![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Thanks for adding wayback links. One appears to go to an irrelevant page, and I was not sure what to do about it, so I marked it as a dead link. Dudley Miles ( talk) 10:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The talk page message instructs:
Wouldn't it say "..to true or failed"? Or an inline comment next to the sourcecheck line giving more detail on options. -- Green C 18:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
{{U|D'Ranged 1}}
to reply to me—I'm not watching your talk page due to its high traffic! Thanks!—
D'Ranged 1 |
VTalk :
18:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thank you for editing the "nurburgring lap times" page. i think i submitted a contribution there, but it seems that nobody has approved it. could you do that please? sorry, i am new to this. Gixxbit ( talk) 15:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC) |
What are the ways to get this bot to run on an article? Thanks! — Lentower ( talk) 02:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I think I mentioned before, but worth mentioning again, how happy I am to see this bot running. It is salvaging a lot of dead links, and that's a great thing.
I have noticed one nit, not a big deal, but I don't have a good solution, and hope you can consider implementing something. The short statement of the problem is that the template left on the talk page has two options for the “checked parameter” and there are other options.
At present, the template is posted with the parameter set to false, which generates the following text string:
Archived sources still need to be checked
That's fine, but if you check, the only other option is to change it to true which generates:
Archived sources have been checked to be working
What do I do if I check and they are not OK? Neither option works. As an additional complication, the template often covers more than one reference, and the answers may be different.
There are other cases:
In each case, I am setting the parameter to true, and adding an explanation, but I don't really like the fact that it says in big bold type that the checked links are working.
I think working out all the possible cases is overkill, but I would like three cases:
Option three could use some word-smithing.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 21:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have the option of adding "|checked=failed" added to the instructions that are left on talk pages? I had no idea this was possible before reading this (I was coming to post something similar) and it's a fairly common outcome when I check the IABot links. Thanks for all of your work - Antepenultimate ( talk) 21:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The external link which I modified (as a bad link) but which has since been restored, points to a general (advertising) holding page which is being used to host a variety of links to other sites relating to aircraft services, but which is too general to be of any use to someone searching for the specific type of aircraft the article is about. Therefore I made my edit. I suspect that the linked site was initially appropriate and relevant, but which has since become unmaintained; the site name has been retained, but is now being used to host advertising links. When you have had opportunity to examine that destination site, your observations on the matter would be welcome. -- Observer6 ( talk) 19:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I did use my own discretion when deleting the inappropriate (bad) link. Now that the inappropriate link has been restored from the archives by CyberbotII, I suspect that CyberbotII will repeat its former (automated?) 'restore' action if I delete the inappropriate link for a second time.
In the absence of third party recognition that my edit was appropriate, I will leave the article as it stands, for others to discover its inadequacy. Regards --
Observer6 (
talk)
20:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cbignore}}
tag to it instead. That will instruct Cyberbot to quit messing with the link.—
cyberpower
Chat:Limited Access
20:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)I appreciate your help.There are several external 'Reference' links at the end of the article in question. The first link is useless. I removed it. CyberbotII reversed my action by restoring the bad link from archive. I do not know of a suitable alternative link. If I now just add {{
cbignore}}
, Cyberbot will cease messing with the link. but that unsuitable link will remain. Having checked the poor reference several times, I am still convinced that it is totally unsuitable. Maybe I should change the bots feedback msg from false to true, and delete the link again. Would this be the correct procedure? Or will this create havoc or start a never-ending cycle of my removals and Cyberbots automatic restorations?
I've tried reverting cyberbots edit, removed bad ref, and by addeding {{
cbignore}}
. But the {{
cbignore}}
tag now wants to appear on the page! I will suspend action until it is clear to me what I should do.--
Observer6 (
talk)
00:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Matter has been resolved by Green Cardamom-- Observer6 ( talk) 16:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the tag was removed because the discussion was completed. I put the tag for deletion. Regards, -- Prof TPMS ( talk) 02:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I keep adding {{
cbignore}}
and failed to your {{
Sourcecheck}}) additions.
While the goal is laudible, the failure rate seems very high. Can you limit the scope of your bot please? I don't think there's much point even attempting to provide archive links for {{ Cite book}}, as it will rarely be useful. For instance:
I am almost at the stage of placing {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
on all pages I have created or made major editing contributions to in order to be rid of these unhelpful edits. --
Ham105 (
talk)
03:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for adding an archive-url! I set the deadurl tag to "no" again, because the original URL is still reachable. Also, is there a way for Cyberbot to choose the "most current" archived version for the archive-url? -- Evilninja ( talk) 02:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I don't think Cyberbot II should be doing this sort of thing, especially with a misleading edit summary. Graham 87 15:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure from all the banners above about not being Cyberbot, being busy in RL, etc. whether this is the place to leave some Cyberbot feedback, but the "talk to my owner" link sent me here, so I'll leave it here.
I occasionally review Cyberbot links and usually they are OK. However, I just reviewed the two on the article Greenwich Village and both of them basically just added archived copies of 404 pages. It might be good if there was some sort of compare or go back in time feature for the bot to select an archive, so this doesn't happen, as obviously an archived version of a page saying "404" or "Oops we can't find the page" or whatever is not helpful here. Cheers, TheBlinkster ( talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Came here to say the same thing. An archive copy of a 404 is no better than a live 404. Actually it's worse as the end user doesn't get any visual clue the link will not be there. Palosirkka ( talk) 12:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Is Cyberbot using Internet Archive's "Available" API? If so it would catch these. API results for the above examples returns no page available:
"This API is useful for providing a 404 or other error handler which checks Wayback to see if it has an archived copy ready to display. "
-- Green C 15:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) redirects to a page archive reports 'Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt. The API
https://archive.org/wayback/available?url=http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/review_areas/downloads/FR_NR_Devon_Plymouth_Torbay.doc gives {"archived_snapshots":{}}This is the actual API command issued by Cyberbot in function isArchived() in API.php:
It returns two characters "[]" which is not valid JSON, but I
verified it's correctly interpreted and sets $this->db->dbValues[$id]['archived'] = 0
. In case it falls through to another function, similar commands in retrieveArchive():
Same results. I can't find anywhere else in the code that downloads data from archive.org and if it's not getting the archive URL from here, then from where? Must be the API. -- Green C 21:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what the expected result should be, but https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sidemount_diving&oldid=707596914 does not seem to have been a useful edit. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cyberpower678. I have noticed that IABot does not preserve section marks (#) in URLs, e.g. in this edit it did not preserve the "#before", "#f1" and "#after" which are present in the original URLs in the archive URLs. Not sure if this is intentional of not. Regards. DH85868993 ( talk) 06:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know that this was due to the use of "chapter-url", but this edit doesn't seem helpful: the entire citation was reduced to "{{cite}}". Nitpicking polish ( talk) 14:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Cyber, there are current over 90,000 pages in Category:Articles with unchecked bot-modified external links and I'm finding that in more than half the cases, you are linking to a webarchive of a soft 404. Because of this, I don't think this bot task is helping, and it's probably best to turn it off until you can find some way to detect this. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 05:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I just did a random check of 10 pages and found Cyberbot correctly archived in 7 cases, and an error with the bot or IA API in 3 cases. The IA API may be at fault here. It's often returning a valid URL when it shouldn't be ( case1, case2, case3). I tend to agree that 90,000 pages will takes many years, if ever, to clean up manually (these are probably articles no one is actively watching/maintaining). (BTW I disagree the bot is "useless", link rot is a semi-manual process to fix and the problem is fiendishly difficult and pressing, there is wide consensus for a solution). -- Green C 15:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
[1] ~ Kvng ( talk) 05:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cyberpower678. Using
Checklinks I uncovered 11 dead links on the
Whoopi Goldberg article. I was able to find archive versions for 1 of them and "fixed" it. I
tagged 10 as being dead (not fixable by me]. Cyberbot II fixed 7 that I tagged as dead and unfixable. That leaves 3 still broken (reference #30, #72, and #73). I checked them by hand. I also checked them again with Checklinks and Checklinks reported the same 3 as being
dead. How did Cyberbot find those seven archived versions? Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
06:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, on the article MythBusters (2013 season), Cyberbot II keeps on trying to "rescue" a source with an archived URL. The archived URL actually is broken (it seems to be an empty page), and does not contain the material that is referenced. I have tried reverting this change, but Cyberbot II keeps on adding the same broken archived URL back. Could you please stop the bot from adding back the archived URL which I keep on trying to revert? Thanks. Secret Agent Julio ( talk) 13:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret Agent Julio (alt) ( talk • contribs)
http://404checker.com/404-checker
I ran a test with this URL recently added to Talk:JeemTV by Cyberbot - the 404 checker correctly determines it's a 404. Running IA API results through this might cut down on the number of false positives. I have not done in depth testing. Likely there are other similar tools available. -- Green C 18:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there any way to direct your bot to a set of articles, like Final Fantasy ones, or the ones of the Wikiproject: Square Enix? It seems like an amazing tool, and would save so much time checking and archiving links for the articles we watch. Let me know if there is a way to request its attention. :) Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 05:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Cyberpower678! I haven't heard from you in awhile, man! What have you been up to? You going MIA on me? :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 08:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi cyberpower678, I have a problem which you may be able to help me. I have created hundreds of (mostly stub) articles about the minor populated places in Turkey. My main source is Statistical Institute, a reliable governmental Institute. However each year they change their link address and I am forced to change the link accordingly. Finally I quitted and most of the articles are now pointing to dead links. After seeing your (or rather Cyberbot II s) contribution to Karacakılavuz, I realized that even dead links can be retrieved from archives. But I don't know how. Can you please help me ? Thanks Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 18:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
After I spent a day updating a gazillion references on List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, your bot found an archive version of an important reference. Wonderful assistance, many thanks for creating it! — JFG talk 08:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
here - there were four, the bot left it with just one. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 23:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
pair. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
10:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
<ref>
calls and just look for uses of {{
Cite}}
? That would eliminate limiting the number of uses of {{
Cite}}
within a <ref> ... </ref>
pair. Just a suggestion, and maybe won't require a rewrite! {{U|D'Ranged 1}}
to reply to me—I'm not watching your talk page due to its high traffic! Thanks!—
D'Ranged 1 |
VTalk :
18:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
This edit didn't go so well.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 01:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
template can be removed from the list of citation templates to handle. I simply added all the templates that have a URL parameter. But I may have added some where the sites used are simply impossible to archive and use.—
cyberpower
Chat:Offline
05:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
[3]. When there is more than one citation template in a ref, it deletes all but one of the cites. As a quick fix, due to problems with these cases, can it avoid/skip these cases for the moment? Such as, if there is more than one "http" inside a reference, skip it - it can always come back later when the code is updated to handle multiple refs. Otherwise it seems to be doing some damage. -- Green C 17:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
dead}}
but only fixed one due to multiple cite web templates inside a single ref. --
Green
C
17:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
In case anyone noticed this, I am truly sorry. I was doing some controlled tests and clicked the run button without realizing it. Next thing you know Cyberbot was making a mess. You may trout me if you wish. But I am sorry.— cyberpower Chat:Online 00:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Smash!
You've been
squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.
As an FYI, other templates that are located between the citation template and the {{ dead link}} get removed when Cyberbot adds the archive link to a reference. See this for example, the {{ self-published source}} template between the cited dead link and the {{ dead link}} was removed; I wouldn't be surprised if other templates get removed upon the bot edit. Thanks — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 17:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
|archiveurl=archive.org/web/20050603234403/http://www.grabbys.com/a1.grab.04.5.winners.html
should have been |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050603234403/http://www.grabbys.com/a1.grab.04.5.winners.html
https://web.
at the front of the url, but probably something work checking / testing.
Thanks for your hard work in cleaning up! Much appreciated!
Please use a notifier such as {{U|D'Ranged 1}}
to reply to me—I'm not watching your talk page due to its high traffic!
Thanks!— D'Ranged 1 | VTalk : 18:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Seeing 404 problems in archive URLs but not created by Cyberbot, they are older, added by other bots or manual. The problem is this: Wayback will archive any web site that doesn't have a robots.txt disallowing. However, if a website retroactively adds a robot.txt, then Wayback will delete all it's archives(!). This means, yes, dead links to archive.org -- my bot will pick some of these up remove them and adds cbignore, but it's not designed to look at every case nor run continuously like Cyberbot. Something to consider for the future. We will need another bot that is verifying the archive URLs are still active (though it only needs to check occasionally, once a year or something). -- Green C 17:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
In this edit, CYberbot II mangled a ref while fixing a dead link on the ref's cite. Search for Charles Lu. The ref consisted of some intro text followed by a cite like this:
and the bot edit deleted the intro text from the cite. While this style of ref may be unusual I believe it is perfectly acceptable and should not have been mangled. IMO when fixing a dead link contained in a cite template the bot has no business touching anything outside the bounds of the {{cite ...}}.
TuxLibNit ( talk) 21:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the bot supposed to check that the wayback page is valid? All five of these were bad: [8] Kendall-K1 ( talk) 22:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether." Thanks.
Kendall-K1 (
talk)
00:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)The API is sometimes returning pages blocked by robots (code 403) when using ×tamp. Example from Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef:
-- Green C 03:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thank you for the protection on my proposed article Brandun DeShay ^_^
Yleonmgnt (
talk)
06:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello. With this edit, Cyberbot picked up a dead link from within <!-- --> tags and proceeded to try and fix the associated url. Why it was like that is, the ref went dead, I found an alternative that covered most but not all of the cited content, so added that ref and left the original one commented out together with a note about what wasn't covered by the replacement. I'm wondering whether the bot should in general respect comment tags, or whether that situation's just too unusual to bother about? cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 09:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 25 | ← | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | Archive 31 | Archive 32 | → | Archive 35 |
Thanks for adding wayback links. One appears to go to an irrelevant page, and I was not sure what to do about it, so I marked it as a dead link. Dudley Miles ( talk) 10:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The talk page message instructs:
Wouldn't it say "..to true or failed"? Or an inline comment next to the sourcecheck line giving more detail on options. -- Green C 18:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
{{U|D'Ranged 1}}
to reply to me—I'm not watching your talk page due to its high traffic! Thanks!—
D'Ranged 1 |
VTalk :
18:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
The Original Barnstar |
Thank you for editing the "nurburgring lap times" page. i think i submitted a contribution there, but it seems that nobody has approved it. could you do that please? sorry, i am new to this. Gixxbit ( talk) 15:20, 27 February 2016 (UTC) |
What are the ways to get this bot to run on an article? Thanks! — Lentower ( talk) 02:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I think I mentioned before, but worth mentioning again, how happy I am to see this bot running. It is salvaging a lot of dead links, and that's a great thing.
I have noticed one nit, not a big deal, but I don't have a good solution, and hope you can consider implementing something. The short statement of the problem is that the template left on the talk page has two options for the “checked parameter” and there are other options.
At present, the template is posted with the parameter set to false, which generates the following text string:
Archived sources still need to be checked
That's fine, but if you check, the only other option is to change it to true which generates:
Archived sources have been checked to be working
What do I do if I check and they are not OK? Neither option works. As an additional complication, the template often covers more than one reference, and the answers may be different.
There are other cases:
In each case, I am setting the parameter to true, and adding an explanation, but I don't really like the fact that it says in big bold type that the checked links are working.
I think working out all the possible cases is overkill, but I would like three cases:
Option three could use some word-smithing.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 21:04, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have the option of adding "|checked=failed" added to the instructions that are left on talk pages? I had no idea this was possible before reading this (I was coming to post something similar) and it's a fairly common outcome when I check the IABot links. Thanks for all of your work - Antepenultimate ( talk) 21:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The external link which I modified (as a bad link) but which has since been restored, points to a general (advertising) holding page which is being used to host a variety of links to other sites relating to aircraft services, but which is too general to be of any use to someone searching for the specific type of aircraft the article is about. Therefore I made my edit. I suspect that the linked site was initially appropriate and relevant, but which has since become unmaintained; the site name has been retained, but is now being used to host advertising links. When you have had opportunity to examine that destination site, your observations on the matter would be welcome. -- Observer6 ( talk) 19:42, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
I did use my own discretion when deleting the inappropriate (bad) link. Now that the inappropriate link has been restored from the archives by CyberbotII, I suspect that CyberbotII will repeat its former (automated?) 'restore' action if I delete the inappropriate link for a second time.
In the absence of third party recognition that my edit was appropriate, I will leave the article as it stands, for others to discover its inadequacy. Regards --
Observer6 (
talk)
20:02, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cbignore}}
tag to it instead. That will instruct Cyberbot to quit messing with the link.—
cyberpower
Chat:Limited Access
20:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)I appreciate your help.There are several external 'Reference' links at the end of the article in question. The first link is useless. I removed it. CyberbotII reversed my action by restoring the bad link from archive. I do not know of a suitable alternative link. If I now just add {{
cbignore}}
, Cyberbot will cease messing with the link. but that unsuitable link will remain. Having checked the poor reference several times, I am still convinced that it is totally unsuitable. Maybe I should change the bots feedback msg from false to true, and delete the link again. Would this be the correct procedure? Or will this create havoc or start a never-ending cycle of my removals and Cyberbots automatic restorations?
I've tried reverting cyberbots edit, removed bad ref, and by addeding {{
cbignore}}
. But the {{
cbignore}}
tag now wants to appear on the page! I will suspend action until it is clear to me what I should do.--
Observer6 (
talk)
00:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Matter has been resolved by Green Cardamom-- Observer6 ( talk) 16:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the tag was removed because the discussion was completed. I put the tag for deletion. Regards, -- Prof TPMS ( talk) 02:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I keep adding {{
cbignore}}
and failed to your {{
Sourcecheck}}) additions.
While the goal is laudible, the failure rate seems very high. Can you limit the scope of your bot please? I don't think there's much point even attempting to provide archive links for {{ Cite book}}, as it will rarely be useful. For instance:
I am almost at the stage of placing {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
on all pages I have created or made major editing contributions to in order to be rid of these unhelpful edits. --
Ham105 (
talk)
03:40, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for adding an archive-url! I set the deadurl tag to "no" again, because the original URL is still reachable. Also, is there a way for Cyberbot to choose the "most current" archived version for the archive-url? -- Evilninja ( talk) 02:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I don't think Cyberbot II should be doing this sort of thing, especially with a misleading edit summary. Graham 87 15:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm not sure from all the banners above about not being Cyberbot, being busy in RL, etc. whether this is the place to leave some Cyberbot feedback, but the "talk to my owner" link sent me here, so I'll leave it here.
I occasionally review Cyberbot links and usually they are OK. However, I just reviewed the two on the article Greenwich Village and both of them basically just added archived copies of 404 pages. It might be good if there was some sort of compare or go back in time feature for the bot to select an archive, so this doesn't happen, as obviously an archived version of a page saying "404" or "Oops we can't find the page" or whatever is not helpful here. Cheers, TheBlinkster ( talk) 15:22, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help){{
cite news}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help)Came here to say the same thing. An archive copy of a 404 is no better than a live 404. Actually it's worse as the end user doesn't get any visual clue the link will not be there. Palosirkka ( talk) 12:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Is Cyberbot using Internet Archive's "Available" API? If so it would catch these. API results for the above examples returns no page available:
"This API is useful for providing a 404 or other error handler which checks Wayback to see if it has an archived copy ready to display. "
-- Green C 15:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |deadurl=
ignored (|url-status=
suggested) (
help) redirects to a page archive reports 'Page cannot be crawled or displayed due to robots.txt. The API
https://archive.org/wayback/available?url=http://www.boundarycommissionforengland.org.uk/review_areas/downloads/FR_NR_Devon_Plymouth_Torbay.doc gives {"archived_snapshots":{}}This is the actual API command issued by Cyberbot in function isArchived() in API.php:
It returns two characters "[]" which is not valid JSON, but I
verified it's correctly interpreted and sets $this->db->dbValues[$id]['archived'] = 0
. In case it falls through to another function, similar commands in retrieveArchive():
Same results. I can't find anywhere else in the code that downloads data from archive.org and if it's not getting the archive URL from here, then from where? Must be the API. -- Green C 21:08, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I don't know what the expected result should be, but https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sidemount_diving&oldid=707596914 does not seem to have been a useful edit. • • • Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cyberpower678. I have noticed that IABot does not preserve section marks (#) in URLs, e.g. in this edit it did not preserve the "#before", "#f1" and "#after" which are present in the original URLs in the archive URLs. Not sure if this is intentional of not. Regards. DH85868993 ( talk) 06:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I don't know that this was due to the use of "chapter-url", but this edit doesn't seem helpful: the entire citation was reduced to "{{cite}}". Nitpicking polish ( talk) 14:56, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Cyber, there are current over 90,000 pages in Category:Articles with unchecked bot-modified external links and I'm finding that in more than half the cases, you are linking to a webarchive of a soft 404. Because of this, I don't think this bot task is helping, and it's probably best to turn it off until you can find some way to detect this. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 05:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I just did a random check of 10 pages and found Cyberbot correctly archived in 7 cases, and an error with the bot or IA API in 3 cases. The IA API may be at fault here. It's often returning a valid URL when it shouldn't be ( case1, case2, case3). I tend to agree that 90,000 pages will takes many years, if ever, to clean up manually (these are probably articles no one is actively watching/maintaining). (BTW I disagree the bot is "useless", link rot is a semi-manual process to fix and the problem is fiendishly difficult and pressing, there is wide consensus for a solution). -- Green C 15:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
[1] ~ Kvng ( talk) 05:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Cyberpower678. Using
Checklinks I uncovered 11 dead links on the
Whoopi Goldberg article. I was able to find archive versions for 1 of them and "fixed" it. I
tagged 10 as being dead (not fixable by me]. Cyberbot II fixed 7 that I tagged as dead and unfixable. That leaves 3 still broken (reference #30, #72, and #73). I checked them by hand. I also checked them again with Checklinks and Checklinks reported the same 3 as being
dead. How did Cyberbot find those seven archived versions? Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|
Checkingfax}} {
Talk}
06:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello, on the article MythBusters (2013 season), Cyberbot II keeps on trying to "rescue" a source with an archived URL. The archived URL actually is broken (it seems to be an empty page), and does not contain the material that is referenced. I have tried reverting this change, but Cyberbot II keeps on adding the same broken archived URL back. Could you please stop the bot from adding back the archived URL which I keep on trying to revert? Thanks. Secret Agent Julio ( talk) 13:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Secret Agent Julio (alt) ( talk • contribs)
http://404checker.com/404-checker
I ran a test with this URL recently added to Talk:JeemTV by Cyberbot - the 404 checker correctly determines it's a 404. Running IA API results through this might cut down on the number of false positives. I have not done in depth testing. Likely there are other similar tools available. -- Green C 18:03, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Is there any way to direct your bot to a set of articles, like Final Fantasy ones, or the ones of the Wikiproject: Square Enix? It seems like an amazing tool, and would save so much time checking and archiving links for the articles we watch. Let me know if there is a way to request its attention. :) Judgesurreal777 ( talk) 05:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Cyberpower678! I haven't heard from you in awhile, man! What have you been up to? You going MIA on me? :-) ~Oshwah~ (talk) (contribs) 08:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi cyberpower678, I have a problem which you may be able to help me. I have created hundreds of (mostly stub) articles about the minor populated places in Turkey. My main source is Statistical Institute, a reliable governmental Institute. However each year they change their link address and I am forced to change the link accordingly. Finally I quitted and most of the articles are now pointing to dead links. After seeing your (or rather Cyberbot II s) contribution to Karacakılavuz, I realized that even dead links can be retrieved from archives. But I don't know how. Can you please help me ? Thanks Nedim Ardoğa ( talk) 18:45, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
After I spent a day updating a gazillion references on List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, your bot found an archive version of an important reference. Wonderful assistance, many thanks for creating it! — JFG talk 08:33, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
here - there were four, the bot left it with just one. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 23:34, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
<ref>...</ref>
pair. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
10:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
<ref>
calls and just look for uses of {{
Cite}}
? That would eliminate limiting the number of uses of {{
Cite}}
within a <ref> ... </ref>
pair. Just a suggestion, and maybe won't require a rewrite! {{U|D'Ranged 1}}
to reply to me—I'm not watching your talk page due to its high traffic! Thanks!—
D'Ranged 1 |
VTalk :
18:55, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
This edit didn't go so well.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 01:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
template can be removed from the list of citation templates to handle. I simply added all the templates that have a URL parameter. But I may have added some where the sites used are simply impossible to archive and use.—
cyberpower
Chat:Offline
05:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
[3]. When there is more than one citation template in a ref, it deletes all but one of the cites. As a quick fix, due to problems with these cases, can it avoid/skip these cases for the moment? Such as, if there is more than one "http" inside a reference, skip it - it can always come back later when the code is updated to handle multiple refs. Otherwise it seems to be doing some damage. -- Green C 17:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
dead}}
but only fixed one due to multiple cite web templates inside a single ref. --
Green
C
17:56, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
In case anyone noticed this, I am truly sorry. I was doing some controlled tests and clicked the run button without realizing it. Next thing you know Cyberbot was making a mess. You may trout me if you wish. But I am sorry.— cyberpower Chat:Online 00:34, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Smash!
You've been
squished by a whale!
Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know you did something really silly.
As an FYI, other templates that are located between the citation template and the {{ dead link}} get removed when Cyberbot adds the archive link to a reference. See this for example, the {{ self-published source}} template between the cited dead link and the {{ dead link}} was removed; I wouldn't be surprised if other templates get removed upon the bot edit. Thanks — Mr. Matté ( Talk/ Contrib) 17:45, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
|archiveurl=archive.org/web/20050603234403/http://www.grabbys.com/a1.grab.04.5.winners.html
should have been |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20050603234403/http://www.grabbys.com/a1.grab.04.5.winners.html
https://web.
at the front of the url, but probably something work checking / testing.
Thanks for your hard work in cleaning up! Much appreciated!
Please use a notifier such as {{U|D'Ranged 1}}
to reply to me—I'm not watching your talk page due to its high traffic!
Thanks!— D'Ranged 1 | VTalk : 18:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
Seeing 404 problems in archive URLs but not created by Cyberbot, they are older, added by other bots or manual. The problem is this: Wayback will archive any web site that doesn't have a robots.txt disallowing. However, if a website retroactively adds a robot.txt, then Wayback will delete all it's archives(!). This means, yes, dead links to archive.org -- my bot will pick some of these up remove them and adds cbignore, but it's not designed to look at every case nor run continuously like Cyberbot. Something to consider for the future. We will need another bot that is verifying the archive URLs are still active (though it only needs to check occasionally, once a year or something). -- Green C 17:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
In this edit, CYberbot II mangled a ref while fixing a dead link on the ref's cite. Search for Charles Lu. The ref consisted of some intro text followed by a cite like this:
and the bot edit deleted the intro text from the cite. While this style of ref may be unusual I believe it is perfectly acceptable and should not have been mangled. IMO when fixing a dead link contained in a cite template the bot has no business touching anything outside the bounds of the {{cite ...}}.
TuxLibNit ( talk) 21:18, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Isn't the bot supposed to check that the wayback page is valid? All five of these were bad: [8] Kendall-K1 ( talk) 22:08, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
{{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether." Thanks.
Kendall-K1 (
talk)
00:26, 10 March 2016 (UTC)The API is sometimes returning pages blocked by robots (code 403) when using ×tamp. Example from Environmental threats to the Great Barrier Reef:
-- Green C 03:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
thank you for the protection on my proposed article Brandun DeShay ^_^
Yleonmgnt (
talk)
06:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello. With this edit, Cyberbot picked up a dead link from within <!-- --> tags and proceeded to try and fix the associated url. Why it was like that is, the ref went dead, I found an alternative that covered most but not all of the cited content, so added that ref and left the original one commented out together with a note about what wasn't covered by the replacement. I'm wondering whether the bot should in general respect comment tags, or whether that situation's just too unusual to bother about? cheers, Struway2 ( talk) 09:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)