User talk:GreenC/2017

[1] It would help to provide edit summaries when you're adding a bunch of cite templates to the ignore list so suddenly.—CYBERPOWER (Around) 13:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well I had a late night :) But we had just had a discussion on phab, there are edits where these templates caused problems, but in retrospect it may not be the template fault but something else. What do you think?

• [2]
• [3]
• [4]
• [5]
• [6]
• [7]

-- GreenC 15:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm asking why you'd put them in the ignore list and note the cite list.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah that's ok I'm probably misunderstanding how it works. The templates {{cite court}} and {{cite act}} don't support |archiveurl= / |archivedate=. Same with {{Internet}} and {{Website}}. Since they were generating errors I thought it made sense to disable them. What kind of templates should go in the cite list? -- GreenC 17:17, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Generally templates that support the url, accessdate, archivedate, and archiveurl parameters. v1.3 will be disabling the converting and tagging of URLs that are within a template, while still allowing them to be directly replaced with an archive.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 17:56, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Excellent. If possible I'd like to leave a comment in the .js to that effect, so the cfg is self-documenting - would that be possible? JavaScript comments. I don't want to break the parser though if it doesn't expect comments. -- GreenC 18:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't think comments work for the PHP JSON Decoder. When a comment was added by another admin, it broke the bot.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 18:34, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Oh forgot. How about a top-level entry called "documentation:" before "link scan:" with a value of "Documentation for this page at User:InternetArchiveBot/Dead-links.js/doc" -- GreenC 19:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I doubt the page would take it since it's told to only accept JSON.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

It's JSON. Might need to escape some characters not sure. Or if you mean the /doc path it can reside anywhere. -- GreenC 19:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Have you ever considered running for adminship? Pinging User:Ritchie333.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is the same Green Cardamom that's been running that Green C bot I've noticed around the place .... mmm, will have to see how much havoc (if any) that's caused. Firstly, read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates then User:Kudpung/RfA criteria (which is the basic criteria everyone should start off with, though by no means the only one) thoroughly. When you've done that and understand everything in it, pop back and I'll see if you are suitable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

User:Ritchie333, thanks for the offer, I'm going to pass for right now, but will keep it in mind for the future. I probably would do alright no skeletons but no need for access to the toolset at that moment. One day I'd like to create a new tool for admins that functions as a rap sheep for problematic users, searching out and displaying on a single page points of trouble (eg. history of username changes, intersections of those names in SPI, etc..) .. automating some of the techniques admins currently do manually to research editors, but that's down the road, right now doing a lot of work with fixing link rot eg. havoc :) -- GreenC 14:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, that is the wrong answer, an RfA will now be forced on you as punishment. :p—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Re: your compliments on the Hlj user page, you're welcome. Hal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:C200:934D:F14B:A1A3:9F1C:F1AF (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Green Cardamom! I saw you recently edited a page related to the Green party and green politics. There is a new WikiProject that has been formed - WikiProject Green Politics and I thought this might be something you'd be interested in joining! So please head on over to the project page and take a look! Thanks for your time. Me-123567-Me (talk) 21:38, 22 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

WP:ARCHIVEIS usually gives users a short URL to its archives, but like WebCite, there is actually a "full form" URL available as given in its FAQ. Such "full form" URLs are required by an Rfc.

A quick way to obtain a "full URL" from a short one can be:

1. Fetch the short URL.
2. Let dom be the fetched DOM tree.
3. Let rel be the result of running the selector head > link[rel=bookmark].
4. Return the "href" property of rel. Optionally replace "archive.today" with the site name found in the initial URL.

--Artoria2e5 contrib 16:10, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, good idea. I tried and it worked, dom tree is better than web scraping. Yes replacing archive.today with the original is good too. Currently the bot adds long-form for Webcitation.org but not archive.is .. should be easy to adapt the bot's webcite module for archive.is -- GreenC 16:50, 3 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Green Cardamom: Found a caveat with the "bookmark" rel: instead of giving an https protocol as enforced by its archive.is redirection (yes, they do a redirection back…), the rel gives an http link. Shouldn't be hard to work around, I guess. (PS: While http://archive.today takes you to https://archive.is, http://archive.is redirects to https://archive.fo. Weird.) --Artoria2e5 contrib 02:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Will there be a bot that will convert all existing usage of "Wayback" to the new "Webarchive"? I'm happy to switch to using the "Webarchive" template but it would be a lot of work going back and correcting existing/original usage. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:20, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're timing is excellent because the {{wayback}} merge completed last night. It was a module of WaybackMedic and converted about 126k plus {{webcite}} and {{cite archives}}. -- GreenC 15:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Until the template is red-linked (soon) it displays this if it's used:

{{wayback|url=http://wikipedia.org|title=Stuff|date=2017-02-05}}

-- GreenC 15:34, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Great! Thanks for the info! WhisperToMe (talk) 15:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

In case you didn't see it, there was a message for you at TFD. I deleted it since it's been a week, but here's an old version with it. Primefac (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ahh I thought you meant delete/merge any new instances of the template. -- GreenC 18:55, 9 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

It seems like your bot is not converting HTTP→HTTPS for Wayback Machine (anymore?). Did you turn that feature off? If so, should I let my bot do these conversions? --bender235 (talk) 17:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

InternetArchiveBot does it.—CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 17:44, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Is it still running? Doesn't appear so. --bender235 (talk) 17:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Bender235: Please see this.—CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 18:03, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

I noticed. So is HTTP→HTTPS for Wayback Machine still a feature of IAbot? --bender235 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes. All Wayback HTTP links are flagged as invalid and get forcibly converted to HTTPS.—CYBERPOWER (Be my Valentine) 18:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

That was a special case where it moved the URL from one argument to another and it bypassed the normal routine that would have normalized the URL. It is an oversight and I'll fix it. -- GreenC 19:21, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Great. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 22:19, 13 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Does the guide here still work? Wikipedia:Newspaper search engines by country or do you recommend a new method. All the ones listed are 404. Is that just because the Drive folders are no longer public?—አቤል ዳዊት^?(Janweh64) (talk) 05:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi (Janweh64), it appears Google Drive, Docs and Sites no longer work with the CSE. I've update the instructions and included the HTML source for the three engines I created. The one for India was created by someone else so don't have the info for it. -- GreenC 16:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Reply

There is no evidence that Stanley was a "pathological brute" or a "historical monster" (that is clear to anyone who ever read Jeal's book) so why does those claims have to be repeated in Tim Jeal? Can we at least have constructive criticism only please?1982vdven (talk) 02:52, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Follow up on the article talk page. -- GreenC 15:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there. I'm messaging you regarding this edit [8] by GreenC bot. Can you explain to me what is wrong with using the short URL from archive.is as opposed to the long one? I only ask as I've only ever added the short URLs (I must have manually added hundreds to articles) and now i'm worried I've done something wrong. Freikorp (talk) 12:54, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

See Wikipedia:Using_archive.is#Use_within_Wikipedia and the linked RfC for more info. Don't worry about adding short form, the bots should eventually take care of it. Best practice is long form though. Wikipedia has a policy against link shortening services, they can hide malicious links and some other problems. -- GreenC 13:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for clearing that up. :) Freikorp (talk) 13:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Could you explain why GreenC bot replaced an archive.is link with one from archive.org, here? This after InternetArchiveBot rendered the link thus. Thank you. -- Ham105 (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

It thought the archive.is link was a soft 404. Archive.is has a problem with many soft 404s in their database which makes it unusable for bots trying to add or maintain links. So I developed an algo that aggressively checks and filters them - the downside sometimes it gets false positives like this case. The upside it's able to add many archive.is links that before it wasn't able. So it's a fine balance and I keep fine tuning the algo. In this case I see way to improve it. -- GreenC 21:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The error I see is that archive.is does not support https <This site can’t provide a secure connection archive.today uses an unsupported protocol. ERR_SSL_VERSION_OR_CIPHER_MISMATCH> after InternetArchiveBot changed it from http (the original http link worked okay - and still does). Bots editing the edits of other bots. -- Ham105 (talk) 00:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The https link works for me (Firefox Win7) .. it doesn't work for you? I see a locked padlock next the URL bar meaning it's secure. It's possible archive.today doesn't support https. -- GreenC 00:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Works for me too. I only convert to HTTPS on sites that support it.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 00:50, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The link works for me on firefox as well. Must be an issue with my instance of Chrome rather than some universal problem. Green C, what are the bot's statistics on these link swapouts? How many archive.is links has your bot replaced with archive.org links, and how many has the bot encountered (since the first was swapped) and left unchanged? -- Ham105 (talk) 06:14, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

It could also be a configuration problem at archive.is ... might be worth tracking down why it failed in Chrome in case there is a bigger problem at archive.is. In terms of changes, that's a good question. In the last batch of 10k articles it found 77 preexisting archive.is links. Of those 14 were considered inoperable by the bot and, after manually checking them, 8 are false positives ie. they actually are good links. The upside is the bot added 1,347 new archive.is links, which it couldn't have done without this algo and for which no other archives are available. I'll check those 8 and see why the algo thought they were bad and try to tune it. -- GreenC 14:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for looking at the issue. -- Ham105 (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The solution implemented: if the link is already on Wikipedia, likely it's a good link so the algo will be in "easy" mode with basic filtering rules. If the link is sourced to an external API as a candidate for inclusion, the algo will be in "strict" mode with additional filtering rules. This will err on the side of good faith for existing links and more verification for new links. It worked for all but 1 link. -- GreenC 02:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi GreenC, thanks for your earlier replies and fine tuning to —at least on my reading of your summary— effectively give the original human editor some priority. I do recognise the usefulness of your bot in maintaining these links. As an editor using archives heavily, I'm also interested in seeing the process improved where it can be. So, checking my watchlist today has prompted me to raise another query.

• The recent Green C bot edit here added an archive link on Sydney University at line 141.
• However the previous edit by Green C bot here on 15 September 2016 removed the original archive link for the same citation (then at line 139), ...
• ... as well as another on NSW Rugby History, here (then at line 148).
• All archive links I refer to this time are from the the Wayback Machine (archive.org).

Even though the link added by Green C bot for the Sydney University citation is a more recent capture, it is an inferior version (format-wise and as a reproduction of the orginal web page) compared to the one originally included. The NSW Rugby History citation now has no archive url at all, although the link originally included is still viable. So my query is fourfold:

1. Does archive.org also suffer from soft 404s (or, if not some intermittent error, why were the url's deleted on 15 September)?
2. Is there a reason an archive url was then restored on 26 March for one of the two instances above, but not the other?
3. In cases where there are multiple captures of an archived webpage, how does the bot decide which capture date to use?
4. Can a case be made, for instances where links are being deleted, to change to a two-stage process? Perhaps instead of deleting or subtituting the archived link, a parameter with an error code might be added instead. The page could be scanned again at a later date (and if the same issue is still found) then the deletion or substitution made. Using an error code would at least provide some transparency to human editors as to why the bot is making deletions, even after the event.

Thank you -- Ham105 (talk) 03:13, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

The bot keeps detailed records. In the case of saintsandheathens.wordpress.com on Sept 15 the link didn't exist at Wayback. This was checked by 2 API requests, and verified by header checks (physically attempting to access the page) - plus lots of timeouts and retries. Since that version of the bot, I've added a new recheck step in the process so there is about a 24hr delay before it finally decides a link is dead. The error code idea is interesting and I will consider it.. transparency and seeing progressive checks is useful though it adds a lot of minor page edits. It could be tracked offline too. Archive.org has some soft404s which the bot checks for, but not nearly as bad as archive.is where every page is header status 200 .. The snapshot date is what the API says is the best available for the date requested (I think it checks access-date first then date). -- GreenC 05:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the data from the March 26 edit for saintsandheathens.wordpress.com it was a difficult case for the bot to find the link. The API is still saying the link doesn't exist, so it went through a long process of trying different things before it finally found a snapshot. This is new code and why the Sept 15 run didn't find it but the March run did. Similar problem with sydneywomensrugby.rugby.net.au .. it found it but not easily, using the new code. As for saintsandheathens.wordpress.com/states/nsw-waratahs/ it didn't get processed on March 26 because there is no {{dead link}} tag which the Sept. 15 run didn't leave because it thought the source link was still live (dead-url was set to "no"). -- GreenC 05:17, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

Your edit in List of TCP and UDP port numbers article created some referencing errors.

• Reference 107 (port 1207): Error: If you specify |archivedate=, you must first specify |url=. I don't expect this to be changed, since |url= is generated from the other parameters such as |rfc=. This template ignoring the existence of |rfc= is a bug, of course.
• Reference 221 (port 7542): |deadurl=no is ignored. This is also a bug.

This has previously been explained in Special:Diff/772452835 among a few other Template:Cite IETF bug workarounds in the article's edit summary history.

I'd like to see Template:Cite IETF documentation and parameters get fixed. Alternatively I'd like to see it deprecated in favor of Template:Cite web, but for now I'll keep using Template:Cite IETF as it seems to be more semantic. 80.221.152.17 (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I guess a workaround is to use the standalone archive template {{webarchive}}. Since {{Cite IETF}} is only used in 181 articles and programming a fix for it will be difficult I'll tell my bot to ignore the template for now. -- GreenC 14:19, 13 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I am looking for someone to run Wayback Medic on zhwp, but it seems that the current source code published on GitHub does not include the newer fixes. Could you please update the source code on GitHub to include the latest fixes? --Artoria2e5 contrib 15:18, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Why is WaybackMedic needed there? It's a cleanup bot. @GreenC or is it as evolved as IABot?—CYBERPOWER (Around) 20:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Cyberpower678, well functionally Medic can do almost the same (with fewer bugs hmm!) and actually can save links IABot is unable (example page previously edited by IABot). However, it doesn't have a dead link checker or interface for manual runs. With that said, the bots are completely different design. The data source for IABot is the API and database. Medic's source is real time page checks and algorithms. The approaches have pros and cons. IABot is best for initial and ongoing coverage while Medic is good for occasional runs.

Artoria, the code is not ready for release. It's different from what's on GitHub and needs work to organize and document. I would suggest working with Cyberpower678 to implement IABot. It appears ZH uses the English-language {{cite web}} which will make it much easier, particularly if you can also carry over {{webarchive}}. -- GreenC 23:58, 21 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Green Cardamom this edit resulted in an un-named reference in the list defined section. I noticed that the url in that ref provides the pdf directly and wondered if that would circumnavigate the Museum’s license agreement. If you scroll down here you will see what I mean. Regards CV9933 (talk) 16:15, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

I don't know how to fix the named ref in this case can you help? Arguments in cite webs should almost never be commented out inside the template itself, it can cause havoc with bots. Options include: make a separate ref, use {{webarchive}} with |format=addlarchives, move the comment outside the citation, delete the citation (optionally moved to the talk page). If linking to the PDF violates the terms of use, maybe just delete the cite. -- GreenC 16:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

On closer inspection it is a duplicate ref anyway so I just removed it. Regards CV9933 (talk) 18:00, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the edit broke two working links; Webcitation.org and screenonline which I fixed. If you see the talkpage you can see that 2 of the 3 fixed links in the section today do not work. I've seen it several times that the bot is breaking working links to Webcitation.org and to some other sites, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:57, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

All of the links are working now Atlantic306 (talk) 15:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok thanks for updating everything. -- GreenC 15:29, 30 April 2017 (UTC)Reply

The robot editor (which probably is controlled by you) has removed several good archived sources and falsely taged a source as dead from the Castellania (Valletta) article. Can you help prevent similar intervention and restore the edits? Thanks.Continentaleurope (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC) Continentaleurope (talk) 01:30, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The bot didn't "remove several good archived sources", all the links are dead there is nothing to restore. That dead tag was a mistake. -- GreenC 02:03, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I assume most of the inoperable links were added by yourself and since the links worked at one time you assume they still do, and didn't check to see if they are still working (which they are not). There is WP:link rot at Wayback, and all archive services. It's recommended to use at least 2 archive services using the {{webarchive}} template with the |addlarchives= argument. It can hold up to 10 links. -- GreenC 02:12, 2 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Can you work your magic at Daria? Cyberbot II gave it a try but just made a lot of links to archived domain parking pages. I can't even undo the damage because of intervening edits. Kendall-K1 (talk) 12:25, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

WaybackMedic processed the page recently and found no changes. The problem is they are soft 404. IABot leaves a notice on the talk page to verify links and has an online web tool to update the link status so it knows it's soft404. It's unfortunately a combination of factors that make it impossible for a bot to know the link is dead. You could leave cbignore and/or update the IABot database so it doesn't make the same mistake in other articles containing the same links. -- GreenC 14:38, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok, thanks. I did undo some of them and left cbignores, although I've been yelled at in the past for doing that. I was hoping WaybackMedic might have some secret way of finding the correct archive version, but of course it's possible none of them are correct. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi Kendall-K1 .. WaybackMedic will find other archives, but first choice is internet archive and it thinks they are "working" (due to soft-404). There is an alternative, outpost-daria.com is avilable at archive.is example. -- GreenC 01:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah but I'm way too lazy to fix all of them manually. Kendall-K1 (talk) 01:18, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Ok I did some magic and added a temporary bypass in the code so it would skip wayback and go to alt archives and it seemed to work. -- GreenC 02:35, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

The problem is that those newly "fixed" links don't work. Me-123567-Me (talk) 15:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Me-123567-Me - can you provide an example? They all work :) -- GreenC 15:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

I can. From here - [9]. Me-123567-Me (talk) 02:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

You're saying this works but this doesn't work? It's actually technically impossible on the Webcite end. Does this work? Notice the "?url" can contain anything or nothing at all and it still works. -- GreenC 04:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is just regarding the Copyright status of the 1976 film Embryo. The discussion thread on Talk:List of films in the public domain in the United States has been archived, but I was wondering if you had made any further attempt to sort out just whether or not the film was in the public domain and, if so what the result was. Graham1973 (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sorry I don't know anything new. Not sure the article should assert an editorial conjecture about legal copyright status without a source. -- GreenC 13:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

If that line was added to a quote it definitely should be deleted. Thanks for doing so. Sorry I reverted. Editor2020 (talk) 22:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I hope that you can help. I work for the Foundation that now run the Little Chapel in Guernsey.

There are some inaccuracies in the Wikipedia entry for the Little Chapel and you are listed as being the contributor.

The Chapel is not consecrated and is interdenominational. It does not form part of the list of Catholic Churches in Guernsey.

How do we go about getting this anomaly corrected?

Many thanks.

socialmedia@thelittlechapel.gg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Little Chapel Foundation (talk • contribs) 17:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Done, I hope it sticks. It would help if your English-language website thelittlechapel.gg was more direct saying that it is not recognized by the Catholic Church and interdenominational. -- GreenC 18:19, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

Four new vanity award articles now (and a category), the latest being Business Initiative Directions. There's no telling how many of these "awards" there might be, and key will be finding critical commentary in reliable sources. I will keep going. Edwardx (talk) 01:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I've been watching (and adding to watchlist). It's good, and important work. -- GreenC 04:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I was inspired by your work on vanity award, and the Times and Daily Mail articles on EBA earlier this week. Say what you like about the Mail, but there's no paywall, just the right-hand clickbait wall to negotiate. And the photos are amusing: Ukrainian businessmen trade on reputation of Oxford University to make millions selling 'fake' honours and awards. First ventured into this sort of thing back in December 2012, when I started editing Monde Selection. I'm still pleased with the two-paragraph lead, which provides a decent enough intro into how such pay-to-play awards operate. Founded in 1961, they may have been one of the first such food and drink awards, but not quite pure vanity awards, I think. Edwardx (talk) 11:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)Reply

I was wondering if the "fee-for-review" section on the vanity award should be moved to its own page? While there is crossover between some fee-for-review companies and vanity awards (Pacific Book Review and Forward Reviews offer both), they aren't directly related. BookReviewer (talk) 19:54, 10 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Might be difficult to get enough sourcing to justify a standalone article for notability/afd. Maybe keep them together and when enough builds up split. They are sort of related but I understand what you're saying. -- GreenC 01:00, 11 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 4 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

When you posted an edit-warring warning to User talk:FernandoSantiago, did you notice that I had already posted the somewhat milder {{uw-ewsoft}} to the same page, and there there had been no further reverts by FernandoSantiago since that warning? Repeated warnings for the same events violate WP:BITE, please check in future. Also, you forgot to sign your warning. I have done so on your behalf. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:47, 16 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Good thing you left a warning. I had not noticed, only saw that 4 reverts had been made and there was no 3RR notice. Guess I should look more carefully next time. -- GreenC 00:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi GreenC. Thanks for your fabulous bot. I wonder if you could join the discussion at User_talk:Dank#Dead_links Many thanks. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:13, 17 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/FARotBot as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT⚡ 15:58, 25 August 2017 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.Reply

Congrats on the approval. Need some help with documentation or anything else not technical? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 12:58, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes. Maybe a section at User:FA RotBot about who and where to contact for support since there are three entities - the rotbot, iabot and FA coordinators. The software is taking longer than expected due to some things outside my control but hopefully by the weekend it will be on trial run. -- GreenC 13:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Cool. I'll do some typing. Correct any mistakes I make, please! --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:05, 30 August 2017 (UTC)Reply

Integrating Lady in Cement into the cement shoes article was a good idea - much better that way. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello! Would you be able to explain how you were able to pull this information? I have used the AWB database scanner, but it seems lacking sometimes. Thanks! – Nihlus (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yeah the AWB scanner is slow. I wrote a unix command line tool Wikiget. The command for namespace 2 would be:

./wikiget -a 'insource:/dispenser[.]homenet[.]org/' -n 2

... it outputs a list of article titles. It's very fast as it uses the API. -- GreenC 15:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's awesome. I don't have much experience with running stuff like this out of a Windows environment, but it never hurts to learn. Thanks! – Nihlus (talk) 16:17, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Try cygwin .. since wikiget is a simple awk script it should just work. -- GreenC 16:46, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nihlus, try this:

• chmod 755 wikiget.awk (sets permissions to executable)
• ln -s wikiget.awk wikiget (make a symlink so it's easier to type the name without the .awk)
• which gawk (note the path location of GNU awk on your system)
• nano -w wikiget (edit the file -w means no line-wrap)
  • change the first line to the path noted above
• ./wikiget -h (should display help screen)

-- GreenC 18:15, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I guess my issue is where to place the wikiget.awk file and gawk installation. Cygwin wants to default to /home/USERNAME. So I have /home/USERNAME/.local/bin, /usr/local/bin, /usr/bin, and /bin (technically prefixed C:\cygwin). 'which gawk' comes out to /usr/bin/gawk, but there is nothing there...? Thanks again for the help. – Nihlus (talk) 18:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The wikiget.awk I just put in my home directory /home/USERNAME and cd there to run it with a ./wikiget (dot-slash beforehand) .. could try in a system location like /usr/local/bin it should work, I haven't tried that but don't see why not. Try running /usr/bin/gawk --version should report 4.1+ ? -- GreenC 18:32, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Whenever I try to run something with ./wikiget I get an error: Abort: unable to find wget, curl or lynx in PATH. Manually set a location for one of these in function http2var(). Any ideas? – Nihlus (talk) 18:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

That's good it means wikiget is running. I assume it is cygwin? Normally wget, curl or lynx are installed in /usr/bin .. none are there? Try 'ls -l /ust/bin/wget' or 'which wget' see if anything returns. -- GreenC 19:52, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

That seems to have been the problem, as I was able to get it to work. I just left those out when I installed it for some reason. Thanks again for the help and for the tool! It's a lot faster than AWB. – Nihlus (talk) 20:03, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Great! -- GreenC 20:07, 1 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Nihlus, looks like the 'wikiget -a' feature max's out at 10000 results due to an undocumented limit in the API I didn't know about. Phab T177270. Wanted to let you know in case you need > 10000. Updated the script so it gives a warning about it. -- GreenC 14:19, 3 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Diff: the old archive link still works (and probably should not be expected to fail), but was updated to another archived date. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 22:38, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

20140708062559 is a redirect to 20140709050337 so it removed the redirect. What can happen is the redirect then redirects somewhere else and then things can get fubar. Wouldn't assume Wayback links don't fail, they change and fail all the time, though at a rate less than 5% overall. -- GreenC 23:15, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the explanation, —PaleoNeonate – 23:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry for giving you that dumb warning yesterday. L3X1 (distænt write) 17:57, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Not a problem, vandal hunting friendly fire it happens -- GreenC 20:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article RBMedia is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RBMedia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- HighKing⁺⁺ 18:46, 22 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

A tag has been placed on Kai the Hatchet-Wielding Hitchhiker, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion discussion, such as at Articles for Deletion. When a page has substantially identical content to that of a page deleted after a discusion, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Hi - I'm actually the person who created the article the first time around, under the name Caleb Lawrence McGillvary. When the page made it through the first AfD there was expectation that a trial would be quickly forthcoming and that notability wouldn't be an issue. However because Kai isn't an American citizen, this process has taken far longer than we were expecting. Per WP:CRIME, articles should typically not be created for people accused of a crime until after a court decision has been made and even then, only if the court case has received a lot of in-depth, long term coverage. In Kai's case the news coverage was fairly limited, as he really only received coverage just around the time the accusations were made. After that, the coverage was pretty much just local, which tends to be greatly depreciated on Wikipedia because it's considered to be local interest in most situations. Even then, this coverage was very light, which cast doubt on whether or not the coverage surrounding the alleged murder would be usable. As time progressed I began to be more concerned with coverage and began to see where the article's critics were coming from. As far as his fame from the video goes, that's considered to be WP:BLP1E on Wikipedia unless we could show where the coverage for the event continued on long after the initial video. Since we can't really use the murder allegations coverage per se, that doesn't really leave anything we can use since coverage for Kai was kind of a flash in the pan deal typical of most media coverage, unfortunately. If the coverage of the murder allegations was very heavy and enduring then it may have been different, but it hasn't been.

Basically, I don't think that the article will pass notability guidelines until he formally goes to trial for murder and receives a court decision, upon which point I fully believe that he will pass notability guidelines. Until then he just doesn't pass notability guidelines, which is why I've nominated the article for deletion. Granted, this is about the video but the article I'd had about Kai was fairly extensive and covered the video. If you want, I can ask if the closing admin (Sarahj2107) to send you a copy of my version of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 16:52, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Tokyogirl79 and User:CactusWriter: the article is about the viral video, not Kai, it's not a BLP or recreation of a previous topic. This is an entirely different article, approach and topic than the previous bio. I'd also point to the huge traffic count of the article, if the viral video is not a notable topic why are so many users visiting? We have 100s of viral video articles many much less developed than this one which is well sourced to a large diversity of national-level reliable sources, it easily passes WP:GNG. Finally why was it so speedily deleted without an opportunity for explanation. -- GreenC 17:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Notability is based on topic. The topic of the new article is a viral video -- BLP1E does not apply. The new article contains some biographical details due to some overlap of the video and real life, and those details are governed by BLP, but the topic of the article is of a video and not a person. The previous AfD had different arguments and guidelines that don't apply to the new article. Viral videos are "one event" by their nature. For example Chewbacca Mask Lady is about the video not Candace Payne the Texas housewife. -- GreenC 17:34, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, GreenC. First, please note that Speedy Deletion is just that -- speedy -- and does not require any discussion nor opportunity for explanation. OTOH, you make a good point about the overall focus of the article directed at the video rather than the individual. The original article was more extensive and contained all the references used in your version (and many more), except for the 2016 Vocativ article -- and it was decided to be a BLP violation at that time. (Our BLP rules apply across any page in Wikipedia regardless of topic or placement.) However, given the complicated nature of that second AFD nomination and the unanimous keep votes at the first AFD, I think the topic could use one more complete discussion. I have no problem with restoring the article, allowing Tokyogirl79 to bring it to AFD if should she choose. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 18:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. FYI WP:BLP1E only applies to people articles (topics). "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met". The article title is a proper noun, the title of the video. It's an article on a video, not a person. -- GreenC 18:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

BLP1E was the issue during the 1st AFD which resulted in keep; whereas during the 2nd AFD discussion, the issue was WP:BLP and WP:BLPCRIME, in particular -- which applies for any subject on any page. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 20:54, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The viral video is notable by any measure of GNG - substantial lasting coverage in diverse national sources. The video later played a small part in a crime. If that crime is included in the article I believe is a talk page discussion but not a rationale for AfD, since the article is about a video that went viral before the crime was committed. At some point the two things - the viral video and the crime - became intertwined in the press even though they were discrete events. -- GreenC 21:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

• Eh, I'm not going to bring it to AfD. Mostly I'd seen it and figured that I'd tag it w/ a speedy template and see if others felt it would be too similar. My concern with this is mostly that if the article is recreated too soon, it'll be that much harder to create the article successfully later on down the line. My concern is basically that if it does get nominated for AfD, it'll likely get deleted on the basis of the prior AfD since there's really nothing different since that last article. A little local coverage, but that's about it. I think the only non-local coverage was from Vice, but that's not considered to be a RS on Wikipedia because their stuff is considered to be gonzo journalism. Pretty much all of the coverage he's getting now is because of the murder charges. They'll mention the video, but the focus isn't really on the video anymore and that's something that will weaken a lot of the coverage that's out there past the initial burst. That said, if you do restore it CactusWriter, do you think that it would be OK to restore the history of my deleted version so that Green could pull things from that if they wanted? I've pinged Sarahj2107, but I don't see where she's responded any. She hasn't really been active since July and she was sort of sporadic before that, so I don't really know that she would respond. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:32, 25 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Tokyogirl79. I considered a history merge of the two articles but decided against it. As you know, your original article was focused almost entirely on the individual (the intro, his background, details of the "Fresno Incident" not included in the video, subsequent crime and disputes, etc.). Because of that, you opened an AFD and there was consensus to delete it as a BLP violation. WP:BLPRESTORE states that deleted BLPs can be reviewed on a case-by-case basis and restored if the issues have been resolved. However, I think those same issues will still exist, regardless if the edits are buried in the history. I can't find a good reason to merge those edits into this separate article about the video. The only things that GreenC can pull from it might cause his article to run afoul of BLP criteria. Now, should there be subsequent coverage about a trial and conviction, then I think the BLP issue would be resolved and recreation of your article would be appropriate -- which was your argument all along. Then I could see a discussion about merging two articles which would include a history merge. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 16:16, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

The sources are mostly national. Of 9 sources 6 are national and 3 local. I've seen the original article. It's a good article and hopefully it can be restored eventually. There are some details about the Fresno incident that could be added to the current article. If the original article is ever restored I would consider redirect the video article. -- GreenC 16:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

You may want to look at https://tools.wmflabs.org/iabot/index.php?fpreport%5B%5D=report&page=metalogs&username=GreenC+bot —CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 16:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well that's pretty useful. Surprised it's so few, actually. Like with the first one in this edit (line 455) it was caused by a soft-404 Medic couldn't detect. Need to add a way to make sure a .pdf is actually a pdf. -- GreenC 16:24, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Well actually all of those redirect to the home page. IABot detects links are dead if they redirect from a content page to the root page.—CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 17:28, 29 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

@Cyberpower678:

• 1. This was a hard to track down but easy fix bug with combo of redirected archive page and conversion of %20 -> %2B in URL.
• 2. Can't find where GreenC bot made an edit related to this URL
• 3. Old issue related to archiveurl when commented out
• 4. Related to this edit? [10]
• 5. Can't find where GreenC bot made an edit related to this URL -- GreenC 01:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply
  • 2. Was triggered by this edit.
  • 4. Yes.
  • 5. Was triggered by this edit.—CYBERPOWER (Trick or Treat) 01:30, 30 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Removing stray |deadurl= args is the right action. Looks like old bugs in CyberbotII, like in this edit. The other one (5) is the same bug as (1) having to do with conversion of %20 -> %2B and not following redirects. -- GreenC 16:24, 31 October 2017 (UTC)Reply

Please be aware that your signature uses deprecated <font> tags, which are causing Obsolete HTML tags lint errors.

You are encouraged to change

-- [[User:GreenC|<font color="#006A4E">'''Green'''</font>]][[User_talk:GreenC|<font color="#009933">'''C'''</font>]] → -- GreenC

to

-- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User_talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #009933;">'''C'''</span>]] → -- GreenC

Respectfully, Anomalocaris (talk) 19:54, 22 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

  Done -- GreenC 17:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! —Anomalocaris (talk) 21:23, 26 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

... would you mind removing the grocers apostrophe from after the creation of a Wikipedia article about a publicly traded company, it's stock price drops, or may I do it?

But I'm fascinated by the research you cite. You seem to have some similar concerns to myself. I'm in fact working on a user essay the senility of Wikipedia based on some of my recent personal experiences! Andrewa (talk) 10:20, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Sure. Sounds interesting, the senility of Wikipedia, like how some users are like ghosts whose actions are quickly forgotten and they continue to be granted/voted into positions of authority? -- GreenC 14:01, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm still working out what is going on and whether there is anything that can be done, or whether it's just inevitable, like the overhead involved in a big organisation such as the finance institutions for which I used to work, the Peter Principle etc., or like human aging.

But it's a great pity IMO that some admins regularly and unrepentantly violate both the spirit and letter of WP:NPA, and a greater pity that they do so without criticism. NPA, like wp:consensus, is quite radical and refreshing IMO, and I don't think you can have one without the other. The key here is respect, which brings us to wp:AGF of course but I can't see a direct connection. And the solution if there is one is not enforcement of the civility guidelines, which is impractical, counter to the spirit of the 5P, and probably counterproductive. And NPA is a very different concept to mere civility.

I think this is related to changes in the way we see adminship. It has become a big thing despite Jimbo's intentions. The result is that we're getting a poorer quality of admin now, exactly the reverse of the intention of the stricter selection process. It's not that any particular admin is bad, it's more a spectrum thing, we are tending to select more people who are good with words (it would be interesting to see how many are actually lawyers and whether the percentage is increasing) and who like the power. Neither of these is as good a selection criterion as a track record demonstrating commitment to the 5P, which in practice was the main previous criterion.

The community health initiative is interesting, but the focus on better supporting admins is completely off track if I'm right. The problem is more the admins who are using (or failing to use) the tools we have! Andrewa (talk) 18:34, 30 November 2017 (UTC)Reply

Yes Wikipedia is unique in how groups can work together with civility. It's an aspiration, never perfect in practice, but magnitudes better than most other places online. The policies, guidelines and essays of Wikipedia are one its greatest resources, nothing else like it exists. The Notability guidelines alone are remarkable. The whole issue of classes of users in a system of peers is a great contradiction, a dangerous fault-line but also one that might be overcome if the bad guys don't take over the system from the inside. Protecting the 5Ps and institutions like ArbCom is key. Also need a press to report on high-profile users in positions of authority. Certain users need more public attention about their behavior and histories. -- GreenC 02:17, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

NPA is rather different to civility. There's nothing incisive or radical about a civility guideline, all Internet groups I've had much to do with (and there have been many over the years) have had one. But NPA goes a long way beyond civility. Wikipedia is the first place I've seen it formalised, but on reflection it's a key to the way successful consensus facilitators work.

The other observation I have to make is that ARBCOM may not be a good solution. It may actually be part of the problem as both symptom and cause. Meatball:DefendEachOther is the other way. Andrewa (talk) 20:21, 1 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Happy to provide you with emails for better context around this issue. I don't very well know how to use this website and there's no contact forms I can see. How should I proceed? ElissaSursara (talk) 23:49, 7 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

"Email this user" in the tools box on the left side. Thanks. But I'm afraid your account was suspended so I'm not sure you would be able. In any case, it looks the article will be deleted soon. I fought to save it for 4 years. -- GreenC 00:44, 8 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 24 December 2017 (UTC)Reply

– Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.

GreenC bot's on the verge of getting added to WP:LAME :-) Please see WP:ANI#Slow-burn bot wars. Nyttend (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I initially read this as a somewhat-off-the-mark reference to my general query thread on VPM. I seriously had no idea what they were about and if I was just going insance thinking it looked like a canvassing forum, until others agreed with me.

If you meant to indicate you are buying into the conspiracy theory some of the project's members have apparently been building up about me, I have to say I'm a little surprised, given that to the best of my recollection our past interactions consisted mainly of you and me both gunning for the deletion of the same articles. My still kinda-sorta ongoing proposal (at the time you wrote that, though not now) was not concerned with closing the project but slightly limiting its potential for abuse. As I said at the top of that VPM thread, I get the idea of pushing to fix the problems of articles that are currently at AFD in theory, but the problem is that it seems, in reality, to primarily primarily allow editors canvas AFD discussions and then not do anything to fix the articles; this is actually completely in line with the stated goals and code of conduct of the project. (The fact that the project is apparently inhabited by a lot of people who fling personal attacks and accusations of bad faith at the drop of a hat is really irrelevant, since I know editors in some of my favourite WikiProjects who would also fit that description.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:22, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Sorry Hijiri88 it was not personally directed at you or anything. Yeah I can see some of your points do make sense. If the idea is to reform ARS why was the discussion started at VPM and not on the ARS talk page? That would be the best place to start working with the ARS, instead of not informing ARS of the VPM discussion which gives a suspicious appearance like trying to gather outside non-ARS support. Maybe there are some difficult members of ARS I don't know the circumstances. -- GreenC 17:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Oh I see now there was an RfC on the ARS talk page - I missed it but saw the VPM discussion so was confused. Now makes more sense. -- GreenC 19:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

The original idea was not to reform ARS, but to simply ask what its purpose was. The project has a stated purpose, but it didn't seem to be getting used for that purpose. I went to VPM because the project talk page hadn't been edited in more than a month and had only been edited seven times in the last seventeen month (excluding archive bots). I was wondering if anyone had actually seen them do what their code of conduct and stated raison d'etre claimed, and after several days of people on all sides attacking me and accusing me of trying to stir the pot etc. I still have not got an answer, at least on-wiki. An off-wiki voice did clarify what was actually going on, so I think we're all done. I'll go back to very occasionally chiming in on AFD and otherwise not giving a hoot about "deletionists" and "inclusionists", and when I see an article on a topic like mottainai I'll just suggest on the talk page and maybe a WikiProject or two merging the not-WP:NOT material into another article like Wangari Maathai or the as-yet non-existent Akira Yamaguchi (businessman) and moving the rest (or at least what can be verified) over to Wiktionary. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:19, 12 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I mentioned Template:Books and Writers and User:GreenC/kirjasto.sci.fi in this comment at an AN thread which arose from an issue with the Olavi Paavolainen article that was raised at User talk:Dr. Blofeld#Copyright problem: Olavi Paavolainen (permalink). Would you be able to add to the discussions? Carcharoth (talk) 11:27, 3 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Carcharoth: Replying from a temporary account.. the Books and Writers site is back online at a new domain.[11] The Finnish BY-NC-ND is significant as it allows for making the GitHub archive which contains some entries from the old site not on the new. But you are right it does now allow for a copying the text into Wikipedia. If you need anything else let me know, GreenC -- GreenC2.0 (talk) 20:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for explaining and confirming that. I do have a related question, more based on what you did at User:GreenC/kirjasto.sci.fi. I am currently slowly working through a set of links from a website (in this case the Commonwealth War Graves Commission) and trying to replace links with two templates set up for the purpose. I'll explain further in a new section. Carcharoth (talk) 11:44, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

(When you have time, no rush.) Following on from the above (related to the AWB edits described at User:GreenC/kirjasto.sci.fi), would you be able to give advice on how best to approach dealing with using AWB to replace casualty and cemetery links to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission (CWGC) website with these two templates: {{CWGC}} and {{CWGC cemetery}}? Not all the pages on Wikipedia that could or should have such links have them yet, but many do (several thousands). Some of the background, including this bot request to fix broken links, can be seen here. That should be enough to see what I am asking about (but please ask if anything is not clear). On the talk page of that userspace page, I am (slowly!) sorting through the pages and becoming more familiar with the groupings and types of pages. But ultimately I'd like to semi-automate the addition of references - the main stumbling block being using the form of the names as given at the CWGC site. But maybe there are ways to extract the data and use for the parameters for the template. I can probably do that, but it is using AWB that is a bit of a stumbling block. Would you be able to give any advice on all this? Hmm. I have just noticed that User:Bamyers99 is doing a lot of edits on Wikidata relating to this. Maybe they can help (I have pinged them and will drop a note on their talk page). I should maybe move this discussion to the talk page of one of the templates? Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

@Carcharoth: - looking at an example article it contains the citation

<ref name="CWGC">{{cite web | url=http://www.cwgc.org/find-war-dead/casualty/100376/ROBERTS,%20FRANCIS%20BERNARD | title=Francis Bernard Roberts | publisher=Commonwealth Graves Commission | accessdate=21 June 2014}}</ref>

Normally this would be the preferred method as CS1|2 has a full suite of options designed for citations including hidden metadata. The {{CWGC}} and {{CWGC cemetery}} would be for non-citations, such as in an external links section. This is how I understand the relationship between CS1|2 and external link templates. The reason is because CS1|2 creates overhead that is not needed for a simple external link so early on there was a split between using CS1|2 for citations, and external link templates for everything else. That's kind of how things are supposed to work, though sometimes users will use CS1|2 for external links, or templates in citations, but I guess there would need to be a good reason for converting a good CS1|2 citation ref into an external link template. -- GreenC 16:16, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the reply. @Pigsonthewing: as I think he edited those CWGC templates to include the necessary metadata. Maybe he can confirm whether it is OK to use those templates as citation templates. @PC78: as maybe they did this editing to the template. Carcharoth (talk) 12:12, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi GreenC, thanks for your corrections on the page. May I request your opinion for the page? It's nominated for deletion in wikipedia here Aaron Sim Thanks, Shenalyn2018 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shenalyn2018 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hi, please can you check this edit to see if I done it right - Iggy (Swan) 18:14, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.navy.mil.ph/news.php?news_id=375 |title=Navy Capability Upgrade Team Inspects New Ship |publisher=Philippine Navy – Naval Public Affairs Office |date=2011-11-08 |accessdate=2011-11-10|archiveurl=http://archive.is/M1iv/image|archivedate=5 August 2012 }}</ref>

@Iggy the Swan: Yes I see a couple problems. 1) The archive.is URL wouldn't end in "/image" because that goes to the jpg capture of the page which truncates the page, so it would be http://archive.is/M1iv 2) There would be a |deadurl=yes since the primary URL is "dead" (inoperable). 3) The archive.is URL is a "soft-404" which means it looks like a working page, but is actually a redirected page and not what is expected. Instead of the article titled "Navy Capability Upgrade Team Inspects New Ship" it's a news index page. So it shouldn't be used at all, and the {{dead link}} restored since there is no available archive. Unfortunately archive.is has a lot of soft-404s so need to check carefully it's the page your looking for. -- GreenC 21:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

GreenCbot will do the task instead of me, I will not do that type of edit again. Iggy (Swan) 21:24, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

Heh, yeah a lot of complications :) -- GreenC 21:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)Reply

I mentioned you name on this thread on AN/I. I hope I didn't mischaracterize your statements. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:35, 2 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please read the section in the article about Michael R. Caputo for his paid consulting with the Kremlin and its control of Russian media which was occurring at the same time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.214.86 (talk) 05:34, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Yeah I left a message on your talk page. See also shouldn't be used this way. Follow up there or here whichever you want. -- GreenC 05:37, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The lenta.ru article about Gazprom contains a useful timeline of events that were not positive for Putin's image. Guisinsky's media companies were highly critical of Putin and Caputo was hired as a consultant to improve Putin's image at this time.

− Gazprom article from lenta.ru I have been adding some useful references for the Gazprom Media article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.214.86 (talk) 05:43, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

It appears you are doing original research trying to connect these individuals. Also what is lenta.ru? This kind of looks like a Wikipedia article redone, though I can't be sure. There's no author, a random collection of facts, heavily footnoted.

From the lenta site (translated):

In July 2012, Gazprom signed an agreement with the European Union of Football Associations (UEFA), becoming the official partner of the UEFA Champions League in 2012-2015, and also sponsored the UEFA Super Cup in 2012-2014.

From Russia Wikipedia (translated):

In July 2012, Gazprom signed an agreement with UEFA and became a partner of the UEFA Champions League for the period 2012-2015, as well as the UEFA Super Cup for the period 2012-2014.

You can see direct similarities in sentence structure and chosen facts. I would be wary of using it as a direct source. -- GreenC 14:07, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Followed up at Talk:Mikhail_Lesin#See_also_link_to_Michael_R._Caputo. -- GreenC 14:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

This source and this source provide much insight among the Kremlin, Putin, Lesin, Guisinsky, Gazprom, Gazprom Media, and others. Through Gazprom Media, the article about Michael R. Caputo puts him as a paid Kremlin advisor among these. Caputo was paid to improve Putin's image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.214.86 (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2018 (UTC) Please visit Lenta.ru for information about that site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.214.86 (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Anton Nossik, the creator of Russian online news, suspiciously died in July 2017. He was very critical of Putin and the Kremlin. Please review and visit the footnotes in Lenta.ru. He started Lenta.ru. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.214.86 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Please post replies at Talk:Mikhail_Lesin#See_also_link_to_Michael_R._Caputo. This is my private talk page. The discussion should be available to the community concerning content in those articles. -- GreenC 04:29, 10 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Duplicated text from above, realize it will reping everyone - Xaosflux Have you ever considered running for adminship? Pinging User:Ritchie333.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 22:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

This is the same Green Cardamom that's been running that Green C bot I've noticed around the place .... mmm, will have to see how much havoc (if any) that's caused. Firstly, read Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates then User:Kudpung/RfA criteria (which is the basic criteria everyone should start off with, though by no means the only one) thoroughly. When you've done that and understand everything in it, pop back and I'll see if you are suitable. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:25, 9 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

User:Ritchie333, thanks for the offer, I'm going to pass for right now, but will keep it in mind for the future. I probably would do alright no skeletons but no need for access to the toolset at that moment. One day I'd like to create a new tool for admins that functions as a rap sheep for problematic users, searching out and displaying on a single page points of trouble (eg. history of username changes, intersections of those names in SPI, etc..) .. automating some of the techniques admins currently do manually to research editors, but that's down the road, right now doing a lot of work with fixing link rot eg. havoc :) -- GreenC 14:40, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

I'm sorry, that is the wrong answer, an RfA will now be forced on you as punishment. :p—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 14:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

Hi there GreenC, I was pulling various user reports looking to nominate some editors for RFA and you hit most of my check boxes. Are you interested? The only real (super super minor) negative on my list is that your talk page needs some archiving :D. I suspect there are some co-nominators still lined up above. Please let me know if you would like thrown your name in the hat. Best regards, — xaosflux ^Talk 19:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

User:Xaosflux - Hi appreciate the offer. I've got a lot on my plate, going through the RfA process right now is much but will keep it in mind. Glad to know I am on the list of candidates must be doing something right :) Am aware of the recent Signpost article on the hollowing out of Admins. -- GreenC 18:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)Reply