User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 66

Archive 60

←

Archive 64

Archive 65

Archive 66

Archive 67

Archive 68

→

Archive 70

Senior Editor II

August 2019

Looking at the links added by InternetArchiveBot in this edit, I can't think of a good reason for it – I reverted it, for the reasons I gave in my edit summary. Any thoughts? Nortonius (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

And I reversed your edit. The bot is approved to add these links and every link is to a book that can be checked out.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The books can be checked out for free. They can also be searched like Google Books (of which we have thousands) except it's a non-profit library and stable forever links. -- GreenC 16:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok. I still think this is a bad idea. A book can be "checked out" in a library, or online via the ISBN and variants, without tantalising the reader with the possibility of reading the book online. IMHO this is much worse than linking to a Google Books preview of a book that's in copyright, which I've done many times: at least there we have a chance that GB might show us what we want to see. On the face of it this strikes me as link spamming on behalf of archive.org; but if the bot was "approved" by consensus then by all means point me to the relevant discussion. Otherwise, the bot isn't approved by me. Nortonius (talk) 16:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The whole point is to offer a preview of the content to users looking for the source. The whole point is to make the book readily available to readers without having to go to a library to do. Not everyone has access to one, or one with the book in question. I fail to see how using GB that might show you the content you seek, is better than an archive.org book that will show you the content you seek. As such I don't understand your reversion of me, the bot, and conversely community consensus.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Have you looked at the content being linked in the specific example that I have in mind? There is no content, just the front and back covers and end papers. So the books there are not "readily available to readers", and, forgive me, but you seem to have misunderstood what I'm getting at …? Of course I don't expect people to go to a physical library (much as I love them) if content is available online – I hope you can see that that is not at all what I was suggesting. Nortonius (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not sure how else to read A book can be "checked out" in a library, or online via the ISBN and variants. The only reason that no content is displayed, is because the reference doesn't cite a specific page. You can add /page/nnn to the URL and presto, now have a preview of the page being referenced. In any event, any reader can check the book out and they get a readable/searchable document of the book.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:38, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

For goodness' sake – please note that "checked out" was not my expression, and that "read" is another matter entirely – in this context, reading content is all I've been interested in, from the edit summary for my first revert (linked above) to each of the prior comments I've posted here! Maybe look through again, to see what I mean …? And I had no idea about manipulating the URL until you mentioned it just now – how could I have done? Really, if you'd mentioned that at the outset you'd have saved us all a bit of bother! (Sorry GreenC, there must've been some kind of edit conflict, I didn't see your post until I came here to add this.) Having established that, perhaps the bot should be including in its edit summaries a link to guidance on how to manipulate the URLs, specifically wrt including them in citations. For example, at St Mary's Church, Reculver, the sfn template is used heavily, and those citations would have to undergo wholesale changes to make use of the new content. Nortonius (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

That is actually a very good idea to have a FAQ/docs in the edit summary. -- GreenC 23:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, GreenC! I came here asking for "any thoughts", but instead felt as though I got the written equivalent of blank looks and a sort of mis-directed rebuttal – I'm glad that part of the message has got through! I'm a great fan of archive.org, and fully understand the benefit of having content there – so long as we know how to find it, of course. Now that I understand the full purpose of the links, and the possibility of linking to individual pages in otherwise limited content, I really think a trick is being missed here: those links are being posted blindly all over WP, without any real indication as to why and what can be done with them – this wrt books that are in copyright, and consequently cannot simply be read from start to finish. Now I'm glad that I shared my confusion, and look forward to seeing an FAQ and documentation. Thanks again. Nortonius (talk) 10:03, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

p.s. Looking at this at archive.org, I don't see how a wider range of pages might be offered for that particular book ...? It doesn't appear to be searchable, either. Anyhow, it seems to me that linking in a citation to a range of pages higher than two is impossible, unless I'm missing something, and again makes me worry about frustrating a reader. Nortonius (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I like the idea in general (and suggested something similar in the past), but I don't like the execution. These links are way too much clutter added to citations, the format is fragile and they are also not easily maintainable into the future. This is a feature that needs to be handled inside the citation template framework so that the target link does not need to be spelled out each time and can be globally changed if this would become necessary in the future.

In fact, some while back we discussed ways to enable page links as part of the citation framework in general. The ideas differed from adding URL #fragments or parameters to links to certain web pages and file formats. Supporting the archive.org way of doing things could have been just another option. Please propose this at the template's talk page and I'm sure a better solution can be worked out. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 23:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I found these older discussions:

• Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_172#New_gadget_that_adds_"Read_Now"_buttons_to_book_references
• Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_51#Internet_Archive_page_preview
• Help_talk:Citation_Style_1/Archive_51#PDF_page_number_different_from_document_page_number

--Matthiaspaul (talk) 00:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I can see the value of linking to a pre-1923 book which is fully available online, but not to a random selection of modern books. Edmund Ætheling linkxs to Women in World History, but using the forward arrow it is only possible to view two pages with content in an 873 page book and (as Nortonius said) there does not appear to be a facility to search for a page number. It is much better to just show the isbn, which provides the publication details for all books. Dudley Miles (talk) 09:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing those older discussions, Matthiaspaul. I note also the suggestion of making a proposal "at the template's talk page". However, I wonder if we're ready for that yet. The issue of possible copyright infringement, raised in those older discussions, seems unresolved. In which case, perhaps a broader discussion is needed, at a venue where it is more likely to be noticed. That would also have the benefit of avoiding clutter on this user talk page, and save Cyberpower678 from being constantly pinged. Any suggestions? Unless Cyberpower678 isn't bothered, and everyone's happy to continue here.

But thoughts of a broader discussion bring me back to something I mentioned in only my second post here: the question of whether the bot edits were "'approved' by consensus". The only response I've had to that was a view that, in having reverted a relevant edit by InternetArchiveBot (see my first post above), I appeared to be going against consensus. For the sake of background, I for one would be grateful if that question might now be answered – a link to the discussion would be appreciated.

In the meantime, it seems to me that the usefulness of any such links depends on how archive.org decides to share the content, and that that needs to be settled before questions of implementation on WP. From my postgraduate days I recall a notice by the photocopiers in the library stating that copying more than 10% of a chapter in a book or a paper in a journal would infringe copyright. (That notice was cheerfully ignored!) Maybe that was a rule of thumb, but, whatever that figure might really be, I'm sure that something like it would be more than adequate for most, if not all, WP citations. If so, can archive.org not adjust the amount of content available in any given preview, so that it can be usefully linked in citations, without infringing copyright? I do like the idea, and would like it to work. If it can't be made to work, however, then I really think these links are a waste of time, that InternetArchiveBot should be stopped from adding them, and that it should revert all relevant edits that it has already made. Anyhow perhaps it should be paused while this discussion is ongoing. And, perhaps other approaches might be considered. For example, an equivalent to Template:Wikisource might be useful instead, worded with suitable caveats regarding limited content. Nortonius (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Nortonius, I wouldn't discount the possibility of being able to expand the number of pages being previewed. Internet Archive makes this available under CDL. But these are controlled by policies to avoid running into copyright issues. I'm no lawyer, and I'm not going to comment in a legal capacity. I'm also not bothered by keeping the discussion here. As for the discussion, here you go.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Cyberpower678, on all counts. Nortonius (talk) 16:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

I’ve had a look at the original proposal for this activity by InternetArchiveBot. By now I think we can say that links to a single page or two pages in content at archive.org work as intended – or at least, in the short time I’ve been looking into this, I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary. However, in the proposal, an illustrative example was given of a relevant edit to Martin Luther King Jr.: in that edit, a link to four pages (pp. 44–47) takes me to a preview that shows only the first two of those pages. Further, the content does not appear to be searchable, although I’m pretty sure that WP doesn't expect a reader to search for content that ostensibly is already linked precisely, right down to page numbers, from what they’re reading. This agrees with what I found previously in looking at a different book at archive.org, and is part of what prompted my first post here. And, as far as I can see, the inability to view more than two pages in a single preview was not raised as a substantive issue in the discussion of the original proposal. Whether that inability proves to be temporary or permanent, I think it is an important issue now.

In the meantime, while of course I support making sources available where possible, I do believe that it can only frustrate a reader if they are only able to see part of a referenced passage in a source – it certainly frustrates the hell out of me! Hence my concern about InternetArchiveBot’s activity in this area, past and ongoing. However, I now think it’s reasonable for links to be added to citations where only one or two pages are being referenced. Unsatisfactory maybe, but that’s where we seem to be. On the other hand, doesn't the whole exercise fly in the face of WP:CITEVAR? In principle, I'm not sure it's enough to get approval for the bot's activity: arguably, consensus should be sought for each and every article before the bot edits. Certainly, until the present issue is sorted, and wider community consensus is somehow secured, editors may perceive this activity as "mucking about" with citations: really, that's what brought me here in the first place, and I'm aware of two other editors who (I believe) had similar reactions. Please note that I'm not suggesting that this is the case about WP:CITEVAR, I'm just raising the possibility. And I'm happy to accept that these InternetArchiveBot edits aren't exactly mucking about with citations. I just think that they need more thought.

Also, I don't think archive.org's "loan" service is useful for a reader who wants to check citations. If you want to follow up a reference by "borrowing" the book at archive.org and reading all the pages that you find cited in an article, but the book is already on loan, you're out of luck, especially if there's anyone on the "waitlist". At the time of writing, for instance, this is the case for archive.org's copy of this item. I understand that this is so that archive.org can legitimately claim to be a lending library, but still, for the purposes of a reader's interest in citations, I don't think it's good enough. Of course, if a reader is prompted by a citation in WP to read such a book as well as WP, and is inclined to either borrow the book or add themselves to the waitlist, then great; but that's not what this is about. Nortonius (talk) 17:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

There is something not right about these archive.org links that has been bothering me for a while but, until now, haven't taken the time to figure out what it is. Now I know. In cs1|2, |url= is assumed to link |title= to a free-to-read source unless marked otherwise. This bot does not mark these urls as restricted – registration is required, readers must login in order to checkout the book. So, if the bot is to continue to add these urls, it must also identify these restricted links by adding |url-access=registration.

Another thing that bothers me is that the bot-added url might not link to a facsimile of the source that the original editor consulted even though title, author, publisher, etc are all the same, different printings or editions may not be.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Trappist the monk, I can most certainly set url-access. Good catch. As for linking the correct edition, ISBNs are unique to editions/printings. A different edition === different ISBN. So if the ISBN matches, it's exactly the same as what the editor consulted.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 20:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

While this holds true for most books, it is unfortunately not true in general. I have seen too many cases, where the same ISBN was assigned to different editions of a book. --Matthiaspaul (talk) 20:54, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that ↑. I have seen it argued before elsewhere (likely at WT:CS1 though I haven't taken the trouble to put my finger on it) that while ISBNs are 'generally' unique, they cannot be relied upon to be unique.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Well to be fair, because ISBNs are supposed to be unique to a version of a book right down to the cover style of the book, others will be confused too through no fault of their own, or even erroneously "correct" a book reference should they acquire the book by the ISBN and notice the mismatch. But that's not a reason to stop the bot from doing this task. It's a reason to improve the matching process between the books at archive.org and Wikipedia. IABot will have more advanced matching down the road.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 09:39, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Spamblacklist

The InternetArchiveBot is sometimes hindered by the SpamBlacklist. Gives a Userwithlist or similar in the SpamBlacklist?--WikiBayer (talk) 07:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

IABot interface is not working

I was trying to access this url and then this. At took more than 5 seconds to load those pages and then I saw this bigg error message. See screenshot here. Please fix it. It's very hard to manually add archived links. Masum Reza^📞 05:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

It looks like it has been fixed. Masum Reza^📞 07:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

dr pda prose size bug? heavily used, only interface admins can edit

[Also spamming Evad37] Hey. This is above and beyond the call of duty, but dr pda is MIA and the script is heavily used. I suspect it may significantly overstate the prose size of article that are relatively heavily laden with <math> tags. Forex, his est. and mine of Binary search algorithm are very different... Some FA examples below:

Title	math tags
Photon	69
Group (mathematics)	20
Problem of Apollonius	25
Polar coordinate system	68
Sun	18
0.999...	26
Laplace–Runge–Lenz vector	120
Redshift	33
Mirror symmetry (string theory)	20
1 − 2 + 3 − 4 + ⋯	17
Mechanical filter	11
Big Bang	12
Enzyme kinetics	51
Euclidean algorithm	49
AdS/CFT correspondence	18
General relativity	21
Binary search algorithm	200
Logarithm	129
Pi	102
Tropical cyclone	57

Tks ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 09:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Lingzhi2, Does the edit still need to be made?—CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I am looking into it. If so I will let you know. Thanks! :-) ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 12:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Web archive DeepDotWeb which is closed

Earlier this year popular dark web news and links site DeepDotWeb was seized for money laundering. It won't be back. I cited https://deepdotweb.com/ in various places on Wikipedia and would prefer not to have to fix them all by hand. An example fix:

• Article: Doxbin
• Change from: https://www.deepdotweb.com/2015/04/15/so-you-want-to-be-a-darknet-drug-lord/
• To: https://web.archive.org/web/20190326163337/https://www.deepdotweb.com/2015/04/15/so-you-want-to-be-a-darknet-drug-lord/

The bot should pick the latest snapshot prior to May 7th 2019 which is when the site was seized.

Wikipedia:Bot requests directed me here :) Deku-shrub (talk) 12:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much! Deku-shrub (talk) 12:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

I followed up at BOTREQ, this is probably not a good bot job due to the requirement for custom coding to handle the May 7 requirement, and there are less than 30 links that need fixing, it would be less work to do it manually. -- GreenC 13:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Cyberbot

Why did cyberbot leave this message on my talk page? Is it correct? Also, please ping me when you respond. Interstellarity (talk) 12:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

IABot down?

InternetArchiveBot appears to have been down for the last day or so; from what I can tell its most recent edit was to the German Wikipedia yesterday at 17:19:08 UTC. Ionmars10 (talk) 23:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay so now it just rescued exactly one article on the Spanish Wikipedia pretty much right when I typed that last message. Ionmars10 (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

To all Wikimanians that I have encountered...

...goes a shout out and a thank you for bearing with me, or getting to know you in person. @-revi, Skalman, Ата, Mike Peel, Bd808, Risker, MF-Warburg, TheDJ, Niharika, Kaldari, and Magioladitis: and others.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 06:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

— regards, Revi 06:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Also a special shout out to Doc James for taking the time to look at my injuries. I haven't forgotten you. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 13:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

No worries. Great meeting again. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:05, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

It was an honor! -- Magioladitis (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

It was nice to meet you, too. Congratulations once again on the "Cool Tools" award for Internet Archive Bot; 13.8 million rescued references is pretty darn impressive. Risker (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

The pleasure was mine -- Ата ^(talk) 19:21, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi

Hi, good to meet you. Get some sleep! :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:08, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

BTW, did you mention that you do Internet Archive stuff? Any chance you could have a look at commons:Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Proposal_to_run_a_bot_to_archive_every_external_link_using_the_Internet_Archive_on_Wikimedia_Commons please? :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Mike Peel, yes. Getting IABot onto Commons is on my todo list. :-)—CYBERPOWER (Message) 08:30, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

IABot

Now whenever I try to add archives to any article using this gadget, I instead get a blank page. Why? --Kailash29792 (talk) 08:09, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot userpage

I'm surprised the user page is permanently protected. Anyway, I think it would be useful to add a link to the most recent task pages, in particular Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/InternetArchiveBot 3. Nemo 06:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The userpage is due for a renewal anyway.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

404s & IABot

All the links I've checked for tropicalglen.com, a site used as a source on ~324 music articles (often more than one link per page), lead to 404s, e.g. the three refs to 'Cash Box' here. I fixed a few myself, remembered IABot, and tried to use it. No joy: the bot doesn't recognise that the pages at those URLs aren't as they should be. Is there a way one might tell it to produce archive links for every ref to tropicalglen.com? Thanks. BlackcurrantTea (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

I have marked tropicalglen.com as dead and launched the bot on all pages containing it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! BlackcurrantTea (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

{{Bots}} template

Hi, I have a question about how the {{bots}} template is handled by IABot. It does not seem to parse the following line in ko:백괴사전.

{{bots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}

The intention was to prevent the bot from editing the article because many URL links on the page seem to be temporarily down and therefore should not be changed by the bot for the moment.

Also, please refer to ko:특:diff/24777881, which is considered a bot's malfunction, resulting in {{깨진{{깨진 링크 which is the equivalent of {{dead{{dead link. I hope the bug gets fixed soon. (I am having some trouble accessing the bot interface page now, so leaving a bug report here instead)

Thank you. --ted (talk) 13:43, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

The bot is getting confused by multiple instances of {{bots}} being declared. Please bear in mind that this template generally allows bot access unless the deny parameter is set. But the first of instance of it, has nothing set. You may wish to remove the first instance or move the second instance up on top of the article. Also bear in mind a temporary outage doesn't usually affect the bot. If the bot sees a URL dead, then it will consider it dead forever. As for the actual bug, it's caused by a nested template inside an external link, which is very poor form and used almost never (this is the first time). So this is a low priority issue.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:20, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Technical Barnstar
	para ti Kitoko wiki (talk) 21:51, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Surreal Barnstar
	para ti Kitoko wiki (talk) 21:54, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

IABot and https

Hi! I've reported a dead link false positive at IABot interface. I'm not asking to have this manually handled, but I got curious so answer if you think it's relevant. :) This url was marked dead (at svWp) but seems to be working (as long as you keep the trailing slash/). When I reported it as "false" I got the impression that the check again said "404" which I found interesting. I saw in the FAQ that the bot could be blacklisted, but that would be a shame.

The main question I have is about https. Browsers promote http-links to https these days and some servers drop the http support. When I removed the dead link tag from the page, I also changed the URL to https. Is the bot also trying https for dead http links? I suppose it might be difficult for the bot to know if it would be the same content on the different URL, but from a maintenance perspective it would probably be a useful assumption. JAGulin (talk) 12:18, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

"Saving" internal links

I don't think there is need in such actions.

10x 4 ur attention, ·Carn !? 13:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

@Carn: The link is formatted like an external link ([...link...]). That's why IAbot treated it like an external link. Linking to internal links using two brackets [[..Wikipage..]], should solve this problem. Masum Reza^📞 13:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I know it, sir. However, the anonymous authors who try to “provide links to sources” in the articles don't know this.
Is it possible to check if processed links are links to the Wikipedia itself, and do not touch them in such case?·Carn !? 13:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Portal namespaces

Could you allow me to edit "Portal:" and "Portal talk:" Namespaces as I have otherwise no way to ask general questions about styles or topics in any help desk or ask any sort of general advice? --Donald Trung (talk) 06:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

2019 Arbitration Committee pre-election RfC

A request for comment is now open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and resolve any issues not covered by existing rules. You are receiving this message because you were listed as a user who would like to be notified when the 2019 RfC begins. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:52, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

http://urn.nb.no/ available to Norwegain IP addresses

Please be aware that digital books at http://urn.nb.no/ are available to Norwegian IP addresses, see e.g. [1]. Please adjust the bot, and revert already erroneously edits. - 4ing (talk) 18:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Scripts++

Also, could you subscribe me to the Wikipedia:Scripts++ newsletter. I don't want to manually check when a new issue comes out. --Donald Trung (talk) 08:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

 Done (talk page stalker) StudiesWorld (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

@StudiesWorld: Thanks. --Donald Trung (talk) 19:04, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

not sure how to stop Cyberbot from marking Winamp as dead

http://www.winamp.com/ seems to be live. I'm not sure what code this site returns. I assume it's a 200, but the page draws regardless. I have twice reported it as an incorrect false positive, but the bot keeps coming back to Winamp on a daily basis and marking the official website EL as dead. Any ideas? Walter Görlitz (talk) 11:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – September 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2019).

Administrator changes

Bradv • Chetsford • Izno

Floquenbeam • Lectonar

DESiegel • Jake Wartenberg • Rjanag • Topbanana

CheckUser changes

Callanecc • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Oversight changes

Callanecc • Fox • HJ Mitchell • LFaraone • There'sNoTime

Technical news

• Editors using the mobile website on Wikipedia can opt-in to new advanced features via your settings page. This will give access to more interface links, special pages, and tools.
• The advanced version of the edit review pages (recent changes, watchlist, and related changes) now includes two new filters. These filters are for "All contents" and "All discussions". They will filter the view to just those namespaces.

Arbitration

• A request for comment is open to provide an opportunity to amend the structure, rules, and procedures of the 2019 English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee election and to resolve any issues not covered by existing rules.

Miscellaneous

• A global request for comment is in progress regarding whether a user group should be created that could modify edit filters across all public Wikimedia wikis.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Dead-url value

Since it is deprecated and replaced by url-status, is it possible to make ammendments accordingly in IABot? If not, at least making sure IABot does not add the dead-url field? dead-url=no → url-status=live and dead-url=yes → url-status=dead should be the changes --Kailash29792 (talk) 05:52, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

@Kailash29792: This is logged as phab:T224807. --Izno (talk) 06:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

• Believe IABot (v2.0) is now changing dead-url=no to url-status=alive rather than url-status=live ... e.g. [2]. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

IA Bot URL status bug

IA bot is marking links as "alive" instead of "live" [3] this is getting highlighted as an error in red--DBigXrayᗙ 11:21, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

@DBigXray: This has been tracked in phab:T232325. Thanks for reporting. :) Masum Reza^📞 11:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot userpage

I'm surprised the user page is permanently protected. Anyway, I think it would be useful to add a link to the most recent task pages, in particular Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/InternetArchiveBot 3. Nemo 06:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

The userpage is due for a renewal anyway.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent reason to unprotect it! I was just looking for the link again, to share it with someone else, and it's a bit annoying to not have it on the userpage. Nemo 07:23, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Cyberbot I needs more sophistication re Template:Book report start

I edited Book talk:Crag martins to remove italic markup (''...'') for a genus name used in Template:book report start, as explained in my edit summary,

{{book report start}} puts the second parameter in italics, so remove italic markup from genus name; fixing lint errors

Cyberbot I then edited this same article, reinserting the spurious italic markup that creates a lint error and un-italicizes the genus name. I have reverted this change. Would you please edit your bots so that this doesn't happen again? —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:44, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

You removed the above comment without addressing the issue and you did it again. I have made the fix Five (5) times. Please stop inserting inappropriate italic markup. Please cooperate. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have learned from Jonesey95 that the rule both on and off Wikipedia is that genus and species embedded in an italic phrase get flipped out of italics. My solution was incorrect. Jonesey95 has come up with a solution that flips the genus and species out of Italics and also does not generate lint errors. Please use Jonesey95's solution. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are problems to begin with. The bot has been in continuous operation since I took it over from NoomBot. I haven't touched the code other that to improve the security on it. So why are there problems now?—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The Special:Linter errors were not visible until the Tidy to Remex conversion began a year or two ago. Because of the unusual formatting used in the template itself and in the transclusion, Cyberbot's edits to this page reintroduce two different Linter errors: a misnested tag, and a missing end tag. – Jonesey95 (talk) 04:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

You removed the above discussion without addressing the issue and you did it again. And again. Please accept the solution by Jonesey95. It is correct. Yours is not. Please cooperate. —Anomalocaris (talk) 09:14, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

You again removed the above discussion without addressing the issue.

Your bot edited Book talk:Crag martins at 04:15, 8 June 2019, changing valid markup

{{book report start|Crag martins|The genus ''Ptyonoprogne''}}

to invalid markup

{{book report start|Crag martins|<small>The genus ''Ptyonoprogne''</small>}}

which Special:ExpandTemplates shows expanding to something that includes

<big>Crag martins<br/>''<span class="nowrap"> </span><small>The genus ''Ptyonoprogne''</small><span class="nowrap"> </span>''</big>

which has misnesting

''<small>The genus ''Ptyonoprogne''</small>...''

I was wrong originally and Jonesey95 was correct. The italic markup around the genus is fine, but <small>...</small> doesn't work here. —Anomalocaris (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I have added the {{bots}} template to the page in question until this problem is resolved. I bear no ill will toward the bot or its operator; this is a strange little technical problem with syntax, not a life-threatening condition. I don't know if this tiny conflict is resolvable, or if there are side effects of the bots template that will be undesirable. If having the bot update the page periodically is useful, then that useful updating will be suspended until the bots template is removed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Jonesey95: At 04:21, 6 September 2019‎, Cyberbot I edited this article again, even though you inserted

{{bots|deny=Cyberbot I}}

and the edit caused misnested tags again! —Anomalocaris (talk) 02:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Anomalocaris, I'm still unclear. All I need to do is remove the <small> tags?—CYBERPOWER (Message) 07:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

First, if a page says {{bots|deny=Cyberbot I}}, or as it does now (thanks to Jonesey95), {{nobots}}, your bot should not edit it at all. And in answer to your question, yes, the <small>...</small> doesn't work here, because, as I said before, it expands to the misnested

''<small>The genus ''Ptyonoprogne''</small>...''

Again the first priority is to get your bot to respect bot denial templates. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:05, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

This bot task is an old bot that I keep operational, but I didn't write it. I didn't even know it didn't respect nobots, and I'm very constrained with the time I have. I'll implement the change regarding the tags.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 08:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

On a look at the code, I don't see anything in there that would prompt the bot to surround that text with small tags. This tells me it's pulling them from somewhere else on wiki. I did a search through the entire code, and results came back nil.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 08:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail

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.AnaGGriffo (talk) 20:49, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

False positive tool not working

I tried using the false positive tool linked from User talk:InternetArchiveBot, but it doesn't seem to be working properly.

I tried to submit http://wildstat.com/p/2601/club/FRA_AS_Cannes and got a non-working "Submit" button, a working "GO BACK" button, and the following:

Report false positives
Please review the following URLs and confirm that they are really not dead.
These URLs were not found in the DB and will be ignored:
http://wildstat.com/p/2601/club/FRA_AS_Cannes

As I was not able to submit the url, I gave up. The bot is now disabled on en-wiki. Starting point for this was at this edit by the Bot at Zinedine Zidane.

The talk page there is protected, so couldn't report this in what seemed like the logical place. That same page links your User page for further action. Mathglot (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Firstly, disabling the bot for something like this is highly inappropriate. Please don't do that again. Secondly, you submitted a link that isn't actually on the article you mention. http://www.wildstat.com/p/2601/club/FRA_AS_Cannes is the correct link. I suggest you try that. It's important to remember that just because http://www.wildstat.com/p/2601/club/FRA_AS_Cannes redirects to http://wildstat.com/p/2601/club/FRA_AS_Cannes, doesn't mean they are identical. You should use the link that's actually being used in the article, not what's in your URL address bar. :-)

Is this the place to ask about InternetArchiveBot?

I came across an edit from 2017 that isn't right...In this edit at Utah War, the bots changed a dead link of:
<ref>http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/38.4/b {{Dead link|date=July 2010}}</ref>
to this:
<ref>http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/38.4/b {{webarchive|url=https://archive.is/20120802094817/http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/justtop.cgi?act=justtop&url=http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/whq/38.4/b |date=2 August 2012 }}</ref>
Now, yeah, the original ref was kind of mangled but it was marked as dead in July 2010 & the Bot gave out a new link dated August 2012...
I have just spent sometime trying to figure out what article this link is trying to get at so I could actually webarchive-link to the article but have given up, the link isn't actually needed since there are 2 other refs at the same place. The historycooperative.org links are all kind of a mess these days in general since an outside concern came along (ca.2009 I think) usurping the original URL and so I have been working my way through them and trying to web-archive link to the original site run by actual universities & JSTOR etc. Shearonink (talk) 07:26, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

censorship of Eric Corbett’s Page

This is completely unacceptable. Doubtless some hope the whole subject of Eric Corbett will now magically disappear; however, as he was one of the project’s major contributors his departure won’t quietly fade into the sunset and oblivion. Admins and Arbs had better get used to the reverberations of their actions, because I suspect they will be echoing for some considerable time, and censorship of views will only increase the decibel level. Giano (talk) 18:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Giano, I don't know what you are going on about. I simply saw an edit war and put an end to it before it started escalating.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:23, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

When things have already escalated to such a level of fever pitch, it is best to let nature run it’s course. Eric Corbett may well have left the room, but his presence has not. Giano (talk) 19:56, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I’d rather fully protect a talk page for 24 hours then see things escalate to a point where people get blocked. That’s the last thing this situation needs right now.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 05:52, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

curious

I noticed this: [4] .. did I do something wrong? — Ched (talk) 20:58, 18 September 2019 (UTC) OH .. I think I see .. same user requested more than one page. — Ched (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

IABot signature

Hello!

How can I translate the "raport a bug" part that appears at the IABot signature on talk pages' notifications? Also, the last line in those discussions says When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. Does the template refer to the "raport a bug" part? Because nothing else appears below those words except for the bot's signature. - Klein Muçi (talk) 16:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Just a friendly reminder that I'm still interested in the questions I've asked. Maybe you've forgotten about them. Not wanting to hurry you or anything. :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 23:10, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your question entirely. IABot's signature is defined in the settings. So you would need to give me the translation so I can apply it. It appears the wrong message was translated. That message is specific to enwiki only, which is defunct anyways. You want to have the following translated instead.

Hello fellow editors,\n\nI have just modified {linksrescued} external links on [[{namespacepage}]]. Please take a moment to review [{diff} my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[:m:InternetArchiveBot/FAQ|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:\n{modifiedlinks}\nPlease refer to the FaQ for information on correcting errors with the bot.\n\nCheers.

—CYBERPOWER (Message) 06:39, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

No worry. :) Thank you for that! I changed the translation now. Regarding the raport a bug thing, in Albanian it should be Raporto probleme. - Klein Muçi (talk) 01:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot Shenanigans

Hi Cyberpower678! Can you please check your bot’s edits here: [5]

• Per its log in the talk page, it considers the http://www.e-qanun.az/framework/3681 and http://www.e-qanun.az/framework/3122 as dead both of which are working fine for me.
• It has removed the existing archive link to webcitation.org!
• It has removed the {{Webarchive}} template which also included extra archive links!

Cheers! -- Meisam (talk) 16:29, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Meisam, it looks like something funky happened there. For some reason, none of the existing archive URLs were acknowledged. If this is a common occurrence please let me know, otherwise, I'll put on my todo list for later.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Cyberbot I broke RFPP sections

Hi there. When archiving requests at RFPP, Cyberbot I did this. Could you investigate why? Regards SoWhy 12:17, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

SoWhy, as I'm very slowly rewriting the RFPP bot, I don't think it's worth investigating unless it's happening constantly. I'm 80% certain some odd wiki-markup caused this to happen.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:32, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

IA Bot on SqWiki

Hello! :) Sorry for disturbing again but the signature of the bot still has problems with its translation regarding the "report a bug" part. Moreover the name links to the English page. I think it's better if it links to the Albanian user page for the bot which is almost the ad verbatim translation of the English one.

Translation of Report a bug: Raportoni probleme Link of the Albanian user page: InternetArchiveBot

I had to write again because the original thread got archived. Take your time for the changes but please don't archive the thread until the changes are made so you can notify me somewhere about them. Thank you in advance! :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 23:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. I totally forgot. I was in an area with bad internet for the past two weeks. Doing this now.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 08:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

No worry. :) How about the user page of the bot? Shouldn't it be better to link to the Albanian one? - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Klein Muçi, also updated.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:00, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you! :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Cyberbot I display error

Please see User:Cyberbot I/Requests for unblock report. Ever since 26 September, Cyberbot I thinks every block expires on the Unix epoch. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:19, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Presumably related to phab:T232021/https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/c/mediawiki/core/+/534661/ ~ Amory (u • t • c) 18:23, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The instructions are close today

Your revert is mistaken and you should undo it. The instructions at the top of the page clearly say "we should aim to close this RfC as soon as 30 days have passed, i.e. on or after September 30, 2019." bolding on the 30th. 30 day for an RfC begun on Aug 31 is September 29, yesterday. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:38, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Simce I now see you are off-line according to the top of this page, I have undone your edit. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Actually I'm not, I was engaged with my boss. Gimme a sec to give a proper answer.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:51, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, okay, so I was going off of the ACE RFC: (30 days of September) in the green box. So, yea in that case I will start closing the RfC.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 12:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

In years past, it has been the case that multiple uninvolved closers closed sections. To get it done. Not continuing past practice is quite odd, un-community oriented, and unneeded delay. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

How am I not continuing that practice? I am not stopping anyone else from joining in on the closing. Anybody that wishes to assist with closing is free to help out.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:33, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, OK? Past practice has just been to leave sections open until closed, if memory serves but you boxed it up suggesting you were closing. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:30, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry. I didn't mean to mislead. I closed the discussion as the RfC has reached the end. I guess it's a force of habit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyberpower678 (talk • contribs) 18:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

This edit seriously screwed the RfC listings. Please don't do that again. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:07, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – October 2019

News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2019).

Administrator changes

Barkeep49

Beetstra • KillerChihuahua • Kusma

Arcadian • Extraordinary Machine • Xeno

JamesBWatson → JBW

Interface administrator changes

Evad37

CheckUser changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Oversight changes

Courcelles • SilkTork • Timotheus Canens

Guideline and policy news

• Following a discussion, a new criterion for speedy category renaming was added: C2F: One eponymous article, which applies if the category contains only an eponymous article or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories.

Technical news

• As previously noted, tighter password requirements for Administrators were put in place last year. Wikipedia should now alert you if your password is less than 10 characters long and thus too short.

Arbitration

• The 2019 CheckUser and Oversight appointment process has begun. The community consultation period will take place October 4th to 10th.
• The arbitration case regarding Fram was closed. While there will be a local RfC focus[ing] on how harassment and private complaints should be handled in the future, there is currently a global community consultation on partial and temporary office actions in response to the incident. It will be open until October 30th.

Miscellaneous

• The Community Tech team has been working on a system for temporarily watching pages, and welcomes feedback.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Official interpretation of ban

Does my schools ban broadly construed forbid me from editing articles on writers who also teach, where little is said about their educational institution in the article. I note that what brought on the ban was editing actual articles on high schools. May I edit Edward Schillebeeckx and Walter Kasper. Also, should seminary education be excluded from permissible areas for me, specifically Optatam Totius. These items seem to be far removed from the purpose of the ban. Jzsj (talk) 21:32, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

What happened?

I left a message for you several days ago, and received no answer and now cannot find the message. I need your informed judgment on my schools ban "broadly construed". Is this not the way to proceed? Thanks. Jzsj (talk) 16:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Jzsj: Sorry for the very late response. I've been swarmed with matters. In any event, to answer your question, I don't think editing those articles would be a violation of your TBAN.—CYBERPOWER (Message) 07:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks much for your assessment! Having your backing is important to me on this. Jzsj (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2019 (UTC)