User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 27

Archive 20

←

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Senior Editor II

Opinion on a bot policy thing

Hi Cyberpower. I'm approaching you as an uninvolved bot operator who's far more familiar with the precedents of how bot policy has been applied than I am. Would a bot task that removed deprecated parameters that have been entirely removed from a template (i.e. serve no function any longer) from mainspace articles fall afoul of WP:COSMETICBOT?

Several parameters related to debut and final teams were removed a while back with consensus from {{Infobox NFL player}} as they duplicated information in the parameter that displays all teams a player has played on (with years played). The parameters were completely removed from the template, and no longer have any effect on the template's output. The rationale for removing them is that their presence in articles is likely to confuse new editors or even experienced editors unfamiliar with this particular infobox, possibly causing them to add good information to a parameter that no longer displays rather than the appropriate one. In my opinion and those of other editors close to this particular template, this makes it worthwhile to remove the parameters from all articles even if it does not produce any change in the HTML output of the page.

Your opinion on this would be appreciated, as I'm unsure how COSMETICBOT has been applied in the past and whether it tends to extend beyond things like removing white space. If there's a better person I should ask, let me know. Thanks! ~ Rob^Talk 20:28, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:COSMETICBOT does apply here, however, if there is consensus for such a bot, then there is no reason why it shouldn't get approved.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:50, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Just to make sure I'm understanding your response in a more general sense, is it correct that COSMETICBOT applies only for tasks that do not have a clear consensus? Thanks again for your help. ~ Rob^Talk 21:14, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is the driving force behind actions on Wikipedia. If consensus wants something done, it can override policy, since policy was established by consensus to cover most cases. So in other words, WP:COSMETICBOT only matters if there is no consensus for a bot affected by this policy. So in short, WP:COSMETICBOT will result in all proposed that apply, to be denied per policy unless a discussion with a favoring outcome supports it.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 22:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Alright, I understand. Thanks again for your help! ~ Rob^Talk 00:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Checked link; archiveurl is borked. Now what?

Hey, I think the prospect of programming a bot to automagically replace deadlink refs with archived URLs is a noble endeavor. However, it doesn't always work (scrolling up, I'm not alone in seeing this), yet the automated Talk Page message doesn't seem to allow for any other edit than 'checked=true', which causes a message to appear, stating "Archived sources has been checked to be working". OK, I checked the link, and it's bad, and there are no earlier archived versions... now what? Any chance there could be an option to note that: The archived source was checked, but found to be an archived 404 (or some such), and cannot be further rescued? I would imagine you are interested in the success rate of your bot, and at the very least this could help provide such stats. Thanks! Antepenultimate (talk) 00:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I am very well aware the bot cannot always get it right, and it probably never will be able to get a 100% accuracy due to the many variables involved. In your case you simply need to either remove the source or restore it and add the {{cbignore}} tag. Follow the template instructions on how to use it.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 17:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Glitch during CyberBot I AfD tagging

Hello Cyberpower678, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Love Bites (band) and the history of Love Bites (band) and Love Bites. It looks like the bot tried to fix an incomplete nomination for "Love Bites (band)", but created some links in the nomination for "Love Bites" and mistagged the DAB-page "Love Bites" as well. I fixed (hopefully) the wrong details manually, but could you have a look into this case please? Many thanks. GermanJoe (talk) 21:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This appears to have been caused by a mistake made in the creation of that AfD. Everything in the AfD except its title refers to the disambiguation page, not the band page. This appears to be human error, not bot error. ~ Rob^Talk 22:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I see, good catch. Apparently the nomination page itself was created inconsistently by the nominator. GermanJoe (talk) 22:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

XTool edit counter protocol bug

If I'm right, you are the maintainer of XTool edit counter. A hu.wiki user reported a bug in Recent edits (global) section, where Page titles has doubled protocol: "http://https://". Can you fix it? --BáthoryPéter (talk) 20:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see what he means: in JSoos's edit staistic in section "Latest edits (global)" all the links (not only in "Page title" column) there is a pefix "https//" for the link, though in other sections there are no such prefix, and they work correctly using secure page (eg: "Top edited pages" section: Page log example-1, while in the mentioned section it does not work Page log example-2 (the examples are ther first entry "log" links in the cited sections of the statistics at "2015-09-01, 13:40") JSoos (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Computing Star
		For creating the Cyberbots Aero Slicer 12:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Improper parameter usage

Hi, what's the idea with these posts, also these? You undid some, but a lot of duplicates are left over. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This was related to the recent trial run approved in this BRFA, for context. ~ Rob^Talk 21:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

A bot that is supposed to be simple, is turning out to be a pain. The bot is not cooperating.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 21:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Force archive

Exciting to see the Internet Archive bot making its rounds. (Feature suggestion: it'd be nice if it also ran a WebCite archive on the link for good measure—sometimes archive.org drops whole sites from the archive. User:WebCiteBOT has been down for some time.) Question for your FAQ: Is there a way to call the bot over to a page? Or to specify which citations to expand when first adding them? – czar 03:44, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, when the bot was built, WebCite was never mentioned, and therefore the code would need some major rewrites to incorporate WebCite. Also, as I mentioned this elsewhere, WebCite has no API that I can tell. I'm not sure how User:WebCiteBOT works, but I'm not sure if WebCite is worth adding since it is a privately funded site, and that to me is an indication that it can go down any day. Also, Cyberbot II saves unarchived pages into the wayback machine, so in the end, it will be more likely that the wayback machine has the page we need rather than WebCite.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 17:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Understandable—just wanted to bring it to your attention. WPVG has had all sorts of issues with sites getting dropped from archive.org in the past year. I think WebCiteBOT's maintainer had been in contact with the site. But my second question: Is there a way to call the bot over to a page? Or to specify which citations to expand when first adding them? Appreciate your help – czar 17:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot will run through millions of articles. I think it may start to cause problems when people start calling Cyberbot over to other areas, as it may never get done with a run. However if you want it to add an archive, simply tag it dead. Alternatively we can create a new tag such as {{forcearchive}} that we can add to the bot's list of templates to look for when modify sources.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 17:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

That sounds great. My ideal use case would be to tag a whole article ("forcearchive" or otherwise) when I'm finished for the night so the bot can come around in the next few hours. Thus archiving need not be part of my workflow. I'd hate to have an edit conflict in the middle of an expansion, though. – czar 18:23, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

If you had an edit conflict and the diffs looked like a complete mess, so you didn't want to spend ages merging the two versions together, could you not just save your version and wait for the bot to come around and archive everything again (forcing it to if possible)? It might add to its workflow a bit but when it's editing millions of pages, having to go over a few articles more than once isn't going to substantially impede anything. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:43, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Yep, but I'd prefer to avoid that, if possible (like the other bots that do cleanup rounds). I suppose it depends on how long you anticipate it will take for the bot to come around again. – czar 18:52, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

My edit didn't go through, despite me clicking save twice.The bot will do an immense amount of work, so it can take days, maybe weeks for the first run, for the bot to finish a single run on 12 million+ articles. Depending on how many resources labs is willing to give me determines how fast the bot can run. The more resources, the faster. Given that this bot is quickly gaining in popularity here, and the fact that some people over at WMF have taken an interest in this bot, it's not unreasonable to assume that they're willing to provide what's needed to get the bot through a run in a reasonable amount of time. Also, I'm still working on improving it's efficiency. The bot is pretty slow at the moment, working at several seconds per article. Ideally, I would want each article to be processed in a second or less.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 19:06, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I think waiting may not be much of an issue anymore. I have just successfully updated my bot to run significantly faster than it does now on a single thread, with less resource usage than before. By my estimates, it should definitely take less than a week to run through all of wikipedia.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 17:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

What is this?

How does one go about to "check archived sources"? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Umm...I'm not sure what your asking, but a direct answer would be to make sure they work, fix those that don't and switch the parameter as instructed.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:17, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, what I am asking is, how would I make sure the sources work and how would I fix those that don't? Some sources go to dead links, how could I fix those? Should I investigate who had the page when it was working and asking that person to put the page up again at that same URL, or what? Is it even possible to investigate things like that? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 21:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

??? It's only asking you to check to make sure the archive links are working. Just click on the archive links to see if they work. If they don't look through the archives and see if you can find a working one.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

What archives? Where do I find them? Are you talking about the page history? Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 20:31, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's start over. The bot is going around and attempting to replace links/sources that have been tagged dead with an archived copy of the source. It doesn't always get it right so it posts a message on the talk page alerting to check the edit to make sure it put up a viable archive. It leaves links for your convenience in the form "Added archive bla to original" Where bla is the link to the archive. Click it, check it, replace it, on the article, with a different version if necessary. To see all of the archives for a specific page, change the collection of numbers in the URL to an asterisk, "*" when viewing the archived page, and push enter. Nothing to it.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:47, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot II minor hiccup

Cheers for the fix, nice one :-) This edit is almost right, but changed the original URL to url=ooo.ximian.com/ooo-build.html - note lack of protocol, which I fixed here. Not superimportant since we're talking about a dead URL anyway ... - David Gerard (talk) 09:50, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

It stripped the url from the archive URL. I'm hesitant to put a fix into that as it could potentially create problems elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by cyberpower678 (talk • contribs) 15:28, September 4, 2015‎

You ( well ok, Cyberbot II ) were mentioned on ANI

Cyberbot II was mentioned on ANI here. Apparently Wikidemon thinks it's okay to edit war with Cyberbot II rather than either talk to you about the edit in question. Your feedback would be most appreciated! KoshVorlon We are all Kosh 15:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. Unless someone asks me a question about it, I think I will stay out of this. No need to fuel the fire.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

CyberBot II used incorrect links in the talk page, but not on the actual edit (on Gladius)

While the edit to Gladius used correct links, it described the changes on the talk page with incorrect links. Specifically, the ones for the PDF are all the same link, which is the archive for the final link. Probably a bug. --Pokechu22 (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I discovered that bug several hours ago and fixed it. I recommend reverting both those edits, and let the bot process the page again.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 03:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Is the source code of Cyberbot I or Cyberbot II available?

I'm interested in helping to maintain the source code of these bots. I've been searching on Wikipedia for the source code of these bots, but I haven't found it yet. Is their source code available online anywhere? Jarble (talk) 01:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It is, but it really doesn't need maintenance at the moment.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 03:40, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Page histories

Hi Cyberpower, is there any news about WikiHistory or X-tools? Again today I need to find out how many edits someone has made to a page, and can't. Pinging Kudpung. Any updates would be much appreciated. Sarah ^(talk) 01:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I understand Sigma has put up a backup tool. You should go and ask him about it, which takes a lot of pressure off of me.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 17:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, CB. Pinging Σ in the hope he can help. Sarah ^(talk) 18:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Sarah: WikiHistory is here; Σ's Article revision statistics tool is here. They both seem to work for me right now. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, thank you. I had no idea WikiHistory was working for articles (Cyberpower, did you know this?). I wonder whether it will be made available for everything else. When I click on your second link, I get a Wikimedia Tool Labs message saying "no webservice." Sarah ^(talk) 21:43, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah: Very annoying, this – several of Σ's tools have been having this issue lately, and it seems like it's not his doing, but the messing they keep doing with the Tools lab. FWIW, Σ's tools were working 24 hours ago. I assume when Σ gets back, he'll reboot them back up again. FWIW, I think Σ's Article revision statistics tool had more functionality than WikiHistory. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:48, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

IJBall, I don't think I've ever been able to get Σ's tools to work. I have no idea whether the Wikimedia Foundation is responsible, or whether it's that the tools don't work. Pinging Coren in case he knows something. It's frustrating that we haven't had access to these tools for a long time and yet they're badly needed. WikiHistory looks good and is stable. It works well on the German Wikipedia, but we've had problems finding someone who will make it available here. Sarah ^(talk) 21:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Now I can't get into WikiHistory either because Wikimedia Labs won't connect me. Sarah ^(talk) 22:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah: Both are back up, right this second. But, as I said, both Σ's tools and XTools have been "intermittent" lately, so there's no telling how long they'll work before another "temporary outage"... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

@Sarah: @SlimVirgin: @Kudpung: Sorry for butting in here, just wondering if this discussion shouldn't be taken to a more public place? For example:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)#Edit_count_is_also_broken. Ottawahitech (talk) 16:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC) +12:18, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where it's taken. As long as a maintainer can see it.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech:: You are pinging me by mistake instead of SlimVirgin. Just FYI. Sarah 12:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Sarah. Cyberpower, do you know when (or whether) WikiHistory will become available for pages other than articles? Sarah ^(talk) 21:46, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

• Kudpung and anyone else who's interested, I'm wondering whether a group of us should pay someone to make WikiHistory work on the English Wikipedia. What would that cost, and how many people would we need to chip in? Sarah ^(talk) 21:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

An interesting suggestion Sarah, but as we are hard-working volunteers and not philanthropists, I am firmly committed to my years-long argument that where there is stalemate among the community for what are or have become to be essential software solutions for the running of this site the Foundation should step into the breach. They have more than sufficient funds and HR capacity and these issues could be resolved by two full-time paid WMF devs in a day. Now that some important news has broken regarding Foundation staffing I can do what I have been hoping to do for a while and take the matter up with some senior staff. I'm not saying it will work but with Scottywong's tools down now too and holding up some research needed for some very serious matters, something has to be done to break the impasse. but the last thing I want to happen is for those concerned to run away with the idea that "Oh well, If Kudpung is going to get the WMF to do it, there's no reason for us to bother" - the WMF listens, sure, but the people I know are not the ones who hand out the day's tasks at morning parade.

Nevertheless, it might well be faster in the face of the current urgencyif our volunteers could address these issues as they said thy would and it would avoid the Foundation wresting control of them from us and claiming kudos for any initiatives such as they did with Page Curation, for example. We must also not forget the abysmal mess they made over the takeover of ToolServer which is still part and parcel of the issues we are still trying to get to grips with here and for which well-meaning volunteers bit off more than they could chew. I'm also pinging samtar, Σ, TParis, and DGG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 22:56, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Issues with archive-link-bot

Placement of closing tag

Please see where the bot moved the </ref>-tag here: [1]. To a new row, with a blankspace between. (t) Josve05a (c) 21:24, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing it up. I am progressively working on enhancing the bots capabilities while resolving new bugs that crop up. I hope to be able to get this fully deployed in a few months time, with link verification being reasonably accurate enough to detect the dead links on its own.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 01:41, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed per this.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 03:35, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Wakefield Brass Band

Please let me add some things about the band or you can do, just please mention Wakefield Metropolitan Brass Band MikeyFH (talk) 18:34, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Huh? Can you please clarify what your are talking about?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 19:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, Cyberpower678. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

~ Rob^Talk 05:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Replied.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 05:15, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Issue with task DeadLinksBot

Hi, it seems User:Cyberbot_II broke Dundee by placing a whitespace before the closing tag for the citation template in this revision. Thanks for maintaining these useful bots! Henri Watson (talk) 19:07, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Broken in what way? I see nothing wrong with it.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 19:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

unarchiving for close

The discussion was closed in the archive some 24h ago. The link I provided has (in the closure): "There is no consensus ... to change current practice, which seems to be ... unarchive and close those discussions editors feel merit such unarchiving". I think this one merits unarchiving because I feel it might not go away without drawing the attention of some editors (including BAG people) to it. It might for instance help in finalising the approval request at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Yobot 24. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:35, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I left a botop decision well over 13 days ago, which closed the discussion there too. The close is already being acted on in WP:VPPROP. I suggest re-archiving.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 04:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Removing Persondata is not a "broader forum", it is a narrower than the original one, of which Slakr said "TFD is technically the appropriate venue—not a specialized RFC", and then that TfD should be widely announced. The current VPPROP section is not even an RfC, announced nowhere afaik, just some editor trying to game the system. Didn't even find a link to the formally closed BOTREQ RfC from the new VPPROP section. --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:54, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It is broader and it is certainly garnering quite a bit of discussion which is focused as the close rational stated it should be. As it seems consensus is leaning towards favoring the approval of Yobot. It doesn't matter if it was advertised or not, the end result is what matters, and whether or not it is a meaningful one. This one certainly is, and therefore I see no reason why this thing should take up 75% of the page.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 05:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot II edit summary issue/question

Hey, saw an edit by Cyberbot II in my watchlist (link) that archived a deadlink on a ref, but the edit summary was "Rescuing 1 sources, flagging 0 as dead, and archiving 3 sources". I expected, when I saw the summary, that one deadlink was fixed and 3 other links were archived; is the edit summary instead saying that that ref that got archived/fixed was used 3 times, so counted as 3 refs? Or is something else going on there?

In any case, super-awesome bot, WP's been desperately needing one like it for a long time now so I'm really glad you're running it! --PresN 17:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess it's time to make an FAQ. The summary means it attached an archive to one source while submitting 3 sources that are still alive over to the archive.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 19:20, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

What's wrong with Blamer?

Hi, Cyberpower678! Blamer is an invaluable tool in for identifying the sources of copyright problems, many thanks for maintaining it. But for a while now (I don't know how long) it's been giving completely wrong results. Here's an example: I asked it who had introduced the word "elaborately" to the article Gregory Crewdson. It gave me this result, which is quite simply wrong (nor is it one edit off either way, I checked). I've had many equally silly answers from it recently. What's gone wrong there? Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't say. I haven't really ever maintained that part of xTools.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 23:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Funky edit of RfX report

Hi! Check out this version of the RfX report, where the bot seems to have interpreted part of the nomination statement as the timestamp. Do you think this is just an issue with how the RfA was transcluded, or something else? APerson (talk!) 17:56, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Probably the former.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 17:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

History tool

An hour ago the German version was working pefectly on en.Wiki. Now I want to use it again and I get:

Four hundred and four!

The URI you have requested, /xtools/wikihistory/wh.php?page_title=Malvern,_Worcestershire, doesn't seem to actually exist.
If you have reached this page from somewhere else...

This URI is managed by the xtools tool, maintained by MusikAnimal, APPER, Cyberpower678, Tools.xtools-articleinfo, Elee, Technical 13, Lixxx235, Tools.xtools-ec, and Nakon.

Perhaps its files are on vacation, or the link you've followed doesn't actually lead somewhere useful?

You might want to looks at the list of tools to find what you were looking for, or one of the links on the sidebar to the left. If you're pretty sure this shouldn't be an error, you may wish to notify the tool's maintainers (above) about the error and how you ended up here.

It still has your name (among others) on it as developer. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:42, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Restarted webservices. Tool is back up.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 00:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Cyberbot I bug

You'll have already been pinged on this but for whatever reason, the RFPP task doesn't acknowledge {{RFPP|ew}} as a parseable parameter. tutterMouse (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I did but I haven't had a chance to look into it yet. I'm with my family right now and I just concluded the funeral for my grandfather.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Cool, just offering more details, hit it when you can. tutterMouse (talk) 13:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

WikiHistory gone?

Hi Cyberpower, WikiHistory is no longer available from page information --> revision history statistics. Instead I'm getting the old x tools interface. When I type in the name of the article, it says "no revisions found," which is what was happening before. Can you say what caused this to change back? Sarah ^(talk) 01:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I responded on the list.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 06:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

meta:Meta:Sandbox

Please in future revert to this version. Very thanks before.--Kaganer (talk) 17:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Issue with X's Edit Counter

Please see this bug report about X's Edit Counter. Your user name is listed at the bottom of the edit counter page, so I hope you might know who can address this cosmetic bug. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:45, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Bob Dobbs?

Hi, Cyberpower678. I'm puzzled by this edit by your Cyberbot I. What happened here? That image was added to the Time Person of the Year but it was sneaky vandalism as far as I can tell. Why'd it get copied over by the bot? Jason Quinn (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

The bot was probably processing the page as the vandalism was present and those images were flagged as non-free so it listed them.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:50, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah, got it. For some reason I didn't think about what the purpose of the |non-free= is. Makes sense. Thank you. Jason Quinn (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	I don't think I've ever given you a barnstar, have I? You deserve it, your bot work has done wonders for not just enwiki but all Wikimedia wikis. Thank you. AmaryllisGardener talk 02:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Book talk:Australian athletes at the 2014 Winter Paralympics

I don't understand what the Cyberbot has done at Book talk:Australian athletes at the 2014 Winter Paralympics. It says: Average rating: 8; 0 article(s) unassessed; 1 articles needing cleanup. But all 13 articles are GA. None need cleanup. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:52, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Jessica Gallagher is marked as needing cleanup, apparently because it has a {{citation needed}} tag. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:28, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Theoretical bot task:

How difficult would it be to run a bot-task that would strip all uses of the quote= parameter in citation templates in a specific group of articles? (so leave the citation, just stripping out quote=) Regards, Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Incredibly easy to whip one up. I can do it in 5 minutes.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 00:08, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Cheers. I will let you know if its needed. Only in death does duty end (talk) 07:47, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

Make sure it has consensus. :-) Otherwise I cannot create and run one for you.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:55, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Crohn's Disease

Hi, you probably receive lots of comments and messages and they probably end up being a pain in the ass. I believe this one could be a bit important.

I was just reading the article about Chron's Disease and you are the last editor. I have chron's disease myself. I live in Argentina, by the way, so please, excuse my English. I've just read in the article that "... those with the disease are at greater risk of bowel cancer.", which is not quite correct according to the many doctors and researchers I have seen around the world on my search for better life quality with Chron's Disease. It's a miss-conception.

The thing is that people with Chron's Disease and other diseases with very similar symptoms tend to ignore the many symptons that would make a "normal" person go to the doctor and end up being tested for bowel cancer. This prevents the patient from being diagnosed with bowel cancer in its earlier stages, when the treatment is shorter, less invasive and more effective.

Gastroentherologists rarely refer their patients to an oncologist just in case. People en up dying of stomach or bowel cancer simply becasue they are not diagnosed in time. Patients with symptoms similar to chron's disease ones must learn to insist on telling their doctors to always take into account a small chance of having diagnosing cancer.

You should probably check your sources because what I'm telling you could just be the opinion of many doctors who I don't really know how much they may have researched to get to the conclusion I' explained.

Thanks a lot for your time. Tatobari (talk) 04:22, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I've never edited that page. Sorry. I think you have the wrong editor here.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 15:53, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Headline

Hi, I tried to figure out, how you make the headline User talk:Cyberpower678 on this page to appear in two shades of green; but I did not suceed. Can you tell me? --° (Gradzeichen) 15:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

My userspace coding is a bit complex to follow so I am not surprised you couldn't figure it out. Use {{DISPLAYTITLE:<Insert Page Name Here with HTML/Wiki formatting>}} Be careful as the name of the page with the exception of the first letter must match letter for letter, with matching capitalization, or the formatting will be ignored. For example, using my userpage name as an example,

• {{DISPLAYTITLE:'''User:'''Cyberpower678}} will generate "User:Cyberpower678"
• {{DISPLAYTITLE:'''User:'''''Cyberpower678''}} will generate "User:Cyberpower678"
• {{DISPLAYTITLE:'''User:'''''cyberpower678''}} will generate "User:cyberpower678"
• {{DISPLAYTITLE:<span style="color:green">User:</span>cyberpower678}} will generate "User:cyberpower678"

however

• {{DISPLAYTITLE:cyberpower678}} will generate "User:Cyberpower678"
• {{DISPLAYTITLE:User talk:cyberpower678}} will generate "User:Cyberpower678"
• {{DISPLAYTITLE:User:CYBERPOWER678}} will generate "User:Cyberpower678"
• {{DISPLAYTITLE:FooBar}} will generate "User:Cyberpower678"

I hope this helps. :-)—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It works on m:user:°, but not on de:wikt:Benutzer:°. Any idea what I am doing wrong? --° (Gradzeichen) 16:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to work at all from my vantage point. It doesn't seem to want to render the font on my end. Can you shade it a different color so I can see what works more easily?—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:34, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Ah nevermind I see it. It might have something to do with the global userpage. Since I've never used a global userpage before I can't say for certain.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:40, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I have colored it in red/green. Stil no effect. --° (Gradzeichen) 16:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Global pages can't handle displaytitle. Please see this. Sorry. You'll have to create a page locally.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 17:03, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

ok, thanks. --° (Gradzeichen) 17:25, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Pokemon XY & Z

Hey Cyber. I don't have the time to edit much these days but if you have the time please start the List of Pokémon: XY & Z episodes page. The Season starts October 29th with the last two episodes I put on the XY part 2 page - Mega Evolution Act 4 and episode 894. The episodes also have a secondary reference I had placed earlier. Thanks. —Kirt^Message 04:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Funny you mention this as I was actually thinking of doing that today. I'll have the page put together sometime today.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

So I have a draft of it started. Feel free to add bits and pieces, and the pronunciation of the first episode.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 02:38, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

And while you are doing that, perhaps you can 'poke' someone into action to get the much needed tools sorted out and running properly after months and months of our pleading, begging, badgering and bullying ;) or at least let us know who is now ultimately responsible for them so we can shift the focus of our bullying. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 04:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Given that T13 is the other user with a great deal of experience with the tools, you may consider pestering him on the list. Though I thought we set up replacements to the articleinfo tool, using Sigma's replacement and the Wikihistory which apparently even APPER can't seem to get fully operational after several attempts (text share is still broken). That's still a work in progress and I'm still trying to figure out how to get it to work. As for the persistent Labs breakdown, Coren is the one to speak to as he a staff member of the WMF in charge of labs and more specifically toollabs where the tools are hosted. I'm sorry I'm no longer of much help, but I feel less stressed, in regards to Wikipedia matters, ever since I declared my loss of interest in xTools.—^cyberpower_Chat:Offline 04:35, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

minor edit in xtools-ec

...hi Cyberpower!

if someone clicks on "Aktuellste Bearbeitung (global) -" on de_wiki, there's a doubling like "https://https//" in those external links.

regards, ulli p. (--Najadenn (talk) 17:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC))

p.s.: this is important, because we (non-en_wikis) have no other chance to watch our editlists of other wikis at one and the same time as our national lists... this is at least one reason why we love "xtools-ec" ;)) ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Najadenn (talk • contribs) 20:14, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Duplicate talkpage messages for blacklisted links

Hello Cyberpower678, it looks like the bot is still producing duplicate talkpage messages for blacklisted links (while article tagging is OK with only 1 tag). I think you have looked into this problem in the past, but could you check this behaviour again please? See Talk:Time Cube for an actual example. Thank you. GermanJoe (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Talk page question

Hey, can you tell me how this Tak page was created? Can an IP create a Talk page? Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 13:12, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Per Special:ListGroupRights everyone can create talk pages via the createtalk userright.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 13:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

I love editors who know just where to look. I wish it were clearer on various other WP pages that address page creation. Thanks!--Bbb23 (talk) 14:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Just trying once more

to find out what the status is on all the tools in this suite: [2]. Many of them are not working. Who is now maintaining them? If they are not being maintained, how can I link to the code to be able to find someone who will maintain them? Thank you. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:34, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I personally don't maintain them. You can find who is listed as a maintainer by going to https://tools.wmflabs.org and look for the specific tools account. The one you have linked is jackbot, which I believe is maintained by JackPotte. As for linking the active code, you need to contact the maintainer. While users can see a public version of the code in repositories, the live code is only accessible to the listed maintainers and only they can add new ones. For example, only I, T13, etc... can add new maintainers to xTools. Does this help?—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 00:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

It does help, thank you. Regarding X-Tool though, that's of little help because T13 is banned, TP has retired, and you announced that you were no longer having anything to do with these tools, so we now need to set up a direct line of communication with the WMF people who maintain the serve, because there is now a long line of projects waiting to be announced that first require some of the stats that these tools provide. We need to clear any issues with the servers first - and there are many because most of the tools have a huge lag - if they even respond at all before they time out. Those that do work still have many bugs. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

One thing I should point out is that if many tools are lagging or are slow and they are not restricted to a single tool account, then the problem occurring probably has something to do with labs rather than the tools. Labs is an ever changing environment, as well an environment that fails a lot and as such ends up breaking the tools all the time.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 03:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I've said this before but I'll say it again. I probably have the technical chops to maintain the tools, and have done a lot of voluntary coding work in the past elsewhere. However, I no longer have the time and motivation to do any more - not so much to write the code, but to provide technical support indefinitely. Labs performance is utterly pathetic and the job of supporting these tools really needs to go to proper paid staff in the WMF. I'm not having a go at you Cyberpower, not at all, you are doing your best and it's completely unfair to expect you to provide a professional level of service for no pay. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:54, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Bot requests reversion

Hi Cyberpower, you reverted my response to a bot request in this diff. I went ahead and put it back - I assume you just mis-clicked something? If I did something wrong here it completely eludes me, so please let me know if that's the case. BMacZero (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this misclick. Sorry about that. :p—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 16:00, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Wayback links on Genesis (band)

Hi. I see your bot ran through Genesis (band) and added some Wayback Machine links. However, this one it added doesn't appear to go any page. Is this a problem with the bot or expected behaviour on the assumption that a human actually needs to visit the archived URL and check it's correct? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

It is not expected and has already been fixed for future runs.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 14:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

New feature suggestion for Cyberbot II

Would it be a good idea to create a page that allows people to place requests for Cyberbot II (DeadLinksBot) to fix? This would be much faster than manually fixing dead links using Checklinks, finding archive versions from the Internet Archive, and editing the article. Of course there is no rush for this suggestion. sst✈ 17:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

I would first need to finish development of the bot. Though it's approved, it's not finished. Also the bot has a lot of work to do, so I'm not sure if this is a feature I can build. But we'll see.—^cyberpower_{Chat:Limited Access} 17:24, 9 October 2015 (UTC)

Take your time. This bot is very helpful. sst✈ 02:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

Glitch?

Hello Cyber. I'm not sure if you are the right individual to notify, but if not, I suspect you have some idea who should be notified about this matter. When I visit https://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools-ec/?user=Etamni&project=en.wikipedia.org (for any user, not just for myself), the first category (in red) within "Namespace Totals" shows as 일반 문서 which I believe is Korean, and which translates as general documents (per Google Translate). This same symbol shows up on other parts of the page as well, but it is the only foreign text visible on that page. Was this intentional for some reason? Am I the only person seeing this? Is this a known glitch? Your thoughts on this (or help fixing it) would be appreciated. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  04:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This is a known bug, but I am no longer considering myself an active contributor of xTools.—^cyberpower_Chat:Online 20:26, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your reply. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  05:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

RfA-related

Hi Cyber. Your thoughts are welcome at WT:RFA#Two proposed RfCs on the viewdeleted userright. (P.S. This isn't canvassing, since you're one of the people in the target demographic ... you'll see what I mean.) - Dank (push to talk) 17:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

why this message to me

i did no changes but this message was wrongly placed to me..178.152.31.84 (talk) 07:11, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Kim Webster

I simply linked Haven Paschall to her article ehre under her stage name Kim Webster. Why the article is not named Haven Pascahll is beyond me. That's all I did. They are indeed the same person if you speak owith Tom Wayland from Pokemon USA and Duart Film and Video, he will confirm it for you. I'll deal with this more once I get back from flying a Westjet Flight today.

I should be back either later this evening or tomorrow morning.

Thanks

Eric Ramus — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.195.166.103 (talk) 12:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Misleading msg from sourcecheck

Re: this case, the correct fix was to update the deadlink ref to its new URL, not to add archive for the old one. I know the bot can't be expected to do that, but the message, Archived sources have been checked to be working, produced by |checked=true, is incorrect and potentially misleading in this case. Please consider a more general message, such as Bot changes have been checked and/or corrected. Thanks! ―Mandruss ☎ 08:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You might want to use {{sourcecheck|checked=failed}}, which produces "Y Archived sources have been checked N but failed to be useful/working". — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 18:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

CyberBot II - archive.org link for old publishers weekly link

Hi! this CyberBot II edit managed to replace a 404 with a 404. I found a replacement, but you might want to look into that. --Oefe (talk) 16:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I've put considerable work into refining the bot's abilities to find a working page, it will never be 100% accurate. As a matter of fact it's error rate from a random sample reveals that less than 5% of the archives are bad. That's actually quite astounding and better than anticipated.—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Online} 16:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I was thinking that if the archive.org search returns a 404, it might just say "dead link" without replacing it. But given the sometimes strange results of archive.org, I understand that this may not be viable. Anyway, keep up the good work! --Oefe (talk) 19:04, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

The bot already instructs archive.org to filter out the dead by instructing it to only return sites with a certain HTTP code. Sometimes a dead site however will throw an HTTP 200 OK response for something that is really a 404, and it will as a result get returned when the bot asks for it.—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Online} 19:42, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Please, your signature is just barbarous

I've seen your (actually your bot's) signature several times around, and I simply feel that a signature like this:

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

is against humanity. OCD is an essential part of human civilization, as well as an assumed pillar of Wikipedia. I believe I'm not alone, there're millions of people on Internet that would not stand such visual and mental abuse. For reference, the following layout is more of a post-cold war peace-loving style:

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:21, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Anyways, maybe it's because of my font settings .. XD -- SzMithrandir (talk) 03:12, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

lol...what? What you're suggesting is misaligned. My sig looks just fine on my end. :p—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Limited Access} 03:15, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Yeah .. I set up a minimum font size of 12 on my Chrome .. forget about it, I guess not that many people do the minimum font thing. -- SzMithrandir (talk) 20:03, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Archive bot

Great to see it running :-) Well done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Can you archive all the sources used in these articles [3]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:08, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but the bot's development isn't finished yet. As a matter of fact, a bug cropped up causing the bot to hang up. Which I now need to fix.—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Online} 14:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be working?

I checked two articles (Newton Longville and Newport Pagnell}) and in both cases get a dead link from the original source (not from Wayback). Of course it may be template:wayback that is faulty? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

?? Works fine for me.—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Online} 14:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Blacklist bot - talkpage spam

Hello Cyberpower678, I am sorry to bother you again, but did you have time to look into Cyberbot II's blacklist messages yet? Please see Talk:Flock (messaging service) for an example, it looks like the bot is adding a message on every new run now. GermanJoe (talk) 13:36, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not. I'm thinking of switching off talkpage messaging altogether.—^cyberpower_{Trick or Treat:Online} 14:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Atleast 2-3 editors are checking the maintenance category eventually, and the article itself has a clear messagebox. Probably enough notification for such a relatively small issue, so the talkpage message isn't really needed - agree. GermanJoe (talk) 15:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC)