Jump to content

User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 50

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user uses Twinkle to fight vandalism.
This user has 70% energy left.
This user has administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
This user is a global renamer.
This user is an edit filter manager on the English Wikipedia.
This user has interface administrator privileges on the English Wikipedia.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45←Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52→Archive 55
Senior Editor II
Senior Editor II

User:Cyberpower678/RfX Report is stuck

What the headline said. User:Cyberpower678/Tally is being updated correctly, just the report is still saying "no nominations" (another one's just been added to the pile). As a possible speculation as to the root cause, following the events at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship/Archive 246#Graveyard RfAs and a few other stale RfAs being cleaned up, now is the first time in several years that the tally file has been completely empty (after Cullen328's RfA closed yesterday), and it's possible that the bot can't cope with moving from that to populated. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

I fixed your problem.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:48, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is why you should never speculate what is wrong in a bug report, even if you're a dab hand at PHP. I will go and get the seafood. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:51, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
LOL. Cyberbot I is due for a rewrite. I will be eventually be tossing the entire code including Peachy and using new modern code that runs on PHP 7.1. As it is now, Cyberbot I can't run past PHP 5.5, else it breaks down.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
I still run stuff on php5 (well 5.6) - it ain't broke and doesn't need fixing. I'm still not sold on Python 3. Yes, I'm a luddite. Sure, there are nicer languages, and you can write some horrendous spaghetti code in PHP, but you can do that in any language, pretty much. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
Are you familiar with LabVIEW? THIS is spaghetti code.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:59, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
IABot runs on 5.6, but is tested to run on PHP 7.1.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Different RfX tool problem

(talk page stalker) Spotted this. Thanks chaps. Any of you learned people able to help with this? Might as well discuss it here. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Matthewrbowker and MusikAnimal: Isn't this in the beta XTools?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

On review, there seem to be other bugs in the tool, so if it's been superseded, that's good news. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:54, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: Two separate tools exist now: The above now-maintained by Matt and Musik, as well as one by Enterprisey. Enterprisey's is a bit more refined at this time. --Izno (talk) 15:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
That's great, thanks Izno. Can I trouble you or anyone else for the links please? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 16:21, 24 July 2017 (UTC)
@Dweller: Xtools 3 version and Enterprisey version. --Izno (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi, thanks Izno. Neither of those have the functionality I'm looking for, which is in Snottywong's tool - assessing peoples' RfX contributions against the results of the RfX. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: Which tool is that? Provide a link, please. --Izno (talk) 11:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Sorry. This one: [1] from the really rather terrific, but sadly semi-retired Scottywong. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 13:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

@Dweller: It looks like that one is on the current implementation list for Xtools 3: phab:T165710. It may work in the old Xtools. --Izno (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Two problems with that tool. 1) (Bigger problem) it doesn't show in an easy way (like Snottywong's) how often my !vote corresponded with the outcome, which some people like. And 2) in my case the tool couldn't comprehend about 15% of my contributions. On a quick survey it seems this is because it sees every edit to those pages as a !vote, so when I closed RfAs, gnomed them or gently suggested NOTNOW in RfAs that ended 0/0/0, it renders them "unknown". --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:51, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
@Dweller: Sorry about that, I only just got Cyberpower's ping. Let me see if I can clear up some confusion. First of all, yes I am in the process of rewriting the RfX Vote Calculator into XTools 3. Re point 1) It's easy in theory but quite difficult to implement. We have a bug open at [2] for that implementation. That bug will probably get ported to Phabricator soon. Point 2) I've already fixed this in the rewrite, it hides anything that isn't directly a !vote. How does it tell? If you have an edit that doesn't begin with ":" and is in either the "Support," "Oppose," or "Neutral" sections it's a vote. I'm still refining that algorithm. ~ Matthewrbowker Say something · What I've done 07:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
Matthewrbowker sounds good. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Right, well I've got hold of pywikipediabot (seems you can just give it 127.0.0.1 as a username if you only want to read stuff from here and it doesn't moan) and wrote me a script that dumps out successful RfAs with name, ordinal, tallies and percentage. Took about 15 minutes. Might have a go at a parser next. I think one that will work with everything is something like having a state machine that moves to "support" / "oppose" / "neutral" per header, a line starting with a hash and containing User:(.*)| or User talk:(.*)| AND has a UTC datestamp right at the end of the line (ie: a signature or Sinebot complaining about a lack of one) is a vote tied to a name. So you basically end up with a faster (?) tool (given how infrequently RfAs run, you might as well make a bot calculate the diffs once and cache it) that's GPL on github. Or something like that. Stop me if I'm reinventing the wheel. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

Ritchie333 Erm. I think I understand that. How does one use it? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
At the moment, you can't - it's just a bit of python code sitting on a USB stick. I can email it to you, but if you're not au fait with UNIX programming, I fear it's not going to be much use. I used it to generate this report. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
Phoo yuck, way beyond me. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

YGM

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot on ptwiki

Hello! Your proposal of the InternetArchiveBot has been accepted unanimously by the portuguese community of Wikipedia. Please, can you finish it? Jackgba (talk) 11:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Patience please. Deploying is a long process, especially when new bugs are reported and need to be fixed first.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:00, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
No problem, it was just to letting you know. Jackgba (talk) 14:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

It looks like the bot was going to help me with an AfD transclusion but it never actually happened

Smooth alligator (talk) 18:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

RfPP

Cyberbot hasn't been archiving the last couple of hours for some reason. Enigmamsg 02:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – August 2017

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

Administrator changes

added Anarchyte • GeneralizationsAreBad • Cullen328 (first RfA to reach WP:300)
removed Cprompt • Rockpocket • Rambo's Revenge • Animum • TexasAndroid • Chuck SMITH • MikeLynch • Crazytales • Ad Orientem

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

RFC Close....

Hi, Cyberpower,

The Referrer RfC has been more-or-less stale for the last week and me thinks about presssing the proceed button for closing the same! Cheers:)Winged Blades Godric 09:26, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

I've abstained from closing until the issues with the closers have been resolved. I haven't recently checked up on the issues, but are they resolved?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Hello again. For the heads up, Guy and I said that you and Godric can go ahead without needing any more closers if you wish to proceed. --George Ho (talk) 04:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Alright, but it's huge. I won't have any opinion on it until a couple days from now.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:22, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Your draft

I saw [3] linked somewhere, and I'm impressed. This is a much needed discussion, and I'm very pleased it is being given attention. Thank you for working on it.

If it's not too impertinent, I'd like to point out a little logic error. "Part 2" says If you answered No to Part 1, please do not participate in Part 2. You are finished in this RfC. If you answered Yes to Part 2, please continue to participate in this RfC as this part will attempt to establish a proposed process for community desysopping, should Part 1 have consensus.

That's just wrong. One may oppose something yet still have an opinion on how it should be implemented even if their opposition did not carry the day.

For instance, there is a vacant lot next to my house, and I am opposed to building an apartment block on it. (true story). That doesn't mean that, if it is built anyway, I should not be permitted to oppose it being painted bright pink. -- Begoon 14:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

An excellent point, thank you. So how about If you answered No, you may participate in Part 2 but only to establish a process if Part 1 passes. Otherwise, please do not participate in the RfC further. If you answered Yes to Part 1, please continue to participate in this RfC as Part 2 will attempt to establish a proposed process for community desysopping, should Part 1 pass.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
If you want an honest answer, I'd drop that preamble entirely, because people, especially wikipedians, don't like being told how, or on what, they may or should !vote, and you don't need any knee-jerk opposes due to wording on something that will be so tricky to get a result. Let people decide for themselves where they !vote (or don't) -- Begoon 14:54, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Alright then, how about This part will only be about establishing a process for community desysopping. In order to establish the process, Part 1 must be considered passed during the closing of the RfC for Part 2 to be considered. If Part 1 fails, the entire RfC is considered a failure. If you opposed in Part 1, you may continue to comment in subsequent parts to establish a process.
In that case, it just becomes over-complicated. If "Part 2" depends on "Part 1", then you would need RFC1, followed by RFC2. Just dropping the over-complication seems easier. -- Begoon 15:14, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Sometimes easy isn't the answer. If the RfC can ask the question "Do we need a process for this?" and then be able to hash out a workable process at the same time can sometimes be the defining decision between a support, or an oppose. With so many failed proposals, the community may end up opposing the general question with the rationale, "the community cannot decide on a process that works". That's why I want this to be combined into one RfC. My plan is to come up with one a process that actually works, and has a process of checks and balances, while still being timely in the decision making process, and certainly not as complicated as an ArbCom process.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I absolutely support that. I don't think it should be split to multiple RFCs either. That's why I was trying to help you to pre-empt the obvious opposition you are going to get. Anyway, it's a draft, and at least you have bothered to work on it at all. I repeat my thanks for that. -- Begoon 15:29, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I'm amazed it's drawing that much attention. I only linked it to a single page on Wikipedia. :p—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
I can't remember where I saw it now. I'm sure it was someone praising your effort, as I do. -- Begoon 16:00, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh, here you go, What links here says - must have been Kudpung's talk page, which is on my watchlist because I posted there. -- Begoon 16:08, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Just to butt in, I think the most recent green-type suggestion is good, but I would drop the last If you opposed Part 1... sentence. Stating that Pt.2 is moot if Pt.1 fails is good, and leaves it open for the opposition (or support) to further discuss it as they feel fit. Primefac (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)

Hi Cyberpower, I have a question about your tool. Is it possible to make it available for it.wiki as well (we currently use Dispenser's Check link, but it seems to be broken)? Thanks in advance. --Lucas (talk) 06:10, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The tool will support any wiki IABot can run on.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:03, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
@Lucas: ^—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your ping, I was missing the reply. ;) Would you be so kind to ask for the flag here, as requested by our policy (please feel free to write in English, as explained in the right column of that page)? You can freely mention my name there, and I will promply add a comment. Thanks! --Lucas (talk) 12:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
@Lucas: Left a request there.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see it. I think I am tired. ;) --Lucas (talk) 12:48, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

IABot: suggest UI clarification

Hello Cyberpower678. Recently I came across several users applying massive edits to pages with hundreds of sources, facilitated by IABot (SpaceX, Donald Trump, etc.). I believe that adding archive links to all live sources creates unnecessary bloat in the wikitext and makes it more difficult to edit further, therefore I have reverted several such changes. I understand that some people think having archives for every link is a Good Thing™, so that a centralized debate is probably necessary to determine a community guideline.

In the meantime, I would recommend to clarify the UI whereby users can request "rescuing" of live sources. Currently, this option is activated by a checkbox that is labeled "Add archives to all non-dead references". This label can be mis-interpreted, and as this is the only box to be checked on the page, some people may in good faith click it as a "confirm action" statement, without realizing its impact on the article. My recommendation would be to replace the checkbox with a radio button which explicitly shows the default action to rescue dead links only and the optional "archive all sources" action. Suggested text:

  • Rescue dead links only (default)
  • Add archive links for all sources, dead or alive (warning: may increase page size significantly)

Thanks for your consideration. — JFG talk 06:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

What would happen then if not dead links were on the page and the box was not ticked? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:07, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
The bot would only add archives to dead links. Live links would remain untouched. — JFG talk 17:11, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
In other words, null edit / no change. Primefac (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC) (talk page stalker)
Yes, null edit if all sources are verified as being live. — JFG talk 17:15, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Do you have any comment on this suggestion? — JFG talk 16:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

The tool is a global tool, used by different wikis now. Changing the UI, breaks i18n. I'd really rather not. This should have been suggested before the tool went global.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:10, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
It should be no big deal to have the users on other wikis translate a couple sentences. Usability is important, as several recent discussions have shown. — JFG talk 15:04, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I find it to be a big deal. I'm incredibly reluctant to change already translated text. I find the wording personally be clear. "Add archives to all non-dead references" couldn't be more concise and clear in my opinion. I can add the word "(optional)" behind it to make it clear it doesn't need to be checked.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:33, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Adding "optional" would be a good step, thanks. But if you're going to have this translated, you might as well suggest the two options. — JFG talk 17:46, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

nl.wikinews.org

Dear Cyberpower678, we would like to welcome your InternetArchiveBot at nl.wikinews.org. See the request of LiveNieuws here, and the discussion on accepting your bot. However, there seems to be a problem on Meta, see here, since you don't seem to be logged in on nl.wikinews, see [4]. Can it be that you still need to activate your account on nl.wikinews.org? I hope you can do this step too, so we can have your help which we consider very welcome. Ymnes (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Yea, I haven't visited there yet, thus no account exists for me there yet. I'll get to it as soon as I can.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:19, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, looking forward to it! Ymnes (talk) 23:28, 1 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cyberpower678, can you please create an account on the Dutch wikinews site so we can assign you the botrights? Thanks in advance. Huhbakker (talk) 09:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
I logged the bot into nlwikinews.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:20, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Huhbakker (talk) 17:47, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cyberpower678, your bot has bot-rights now for nl.wikinews. :-) Huhbakker (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

supercount

Hi Cyberpower, the supercount tool has not been working for a few days. It always produces "502 Bad Gateway" errors. You are listed as maintainer, maybe you know what to do about this error? Thanks, -- ThomasO. 11:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Try now.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:21, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks a lot! -- ThomasO. 20:11, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Comma weirdness in external links.

I have been fixing spacing around commas, and lately have noticed a lot of circumstances where an external link is "broken" because it has a ",com" instead of a ".com". When checking dead links, can Cyberbot look for this as a possible root cause (i.e., link would work if a ",com" somewhere in the link was changed to a ".com")? Cheers! bd2412 T 18:36, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

It should probably be a maintenance task elsewhere to fix such instances. Here is a search with a tiny 2700 such. :D --Izno (talk) 19:26, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
This is better suited for an AWB task.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:56, 3 August 2017 (UTC)
An AWB task would be fine if there was a list of broken external links containing a ",com" to work on (though I don't believe the link can be tested in AWB, either). bd2412 T 20:49, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot in Italian Wikipedia

Hi, do you want to start the InternetArchiveBot on Italian Wikipedia?--Ferdi2005 (talk) 14:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

I do, but I am making sure it is ready for an unsupervised continuous run.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Interwiki signature

Hello,

I will fix the issue that you had on frwiki regarding your inter-wiki signature.

Best,

--Brclz (talk) 14:06, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

Information icon Hello, I'm Legoktm. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Undefined have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think a mistake was made, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Legoktm (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

;) Legoktm (talk) 02:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Leave me alone. I'm a sysop. I can do whatever I want.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 02:28, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Me too. Legoktm (talk) 02:48, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

IABot

Hey @Cyberpower678:, Internet Archive Bot is ready to be deployed at CKB. ◂ ‎épine talk♬ 22:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: the long wait is killing me. Why isn't the bot working yet? ◂ ‎épine talk♬ 04:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you want me to deploy a bot with known bugs and have it mess up on numerous article? Before I deploy to new wikis, I make sure the known bugs are resolved first.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 10:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
oh. I thought you said it was stable. ◂ ‎épine talk♬ 01:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
It is stable. But I make it a point to fix all newly reported bugs first before deploying to new wikis. Less potential damage to clean up.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

IABot

Hey @Cyberpower678:, Internet Archive Bot is ready to be deployed at CKB. ◂ ‎épine talk♬ 22:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: the long wait is killing me. Why isn't the bot working yet? ◂ ‎épine talk♬ 04:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
Do you want me to deploy a bot with known bugs and have it mess up on numerous article? Before I deploy to new wikis, I make sure the known bugs are resolved first.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 10:53, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
oh. I thought you said it was stable. ◂ ‎épine talk♬ 01:08, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
It is stable. But I make it a point to fix all newly reported bugs first before deploying to new wikis. Less potential damage to clean up.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:56, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

A cupcake for you!

:) Magioladitis (talk) 21:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Cyberbot trouble again

Instead of archiving reports (and there are many to be archived), it's busy doing this and this for no apparent reason. First edit was pointless, second one removed the response I gave. Enigmamsg 02:13, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

The User:InternetArchiveBot made two link changes to the Connectivism article. The first one was broken now works (thanks!) but the second correction did not go to a working page. I fixed it and left a note on the Talk page, but did not understand the instructions on how to report this issue, so am leaving this here. Thank you! FULBERT (talk) 13:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

@FULBERT: The problem is because GreenC bot operated by GreenC added that archive to IABot's DB. Please see https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?page=manageurlsingle&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.aupress.ca%2Fbooks%2F120146%2Febook%2F01_Anderson_2008_Ally-Online_Learning.pdf —CYBERPOWER (Around) 21:44, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
It says "Page cannot be displayed due to robots.txt" .. since archive.org might be lifting robots.txt in the future, and given no better alternative at a different archive, it retains them. -- GreenC 22:31, 12 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks; not sure how to edit it so it does not happen again (or is that now somehow accomplished)?FULBERT (talk) 13:09, 13 August 2017 (UTC)
There is no automated mechanism to monitor robots.txt links and restore them when they become available so for the time being it's keeping them in place as if active since presumably they will become available sooner than later. If you want to remove it anyway, login to the link above and edit the record. But then when robots.txt gets lifted and the link becomes available it won't be seen. In this situation probably the best thing to do is leave it as is for now. -- GreenC 13:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Cyberbot signature

Hey there! I was editing on the Tariff talk page using wikEd, and I noticed Cyberbot's signature was missing 
</sup>
and 
</span>
html tags on a comment from 2015. I don't know how to investigate Cyberbot's history, I'm not sure if someone deleted the closing tags from Cyberbot's signature on the tariff page, or if it was previously an issue but has since been fixed. Therefore, I thought I'd mention it in case no one has ever pointed it out or it hasn't been fixed. Here is how the signature code currently appears on the talk page. 
—[[User:Cyberbot II|<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II</sup>]]<small><sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS">[[User talk:Cyberbot II|<span style="color:green">Talk to my owner</span>]]:Online</sub></small> 12:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Sorry if this is the wrong place to leave this feedback! --Furicorn (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

You must be anemic from the lack of red meat on the lunch menu to forget me, so have a 1/2 pound cheeseburger to get some iron back in your bloodstream!

It was awesome to meet you, and I'll see you again! :-) Katietalk 23:14, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@KrakatoaKatie: I absolutely loved the legal session. How about you?—CYBERPOWER (Message) 23:39, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
Me too! And the Internet Archive people were great! Katietalk 01:05, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Nice work on the InternetArchiveBot! Cypherquest (talk) 16:49, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

A problematic edit (probably)

Hi there! Just wanted to let you know that this edit (by InternetArchiveBot) seems to have caused some problems within a template. Cheers, --Edcolins (talk) 20:44, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cyberpower. Thanks for your fabulous bot. I wonder if you could join the discussion at User_talk:Dank#Dead_links? It would be very helpful. Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:12, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017

@Legoktm, Deskana, Addshore, MusikAnimal, Kaldari, NKohli (WMF), Samwilson, DarkFireTaker, GorillaWarfare, Isarra, Deryck Chan, Pigsonthewing, Sphilbrick, Bd808, Bawolff, Petrb, Dispenser, Birgit Müller (WMDE), Cirdan, Krenair, and Keegan:. It was a pleasure to meet and engage with everyone at Wikimania 2017. Hopefully I can attend next year. :-) Apologies if I missed your name in the ping list. It wasn't my intention to forget you.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:59, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, it was nice to meet you too. I don't know if I'll be able to go next year or not but we'll see. :) --Krenair (talk • contribs) 15:03, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
I almost forgot KrakatoaKatie—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:25, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
How can you possibly almost forget KrakatoaKatie:) It was great to meet you too; I've seen so much of your work, so happy to put a face on it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:52, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! :-) It was a pleasure to meet you too! See you around soon. --Birgit Müller (WMDE) (talk) 18:38, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, great to meet you as well! Keegan (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

@Cyberpower678: Nice to meet you too! Safe travels. --Dan Garry, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:27, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your ping. It was great to meet you and enjoy your onward travels! Deryck C. 09:33, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
Oh yes! It was fun to meet you folks! Thanks to your ping, I can find some of the others that I met. I started a list on my page to keep track since Wikipedia doesn't really have social media function. Let me know what you guys think (and please feel free to add if I missed anyone). Also, Cyberpower678, I will send our Saturday night dinner pic to Deryck and he can upload it to Commons if he wishes to. Let's keep the fun alive on wiki! --DarkFireTaker (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Likewise. Keep up the good work! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Cite EB1911

The templates such as {{cite EB1911}} are wrappers and they do not use archive parameters, so edits like this are inappropriate. You need to fix them by hand. First look on wikisource for the article if it has yet to be ported to Wikisource you can find alternative sources in at EB1911#External links.

There are dozens of this type of wrapper template you will find most (some?) of them at User:PBS/Notes#List of PD Templates.

As it happens there is a category called by {{Cite EB1911}}: Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with an unknown parameter which flagged this error, but most of these PD template (all but EB1911?) do not have this error trap in them, so like {{cite EB1911}} they will simply gobble up the unused parameters and not alter the display or the link.

I have now fixed this particular instance by providing a different url (to gutenberg.org).

I would not be in favour of adding the additional complexity of handling archive parameters to these templates, because it is the intention of most of these templates to be used with Wikisource and so the links to external sites is a short term expediency. -- PBS (talk) 17:10, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Template has been removed from the list.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 07:47, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

test at deWP

Hi, Hope you had a good time at the Wikimania. I have a quick question for the test at deWP: We woudl like to test some specific things and would prefer to not do this in the main namespace. As a workaround we are thinking of creating one page for this, either a subpage in someone's user namespace or in the portal's Wikipedia namespace. Would IABot process those, or do the pages that are submitted to runbotqueue have to be in the main namespace? Thanks much!! --Martina Nolte talk 18:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Martina Nolte: I did thank you. You can run the bot on other namespaces if you want.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 07:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! "I did thank you"? Were does this come from? Seems we had some misunderstanding.somewhere somehow. --Martina Nolte talk 13:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Martina Nolte: It was supposed to say "I did, thank you", meaning I had a great time at Wikimania.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hah! Alright. :-) I have only been on Wikimania 2011. That was amazing too.
Say, do you know when IABot will be ready for our test run on deWP. No pressure. I just try to coordinate the portal's helpers' schedules. Testing pages mostly in the main namespace (plus two prepped pages in the user namespace) will require immediate attention. That is why I want to give the helpers a heads-up and ensure they are available and ready to go. :-) --Martina Nolte talk 18:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikimania 2017 Day 2 Mister Steer Dinner

Thanks to Deryck, we're the cool kids on Commons:

Cheers!

-- DarkFireTaker (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

@DarkFireTaker: You forgot to mask my real life identity in those pictures. ;-)—CYBERPOWER (Message) 01:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Okay, image description edited to make some parts of your real-life identity less public. You chose the red lanyard so the rest of us didn't feel obliged to mask anything on your face or on your badge Deryck C. 11:11, 23 August 2017 (UTC)
Converted to gallery mode and added additional picture with Niharika. Deryck C. 12:35, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Cyberbot - RFPP rolling archive

I hope this is the right place for this - if not, apologies for wasting your time!

Cyberbot has made this edit to the rolling archive of RFPP requests. The edit summary says three old threads have been archived but actually the edit removed the entire log except for a few items from today. This looks like it may have been unintentional? Neiltonks (talk) 09:25, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Ban notification

Sorry if this is being overly particular, but I noticed you recently closed the AN conversation about the site ban for Twitbookspacetube, but didn't notify them of the outcome per WP:BAN. I think this probably should occur both so that they can know the outcome/time to wait until they can appeal and so that there is a record of it with their user talk. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to actually do that part. :S—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Site ban

Regarding this close [5] (which as Only in death mentions was highly irregular; the proposal had been open for less than 24 hours and a site ban is the most serious sanction anyone can receive): If you are declaring a site ban enacted, you need to actually enact it: Posting the information on the user's talk page; tagging their userpage and talkpages [6]; logging the information at any appropriate board, etc. The same also applies to all of the user's previous accounts as well. Softlavender (talk) 14:11, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

I made the correction. I'm a bit embarrassed to say that I forgot to actually leave a message. I was also under the impression that the discussion had at least 24 hours on it. I must have misread the timestamps. If there are any issues with my closes, I am more than happy to retract it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
As I noted above, in my opinion all of the user's prior accounts need to be tagged as well, since he was in the habit of using/abusing them despite them supposedly being "inactive". Could you please tag those as well? (In the future, I would suggest leaving the close of a site-ban proposal to more experienced admins; generally such a proposal should stay open at least a couple of days. Site bans are not to be taken lightly or quickly, or done only by a nose count.) Softlavender (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
CP, for what it's worth, there were more than 36 hours since TBST started his thread asking to overturn his editing restrictions, but only about 22 hrs since the siteban proposal was first mentioned. Siteban discussions are generally supposed to last 24 hours (usually not a couple of days, although sometimes that happens if they're complicated), but I don't imagine community opinion would have changed in those last 2 hours, so it's probably a minor glitch. I'm not really convinced that this was the "right" decision by the community (or, bigger picture, if this type of thing is a good way to deal with sitebans in general), but it was pretty clearly the "right" interpretation of the discussion by you based on our current procedure; just a couple hours early. The indef blocks of the other 2 accounts, pointing to TBST's account, are probably sufficient, but you can always tag them with the "banned" template too.
Sorry if I stepped on your toes with my ban notice on their talk page, but he'd asked a question that could have been interpreted as him not understanding it was a community ban. If you'd like things to look cleaner, feel free to remove my notice and just leave yours (except then link to the discussion in yours). --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Ah yes. I read the wrong timestamp when gauging the length of the discussion. I've seldom seen a discussion of this nature extend past 24 hours too. Thanks for cleaning up after me Floq. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:49, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

re: Deploying InternetArchiveBot and/or its tools on plwiki

Hi Cyberpower678, as you can see in Deploying InternetArchiveBot and/or its tools on plwiki, you have a full support for launching the bot in pl:wiki. Regards, Michał Sobkowski (talk) 15:42, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. I will get to deploying to your wiki as soon as I can. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:45, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

test at deWP

  • <restored from archive>

Hi, Hope you had a good time at the Wikimania. I have a quick question for the test at deWP: We woudl like to test some specific things and would prefer to not do this in the main namespace. As a workaround we are thinking of creating one page for this, either a subpage in someone's user namespace or in the portal's Wikipedia namespace. Would IABot process those, or do the pages that are submitted to runbotqueue have to be in the main namespace? Thanks much!! --Martina Nolte talk 18:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@Martina Nolte: I did thank you. You can run the bot on other namespaces if you want.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 07:48, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! "I did thank you"? Were does this come from? Seems we had some misunderstanding.somewhere somehow. --Martina Nolte talk 13:35, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
@Martina Nolte: It was supposed to say "I did, thank you", meaning I had a great time at Wikimania.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:02, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
Hah! Alright. :-) I have only been on Wikimania 2011. That was amazing too.
Say, do you know when IABot will be ready for our test run on deWP. No pressure. I just try to coordinate the portal's helpers' schedules. Testing pages mostly in the main namespace (plus two prepped pages in the user namespace) will require immediate attention. That is why I want to give the helpers a heads-up and ensure they are available and ready to go. :-) --Martina Nolte talk 18:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
  • </restored from archive>

Seems you overlooked my question? --Martina Nolte talk 13:19, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

Ok. I would like to test few individual pages myself before I submit the long list to IABot. Please let me know when your preparation is done and the bot is ready to go at deWP. Thank you, --Martina Nolte talk 18:34, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Martina Nolte: Got a good page for me to test on before I release the protype module?—CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:56, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
Test edit.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:37, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
@Martina Nolte: You can now access the tool here.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:42, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. We need to adjust some things before we run the bot on 100 articles.

  • IABot "cleaned up" existing links/templates (i.e. 1st). Also the bot changed several existing templates de:Vorlage:Webarchiv to de:Vorlage:Internetquelle (2nd, 3rd, 4th, 6th-11th, 13th). IABot should not fix existing archive links at this point. The configuration is set to touch_archive 0. Can you please change the configuration to where the bot leaves existing archive links alone.
  • Changing the template Webarchiv to Internetquelle causes errors when there is no title (here and here = 6th and 8th). Please change IABot's settings to no longer make such template replacements.
  • The bot replaced a dead link by an archive link (5th edit). At this point IABot is only allowed to add archive links to dead links (previous discussion). Please change the configuration to where Webarchiv is added to the original link but does not replace it. IABot can also use de:Vorlage:Internetquelle or de:Vorlage:Cite web if all required parameters can be completed. Otherwise the bot should not use those templates.
    • I recommend you test the templates at deWP like I had started it here. They behave differently then at enWP. As a potential workaround for the missing title, some templates would allow to add a kind of "generic" title such as Archivversion or archiviert or online. Just some thoughts how to solve this.
  • There was no message about the changes on the talk page. In my understanding, the configuration should be set to notify_on_talk 1, to inform authors on the talk page about all changes the bot made.
  • The bot added an archive link to Area and administrative Population which is live. When I tried to report the link as a false positive the interface responded "These URLs are already alive or have since been whitelisted and will not be reported".

-- Martina Nolte talk 07:33, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

  • IABot did not touch the archives. Touching the archives means it can change from one snapshot to another snapshot as it sees fit. What it did here, was convert stray archive templates to full citation templates as is normal practice on enwiki. The sourcing and archives are still the same. convert_to_cites is still enabled IIRC, which is what controls that particular function. Disabling that will disable the conversion to citation templates. This also disables conversion from regular external links to citation templates as well. The information is still preserved however.
  • Same as the first point.
  • How interesting. It should have used the template. In the event it can't generate an appropriate template to use, it fails over to simply replacing the URL with the archive. There is no configuration option to disable this failover at this time. I can add one, but more importantly, the bug at not using Webarchiv should be fixed.
  • I do those tests when setting up IABot. The aim is to have it follow the normal process of addressing Linkrot for a particular wiki. I do sandbox tests. In place of a missing title IABot is SUPPOSED to place a generic title in it's place. I guess the blank text parameter tripped it up.
  • Talk page notifications are left when the bot edits. When the tool makes an edit on the user's behalf, talk pages are not needlessly spammed when the user is presented with the same information on the tool.
  • I saw that false positive before you did and fixed it already. I forgot to revert the change on wiki. So when you went to report it, it gave you that error.
Hope this helps.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 07:53, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Martina Nolte: ^^—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 08:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
@Martina Nolte: New test. Same article bug fixes and different configuration.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 12:35, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Nice - thanks! --Martina Nolte talk 13:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

de:Wikipedia_Diskussion:Redaktion_Physik#Einzelseiten requires your answer and action. Thank you, --Martina Nolte talk 00:11, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

@Martina Nolte: I left you a message over there. I'm not sure if you've ceased interactions with me, but I do apologize if I made you feel that I was wasting your time. It's certainly not my intention. I do intend to standby today to assist with anything you need.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:56, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
I just answered you there.
Look. You are talking with your bot's greatest supporter over there. I am basically doing nothing else on Wikipedia and Meta since weeks than preparing the RfC, preparing the test, and translating pages related to your bot. But your communication needs improvement. You are risking that the bot will be denied just because it is so difficult to get timely and straight answers. I see that you are launching your bot in a lot of Wikipedias right now. Plus Wikimania happened. Plus you have a life too. If you need more time to prepare a test run and a reliable final launch just say that. We are not in a rush. We want good results, not fast results. --Martina Nolte talk 06:16, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
@Martina Nolte: I understand. I will work on my communication. As far as the bot goes code wise, I feel it is ready for testing. I've been spending most of my inter wiki deployment efefforts on dewiki as well. In terms of actually catching ALL of the dead links on the first test run, the DB needs to be at least built for those articles, which I can do today if I'm handed a list of articles to quickly run IABot silently through. I also left you an email, in case you wish to go with that option.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 06:22, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Sounds good. I emailed you in regard to the list. --Martina Nolte talk 07:10, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyberpower678/Archive_50&oldid=1142949155"