragonFire (talk) 00:05, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Can you help verify translations of articles from German

Hello Cyberpower678,

Would you be able to help evaluate the accuracy of translations of Wikipedia articles from German to English Wikipedia?

File:Language icon.svg

This would involve evaluating a translated article on the English Wikipedia by comparing it to the original German article, and marking it "Pass" or "Fail" based on whether the translation faithfully represents the original. Here's the reason for this request:

There are a number of articles on English Wikipedia that were created as machine translations from different languages including German , using the Content Translation tool, sometimes by users with no knowledge of the source language. The config problem that allowed this to happen has since been fixed, but this has left us with a backlog of articles whose accuracy of translation is suspect or unknown, including some articles translated from German. In many cases, other editors have come forward later to copyedit and fix any English grammar or style issues, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the translation is accurate, as factual errors from the original translation may remain. To put it another way: Good English is not the same as good translation.

If you can help out, that would be great. Here's a sample of the articles that need checking:

1. JW Player
2. Karl Hermann Heinrich Benda

All you have to do, is compare the English article to the German article, and assess them "Pass" or "Fail" (the {{Pass}} and {{Fail}} templates may be useful here). (Naturally, if you feel like fixing an inaccurate translation and then assessing it, that's even better, but it isn't required.) Also please note that we are assessing accuracy not completeness, so if the English article is much shorter that is okay, as long as whatever has been translated so far is factually accurate.

If you can help, please {{ping}} me here to let me know. You can add your pass/fails above, right next to each link, or you may indicate your results below. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 06:56, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Closing admin at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Covfefe

Can you please add rationale how you determined the consensus? Without such rationale, the decision is more likely to go to a deletion review. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 18:57, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It's really quite simple. There was pretty much even divide between the keepers and deleters. Both sides made good arguments for either. Then there were those that suggested merging. Some keepers and deleters also suggested merging as a second option. After reading the discussion, it became clear that Covfefe is notable enough to be included in Wikipedia, but many agreed that it's not notable enough to have its own article. Thus I came to the conclusion that merging is the best course of action.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You should transfer this reasoning to the AfD debate (even though it states do not alter the page) since the reasoning should have been included in the first place, as the consensus was not cut and dry. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 21:45, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

• I endorse the IP editor's request that you add your closing rationale to the AfD page, as if it had been there from the close. See my comments in the DRV for more detail. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 09:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Another census wibble from InternetArchiveBot

Hey, I'm not sure if this is a bug or something I did wrong, so I'm reporting it here. InternetArchiveBot's link to the 2005 Mexican census was broken. I went in twice and fixed it and asked the bot to redo all the links (jobs 370 and 375), but there are still many links to the broken version on Wikipedia. Graham87 14:14, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

IABot will not touch an already existing archive, unless to be found having invalid formatting. The option exists to override that position, but it's not available on the interface. I've been debating about whether to add more options and allow admins to adjust the default configuration for a job they are about to submit.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)