User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 10

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 5

←

Archive 8

→

Senior Editor II

Happy New Year!

CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! — is wishing you a Happy New Year! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the New Year cheer by adding {{subst:New Year 1}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hey Cyberpower678! Wishing you a very happy New Year :) CURTAINTOAD! ^TALK! 23:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 23:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

PP-PC1 template

Hi! As you created the {{Pp-pc1}} template, I consider you should know much more than me how these templates work. The problem is that the templates (I include {{{Pp-pc2}}) are not working as they should. The first problem is that they do not disappear as they should after protection expires, for example at Beneath Your Beautiful--I deliberately left it while I'm checking these issues. When a {{pp-protected}} is added to a not protected page or the protection expires, it disappears and it automatically added to the category Category:Wikipedia pages with incorrect protection templates (Cat:incorrect protection).

I added the category with this edit to pc2 (as it is not protected, unlike pc1), in which the category was added to the transclusion. I tested it here (as you can see the page is not protected and the padlock can be seen), but it didn't appear at Cat:incorrect protection, until I did this edit (but the template still visible). I'd like to know if you can help me to know why this happens and if it could be fixen. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 07:36, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

I'll into it but I am a little busy getting ready for New Year's Eve.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 15:31, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

My editor review

You can go ahead and remove it from the backlog. Thanks! CtP (t • c) 21:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 21:58, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Left you a response

I left you a response on my talk page, but I had a request for you, but now that I look at your page, I don't see an admin badge (you'll see why I mention that when you look at the response. --S1312 (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Your comment on my backlogged editor review

Hello, Cyberpower678. You have new messages at Banaticus's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Again! Banaticus (talk) 14:44, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Editor Review

Cyberpower678, please feel free to remove that review. Many thanks for your message, and happy new year. Yazan (talk) 08:57, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. You too.—cyberpower _Offline^{Happy 2013} 19:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for offering to help with an RfC

If I had one wish for past RfA discussions (my wish for future RfA discussions is not to have them :), it would have been to break them into sections, and let everyone discuss and vote however they want ... in their own section. The problem is that each position has its adherents ... and the adherents get angry when people talk about anything else as if it might be a solution, so everyone is trying to talk over everyone, and the kind of discussion that produces several coherent, attractive plans doesn't happen. But ... I'm not going to spend a lot of time on this until we find out what Jimbo is going to be doing about it this month, and I asked on his talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 16:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm able to stay impartial if I so choose (even in my own proposals) because I apply the mindframe of what the community may or may not want. I offered my services but if people don't want me closing this, then I'm ok with that too. I do agree however that we should wait until Jimbo throws his cards on the table.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

An invitation for you!


	Hello, Cyberpower678. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's article for improvement. If you're interested in participating, please add your name to the list of members. Happy editing! Northamerica1000^(talk) 00:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for offering. As an active closer of the RfC and currently trying to fill in loose ends, joining the project would present me with a COI. I'll think about it once the proposal is finished and closed.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 00:35, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

re:A barnstar for you!

Hello,thanks for the gift,you left on my talk page,nice day! :D Carliitaeliza (talk) 16:01, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

If you are interested...

Hi Cyberpower. If you are interested in this situation, you can read the summary of the issue in here. It is better to share your opinion in that page. Thanks for your interest. Have a nice day.--Rapsar (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Your volunteering to join the BAG…

…unfortunately did not generate a consensus for approval; I'm sorry. Hopefully, the comments you received will help you hone your skills to the point that the next time you volunteer you will be successful. Regardless, thank you very much for volunteering to help the English Wikipedia project in this fashion! -- Avi (talk) 02:28, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I expected as much. I have to work on a lot before I'm ready. I have no hard feelings and I appreciate the comments I received there.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Just shoot me...

I meant to revert the last three edits at Marcus Q's RfA, but messed up.... Sorry. Glrx (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

That's no reason to shoot you though.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:16, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive user page

I couldn't help noticing you keep a running list of people you dislike at User:Cyberpower678/My Wikifriends. This constitutes an disparaging attack page and I have deleted the offending sections. In the future, keep your lists to yourself or better, don't keep them at all. Better to not let past impressions of others prevent you from civil co-exsistence. Happy editing. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I was going to delete them so thank you for doing so for me.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Everyone is allowed to do stuff like that once in a while ;p :) No problem with you removing it :)

·Add§hore· ^{Talk To Me!} 00:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 00:24, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Cyberbot II

Seems to be blanking artcles. Cluebot is reverting it. I hope I've disabled it properly. Toddst1 (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

The issue has been fixed.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Your Wikifriends

I want to become your friend. Will accept me as one of your wikifriend? --Pratyya ^(Hello!) 14:22, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

please give me a talk back message.

Wikifriends hang around me a lot and demonstrate, civility, experience, and most important, WP:CLUE. As the get free passes in RfAs and RfBs, I hold my Wikifriends to that standard. I've seen you pop in on Jimbo's page. I hang around in various places, and here most of the time.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:32, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh

Wow. Tiderolls 19:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes. It was doing it more frequently a few days ago which I alleviated somewhat. The code is pending an update to fix this issue. I haven't had time to modify and change it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:24, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No worries, I figured you were on the job. I simply couldn't resist :) Tiderolls 21:26, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Village Pump

Any reason why you removed by oppose comment to a village pump proposal ? MilborneOne (talk) 23:30, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

No. It was an accident and wasn't supposed to happen and have reverted now. Sorry about that.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

OK no problem easily done. MilborneOne (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for those kind words at that RfA. I appreciate that. I figured I'd say this here, rather than there. Yes, it seems to me that, whether one supports or opposes, one really ought to communicate why, as opposed to the all too common me too comments. Thanks again. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

Hello there! RexRowan Talk 14:01, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm a big fan of tea.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:03, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

BW Adventures in Unova

If you navigate to the February 2 listings on the schedule it does indeed say "Adventures in Unova". This still presents us with a problem as the Japanese numbering was easier to follow when titles changed and there's certainly no onus upon the English Wikipedia to just throw all knowledge of the Japanese splits out just because the American edition gets a new name.—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:24, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Ah. That information wasn't there yesterday when I looked. As for the splits, we mustn't forget that this is the English Wikipedia, so we should go off of the English standard. That japanese Wikipedia can have it that way.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 14:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC closure

*cough* Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Resysopping_practices#Closing. *cough* MBisanz ^talk 14:50, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't forgotten it. I've been incredibly busy. I closed it so I can read it bit for bit in spare time, without having to worry if someone commented. I'm actually almost done evaluating. I'm approaching the end of the page.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 16:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Resysopping practices

Subject to an RfC doesn't mean the RfC had substance. There have been RfCs which, in the end, were not supported/endorsed by the community. Would you please clarify your close? - jc37 22:26, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

what should be clarified?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

IRC cloak request

Confirming cloak request.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 04:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Forever and a day

It's taken me forever and a day, but the last lesson is up, and your final exam is ready when you want to take it Worm^TT(talk) 10:48, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Unfortunately now, I don't have the time to do it. :( I'll get to it as soon as I can.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:33, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

cyberbot I

Your bot just blanked the RfA/RfB table for no apparent reason and stopped editing it. There are still two RfA's open. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 18:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Give it ten minutes. It might fix itself.—cyberpower _Online^{Be my Valentine} 18:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Wow

I'm reaaaallllyyyy surprised at your !vote here (✉→BWilkins←✎) 15:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

He doesn't intend to work at AfD.
He's trusted enough to be on my wikifriends list.
I have a very high amount of AGF.

—cyberpower _Offline^{Be my Valentine} 15:45, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)And friends get automatic support [1], right? I admire your loyalty but advised you in your editor review that it wasn't a great idea. Leaky Caldron 15:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

To clarify though. Wikifriends are users who I believe would make good admins from my experience with them. I may have opposed if he had said he intended to participate in AfD right away because that would be considered a major issue. And I stand by my vote, even though I'm in the minority on this one. I may be off in judgement on this one, it also might be because this candidate repeatedly has requested to nominate me for adminship, and I have been declining it so far. In other words, I can't be impartial about this candidate, but I won't back down simply because everyone else is opposing, and I most certainly won't become a me too person. I hope you understand.—cyberpower _Offline^{Be my Valentine} 15:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Fully. Like I said, I do admire your loyalty. I just think not getting into an awkward situation in the first place by pledging up front support to friends is advisable for all of us. Leaky Caldron 16:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I'll remove the automatic support statement on my wikifriends page then.—cyberpower _Offline^{Be my Valentine} 16:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Never let "friendship" cloud the way of "judgement" :-) I also don't expect you to withdraw your support - you're entitled to your opinion. As a friend, I'm just advising that it doesn't speak well to your judgement overall. Please don't take my comments the wrong way! (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

I have revised my support statement excluding the aspect of friendship, I still feel like supporting. Thanks for your comments.—cyberpower _Offline^{Be my Valentine} 16:23, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

ACC

Hi Cyberpower, I noticed that you have recently become a member of the account creation team -- Welcome! :) I handled a couple of requests that you deferred to experienced users. I just wanted to drop you a note to say if there are any areas of protocol/procedure you are unsure about, or need clarification on, I would be happy to try and answer your questions -- I know it's sometimes hard to find the answer in the guide. I don't use the IRC channel much, as I'm not very familiar with IRC. If you're in the same boat, you can contact me on-Wiki if you would prefer; although, if you need to discuss any specific request details, probably best you email me -- in order to avoid falling foul of the privacy policy. Welcome once again and keep up the good work. Pol430 talk to me 20:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you I will.—cyberpower _Offline^{Be my Valentine} 20:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Accountcreator

Hello, since you are highly active on the account creation interface, I have enabled accountcreator on your account. This will enable you to ignore the normal limit on daily account creations and other checks. Please take note of the following points:

This permission does not give you any special status or authority.
Be sure that the conflicting account is inactive when overriding the spoofing check.
Creation of inappropriate accounts or pages may lead to its removal.
Disruptive editing of edit notices may lead to its removal
You can display the {{Accountcreator topicon}} top icon or the {{User wikipedia/accountcreator}} userbox on your user page.
If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it.

If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask me. Otherwise, happy editing! Reaper Eternal (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Reaper.—cyberpower _Online^{Be my Valentine} 16:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

User creation ticket

Hello. I'm seeing a ticket on OTRS where you assisted a person regarding the creation of an account. Item #92759. I'm trying to understand what it is this person requires of OTRS. Why is he attempting to identify to us instead of just creating the account? §FreeRangeFrog^croak 01:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

He is unable to create the requested account due to spoofing checks. Because the requested username is that of a notable person, we require him to identify that he who he says he is. OTRS, has to confirm it and I can create the account for him.—cyberpower _Offline^{Be my Valentine} 02:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I finally figured that out... He has identified successfully through OTRS, so you may go ahead and create the account. The ticket reference is #2013021310009386. Thanks! §FreeRangeFrog^croak 02:28, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will send you an eMail.—cyberpower _Offline^{Be my Valentine} 02:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

10,000 edits

Hooray, this comment is my 10,000th edit made to Wikipedia.—cyberpower _Offline^{Be my Valentine} 02:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Congrats Cyberpower! Thanks for all the work you do around here. Ryan Vesey 02:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I enjoy working for Wikipedia. :)—cyberpower _Offline^{Be my Valentine} 02:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

EditorReviewArchiver: Automatic processing of your editor review

This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 18 February 2013 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7 days. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. AnomieBOT ⚡ 16:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Adminstats

Hi, why has Cyberbot I (talk · contribs) stopped updating Template:Adminstats/Redrose64? I've checked, and the bot has been updating other adminstats pages. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpower will be able to answer it better than me, but you dont seem to have the template transcluded anywhere on your page, although you do link to it about 2/3 of the way down. I'm betting it has to do with this diff, which is from about the same time as the bot stopped updating your page. —Soap— 19:31, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, it beats me how you located that old sandbox version. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Soap has it right. Adminstats will not update if it's not transcluded. This is to reduce redundant. If it's not being used, why update it? Transclude it again within the next few hours, and it should begin updating again. On the other hand, I think I broke the script somewhere as it looks like it's omitting some transcluded entries, I've been performing some tests with the template to see if it will work.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks - since I did this, this has happened. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

If you have anymore issues, let me know.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:52, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, looks like I have the same issue with {{adminstats|J04n}}. J04n(talk page) 02:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Your stats seem to be updating just fine. What's not working?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 02:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I have this message "Adminstats is temporarily bugged and has discontinued updating statistics for certain users Please do not rely on the stats until verifying that Cyberbot I is still updating.

If this has happened to you, please let me know." right above the table. J04n(talk page) 02:47, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

That's currently showing up for everybody. It's letting everyone know that adminstats is temporarily malfunctioning for some users. If yours is updating just fine, you can add disablenotice=true within the parameters of your adminstats page to remove the message temporarily, like I did here. It will comeback when the bot updates them again because I haven't updated the code to accomodate this. I hope to be able to fix it this weekend.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 02:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks for checking. J04n(talk page) 02:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

This is happening to me too. Frankly, it was wrong of you to have the bot fail so inelegantly. If there is a problem, you surely ought to have simply stopped the bot from updating—not plastered such ugly notices over every template. I'm pretty sure your bots have neglected to fail silently on previous occasions, too… I offer this as food for thought, so no reply is necessary. Regards, AGK [•] 14:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
It's one notice. The bot was failing elegantly by not updating, but I needed to see which were not updating so I put that notice there. I also wanted to warn everyone about the failure. When I tried to fix it, I broke inadvertently broke it more. Once I have this fixed, everything should return to normal.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 14:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I've found a new problem. Using {{adminstats|Redrose64|style=raw ed+del}} returns "266014" and not the bare integer. Something similar happens for other values of |style=; it breaks calculations: 193510 should give the February month to date figure. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:27, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

To dismiss this message, add the parameters disablenotice, and cookie and set it to true and 0 respectively. The message is temporary, but can be hidden if it disrupts anything. It is meant to notify users. I'm using this message to help me find the bug in adminstats.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 15:45, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see - you mean |disablenotice=true|cookie=0 - it had me puzzled for some time. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:47, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep. I made a messaging system to communicate to the users of adminstats.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

hey Cyber

Just a heads up. Your 03:57, 24 February 2013 post was actually stuck in the /middle/ of my post. Personally it doesn't bother me in the least, but I've seen a few folks around that might take exception to that kind of thing. Just a "for future reference" type of thing. Keep up the good work .. you have a great dedication to the project that I do admire. — Ched : ? 15:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for both remarks. I fixed my comment. I didn't realize I stuck it in the middle of yours. Sorry. It was actually meant as a reply to you. :)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:27, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Email

Yes, I did. Can you email me how to do it myself? Thanks, Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

it would be a bot script logging into your account. I could give you the entire framework and the code to run the purge attempt with. You'll need something, like tool server, to run the script with.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 19:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds too technical to me. I find it odd that you can have a watchlist too big to edit, which would be the way to make a smaller watchlist. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:50, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not really too sure how the raw editor really works. I do agree it seems odd, but perhaps it's to prevent a memory overflow, or it would take too long to load, or something. As I stated in the e-Mail, I can try it via a script through the API to try and retrieve and clear your watchlist. You have my assurance that I wouldn't do anything but what I mentioned. I won't physically log in to your account, my bot will and execute the purge task.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 19:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Send me an email with what data you need. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I see you asked the crats, who filed a bugzilla request. If they can't clear it, you know where to find me. :)—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 21:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
I appreciate that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Nothing changed - I'll give the bug folks a few days. Thanks for sticking with me. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
It's now deleted! Yeah!!! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Damn! You had 221044 items on your watchlist. No wonder you couldn't load it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 00:56, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Counting talk pages, perhaps. ;-) Somehow, I'm set up to watch all the pages I create. Now there will be many unwatched pages. Alas, I reverted lots of vandalism in the past. How did u find out the number, by the way. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:06, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
This Bugzilla request.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:08, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

TO MY FELLOW WIKIPEDIANS

I know I've hashed the possible retirement thing many times before and it hasn't happened. Once again, I'm here considering retirement from Wikipedia. Today, my personal emotional life has taken a huge blow that I may never recover from. Right now I really don't feel like doing anything. That includes Wikipedia, a very passionate hobby of mine. As I write this, I am stuffing myself with food and overeating as a result of this. For now, I have plastered and indefinite wikibreak notice, but that can change very fast. Maybe I'll different in a later time period, but right now, my life sucks.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 22:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

If you need time, take it. Sometimes we need to do different things. For example, I was feeling very bad two weeks ago and I decided to not log in here unless necessary; took a trip to my beach house, called some friends, went to some restaurants, listened to good music, and now I'm back and at full throttle. Wikibreaks are better than we think they are. The only thing you have to be sure when you take one is if you will, or not, come back. Have a nice day, good friend. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 22:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I sent you an email.--Gilderien Chat|List of good deeds 18:19, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I saw it thank you.—cyberpower ^Chat_Absent 18:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

PPE

This is casuality. I was just finishing my read of the proposal and searching your talk page archives and then you are here :) I think it needs a little polish, but overall, it is good. I will read it again today. I hope you are feeling better, Cyber. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 13:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

As my stress meter indicates, I'm still a bit tense from it, but I feel a lot better now. I just didn't feel like I was ever going to do anything again when I went on my break. That certainly changed. I'm rewriting my bot right now.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 14:04, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Good to hear you are feeling better. I will give you more input soon. My nation is going through a lot of changes now and I don't know how much time I'll have for Wikipedia. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 15:00, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Revert

Was this a mistake? Ryan Vesey 17:16, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Most lickey. I don't even remember pooping on to Jimbo's page.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:19, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I would hate for someone to point out that I accidentally pooped on Jimbo's page ;) Legoktm (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

This is what I get for relying on my iPhone to correct my typing. :P

ANI goof

Looks like your ANI comment wiped out 2 or 3 others... nice one ;) Lukeno94 (talk) 19:14, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I was coming to tell you about it, but I see that Lukeno beat me to it. Anyway, I think I restored all the comments (which involved some very minor refactoring of your own comment, as one of the ones was supposed to be above yours), but you might want to double-check, just to be sure. (your edit my first fix my second fix my third fix Cheers! Writ Keeper (t + c) 19:18, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Posted the thank you on your page.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Bot problem

If you're responsible for the cyberbot it just wiped out bicycle and circle.Teapeat (talk) 00:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

This was a wikipedia issue. All bots got affected by it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanx

I suppose stwalkerster's wasn't sufficient. Mlpearc (powwow) 01:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

:-)—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Cyberpower678. You have new messages at A930913's talk page.
Message added 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

930913(Congratulate) 20:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

RfX table

Your bot hasn't updated it for almost 3 hours. Please look into it. Command and Conquer Expert! ^{speak to me...}_{review me...} 03:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

This probably has something to do with the update I mad to the framework. Looking right now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:17, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I reinstated the stable version of the framework as I don't have time this morning to debug it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:28, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

help!

Hey, I see you are an admin here, could you please change my rights to only 'patroller'? I hope as it is testwiki, there is no request process for these rights. I was stupid enough to add those rights myself! Thanks. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{« ৳ᶏ ɭϞ »} 07:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Your auto confirmed userright has the patrol right so I removed the reviewer bit. I can't get rid of editor for some reason.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Then admins are not allowed to change the editor access I guess. I think settings there keep changing as many try to test many things. No problem, let it be. -- ɑηsuмaη ^{« ৳ᶏ ɭϞ »} 15:39, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, it seems to be an old right that doesn't exist anymore. I'll try an wipe it with my bot.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 15:41, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement

Hello, Cyberpower678. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Today's articles for improvement#Main Page deployment, or not?.
Message added by Northamerica1000^(talk) 09:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Bad image list redirect

FYI: MediaWiki talk:Bad image list#Restricted-use media list.
You may want to make sure that your bot can follow this redirect.
Amalthea 11:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

It should follow redirects by default. I'll make necessary preparations. Thanks for the heads up.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 11:34, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Peachy 2 manual

I'm trying to get some experience writing coherent documentation, so if you'd like me to help with the docs for Wikipedia:Peachy, I'd be happy to assist. Leave me a message on my talk if you're at all interested...or, you know, don't. ;) —Theopolisme (talk) 01:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd like that. I could use some help writing fresh documentation, considering X! wiped out the old stuff and left an incomplete framework behind. I started a [peachy.wikia.com wiki] dedicated to the framework. It's where the documentation will go until I can host my own MediaWiki site that doesn't advertise.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:57, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

ACC Discussions

Hi! Just so you know, I am not really comfortable talking about the ACC tool on my talkpage, it's too public. Could I get you to email me? I am happy to let you know what happened with that certain account which you were discussing. ...and no you didn't come off as snippy, you are a gem. :) Be well. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure. I was careful to conceal non-public information in that statement.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:06, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Blocked account

Would you like me to unblock? I will if you ask. If I should have let you know, sorry. I also realise that I blocked the earliest account - that was because I wanted to leave the most active one unblocked. Could you please reply on my talk page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Ooops, missed the message at the top, will try to monitor this page. Dougweller (talk) 10:15, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Adminstats on urwiki

Hi Cyberpower, how are you? Could you update the template admin stats on urdu wikipedia? Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 07:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Great god. I can't even log into the site ripping my hair out. You're going to need to help me out. First off, where is the template stored?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:16, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks brother :) here i stored the template. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm a little busy at the moment, but I'll write a script that will run on urwiki hopefully sometime this weekend.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:52, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

٘Many thanks for your valuable support :) If you would write script in pywikipedia library, then I will be able to run the script. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I'm going to run it and it's written in PHP.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Okeh I will be waiting :) Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Can you please translate the documentation?—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 19:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Okeh I will translate. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 00:52, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Script is ready. I had to custom make this one in order for it to work. I just need you to translate a few things for me and then send me over to where we can get bot requests approved and we'll be all set.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:00, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for late reply, today I was very busy. here you can request to get bot flag. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Please Translate:

{{{User}}} is not an administrator.
Therefore they have been disallowed the use of adminstats.
Adminstats are not allowed for this user.
Updating Admin Stats

—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 13:04, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

{{{User}}} is not an administrator.
Therefore they have been disallowed the use of adminstats.

{{{صارف}}} منتظم نہیں ہے،
لہذا وہ انتظامی شماریات کے استعمال کے مجاز نہیں ہیں۔

Adminstats are not allowed for this user.

انتظامی شماریات اس صارف کے لیے مجاز نہیں ہے۔

Updating Admin Stats

تجدید انتظامی شماریات

Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 16:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Granted bot flag. :) Many thanks for your valuable bot. Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 05:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

#96030

Could you check #96030 please? There is a similar username, but, I can't find its creation date! --Tito Dutta (contact) 22:36, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

It's probably because the account was created before creation logs existed. This was 2005 and earlier. For future requests, you can use missing creation dates as an approximate time reference to assess requests. I've gone ahead and created the account.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 23:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Template:Cratstats

Hi Cyberpower; do you know why {{cratstats}} claims there is one "overdue RfB"? Am I misinterpreting something? —Theopolisme (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange. Looking into that right now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 22:30, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've never looked or touched this script, but it looks like a careless bug accidentally written by X!. It seems to have gone unnoticed all this time. It's reading his long gone RfA. I'm implementing a fix for that now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 22:35, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I've placed a fix on the code. That should resolve the issue.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 22:40, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response and fix. I appreciate it! —Theopolisme (talk) 23:52, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

ADMINSTATS on urdu wiki

Yeah brother, This template is being used by 6 admins in recent :) Muhammad Shuaib (talk) 01:18, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Cool. News must be spreading fast.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 01:37, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Multiple blocks

Could you tell me what to do when an IP has block log like this? --Tito Dutta (contact) 05:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

I would either ask them to go home and request an account or AGF and create and watch, it appears to be a school IP.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

KLBot2

My bot have a local flag to work with interwiki links and a global bot flag for work in all languages. [2] It's doing something wrong? --Kizar (talk) 13:20, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

It's not approved to remove interwiki links on the presence of Wikidata. It's only approved to add Spanish interwiki links.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 13:24, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but my bot is the only one who is watching the recent changes in all languages and importing new articles in Wikidata. I can't open 286 different approval processes and wait for the answer. So I requested the global flag and has been granted.[3] My bot still will work after the end Wikidata migration. I can open a request if necessary but I think it's a waste of my time. The bot takes a month working in all languages without complaint. --Kizar (talk) 14:55, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Please note however that User:Addbot does the same thing here.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 15:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Protected Page Editor

I have read it several times and I find it good enough. You can take it to RFC at any time, and I'll give a hand there. Cheers. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 17:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will launch it sometime in the next 24 hours.—cyberpower _Online^{Happy Easter} 17:38, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Clever

You almost had me. You need to make "new messages" appear in purple, that way one thinks they've already clicked the link. I was a tad suspicious and moused over it seeing the real destination. That is the best joke I have seen thus far today, though. Go Phightins! 03:16, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

You almost had me too, until I saw that the text was very bolded :P — ΛΧΣ²¹ 03:18, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

That too. And the fact I had my talk page open already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
:p I didn't know my talk page was visited that frequently. (✉→Cyberpower←✎) 03:22, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Almost had me too, but I was a bit suspicious. (Founders need to be suspicious) Frigid Ninja 03:25, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Cyberpower678. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Bot_requests.
Message added by Theopolisme at 23:11, 1 April 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

??

What on earth did your signature do here? —Theopolisme (talk) 01:03, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Forgot to close the tag.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 01:08, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

And a happy April Fool's Day to you too!...here in CST, I'm trying to make it last. —Theopolisme (talk) 01:11, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Buggy bot

Your bot recently removed a pending changes template from an article that was protected. Then, a few minutes later, it added the template back to the article. Then, a minute later, it added the template again, so now there are two copies of the template on the same page. It seems to be doing the same thing on loads of pages. You might want to stop the bot and correct the mess that it has made, then correct the code and test it thoroughly, and then start the bot up again and monitor its edits closely until you are convinced that it is stable. ‑Scottywong | prattle _ 02:57, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

That was caused by the site wide failure. It as a result got an empty list and when the site came back up, removed some of them and re-added them. I've been working on my bot's error handling abilities but haven't gotten to adding much in that regards. In any case the edits are minor and as long as it doesn't start blanking pages like it did the last time Wikipedia failed, I don't see a need to worry, since it will remove every pp-pc1 template on the page once it does become unprotected.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 03:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It sounds like you need to code in a way to detect when Wikipedia "fails", like check to see if the list you're referring to is empty before proceeding. Those kinds of errors shouldn't be happening, because they are preventable. And, you need to go back and manually correct every page that now has multiple templates on it. Preferably as soon as possible. Almost every page that your bot edited today has two {{pp-pc1}} templates on the top of the page. That's a problem, please don't ignore it, or rely on others to fix it for you. Please fix the pages that your bot has made a mistake on before the bot edits any further, and please ensure that the bot will not make incorrect edits if Wikipedia "fails" in any way. If you need help with the code, please ask someone for help. I'd offer to help but I'm not proficient in php. ‑Scottywong | confer _ 05:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't see the problem of having duplicate templates, but I will have my bot clean it up as soon as possible but now is a horrible time because I have to deal with 3 exams today and tomorrow. Looks like there are duplicate instances of the script running on toolserver. How did that happen?—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 13:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The problem with duplicate template is that it's wrong. Your code isn't working correctly, and you need to fix it. I've rolled back your bot's edits on all of the pages that I could, for pages that it edited on April 3rd. Since you don't have the time to fix the code right now, and the bot is still running, if I see it make the same mistake, I'll likely block it until you can fix the issue. ‑Scottywong | converse _ 13:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

You can simply shut the task down on it's run page. There are two instances of the script running for some reason on toolserver. The two instances is causing the issue as they are simultaneously running with one behind the other and that is causing the duplicates. I'm sending my bot to wipe all of the templates from the page and retag them with one and only one tag. Thanks for pointing the issue out. :-)—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 15:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm still confused. Even if there are two instances running, shouldn't the code be checking to see if the article already has the appropriate template in the wikitext? I'm sure you're probably comparing the list of protected articles to the template's transclusion list to find out which articles need a template added to them. That's a great way to generate an initial list, but you (clearly) can't trust that method exclusively to be correct or up-to-date. Let's say your bot gets the list of articles that need a template added to them. Then, it takes 15 minutes to go through that list and add the template to each article. In that 15 minute time span, how do you know if someone didn't add the template manually to one of the articles? You need to be checking the wikitext of the article just prior to making an edit, to ensure that the template you're about to add doesn't already appear on that page. That's a pretty basic concept. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 16:00, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Scotty's got the basic point right here: a lot can happen between when you start and when you end. Are you handling edit conflicts? Chartbot is written in PHP, so I've got a decent handle on PHP bots if you need help.—Kww(talk) 16:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

There aren't any conflicts when it does it as it's simply using the prepend call in the API. Peachy is designed to handle edit conflicts, so yes.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

It actually plows through the list in about 13 seconds. To maintain speed and efficiency as well as be sparing on resources, it only initializes the page when it proceeds to edit. However, I can install a line to preinitialize the page and store it to protect against editconflicts, aka the bot placing duplicates. Although that would hog resources again. I'll think of something to fix this without compromising efficiency.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:14, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The bot is still making bad edits. [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12]. Are you even watching the edits it's making? I've blocked the bot until you can convince me (or another admin) that you've definitively fixed the problem. I'm close to recommending that you be disallowed from running bots, because I'm starting to think that you might not be technically capable enough to run a bot reliably. If you have exams or some other prior obligation that is preventing you from fixing the bot or closely monitoring its edits until you're confident it is not making mistakes, then just shut the bot off and come back when you have the time. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 22:26, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

WTF? The patch I placed should've fixed that. Hmm. Let me think. Also, you don't need to start snapping at me. I'm fully capable of running bots and speaking of that, it has a runpage.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 22:31, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's back doing it, adding pp-pc1 twice to the same article, e.g.

Jeff Minter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Iceland (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The latter the bot has made seven changes to the page over the last two days, making it hard to spot the human edits among the bot edits. Please fix and check this before letting the bot lose on articles again.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Cyberpower, I don't think you fully understand the whole edit conflict thing that Kww and I are referring to. Your script might be able to compare the list of protected articles and the transclusion list in 13 seconds flat, but it certainly isn't going to update all of those articles in 13 seconds. For instance, your latest run spanned from 21:52 until 22:21, when it was blocked by me. You were solidly making 10+ edits per minute. In that 30-minute period, if someone went to one of those articles and manually added a protection template to it (or even if they unprotected the article or changed its protection mode), then your bot would be putting the wrong template on the article, or removing the template inappropriately, because it's operating based on 30-minute-old data at that point. Speed and efficiency is all well and good, but if the bot doesn't actually perform the correct action, then all you're doing is making speedy and efficient mistakes all over the encyclopedia. My opinion is that your bot needs to double-check both the wikitext and the protection status of every article just prior to making an edit. Yes, it will make the bot considerably slower, and it will use more resources, but it is required in order for the bot to operate correctly. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 22:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

On the contrary. I do understand the edit conflicts. The patch I put was supposed to help prevent it by setting the basetimestamp parameter to the time the task started. Why the bot did that again is confusing. It was also Amalthea that initially suggested the efficiency instead of the wasteful checks that it was doing during the initial trial.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 22:44, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I think I found. I forgot to load the update into the framework. Fixing now.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 22:46, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Can you explain the basetimestamp parameter to me in more detail? I don't know what that refers to. ‑Scottywong | verbalize _ 22:49, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The basetimestamp parameter is the timestamp you give it and if it's older than the latest edit to the page, the API will stop the edit as an edit conflict.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 22:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

What if the page hasn't been edited, but someone changed the protection status of the page? Is that caught by the basetimestamp parameter? ‑Scottywong | soliloquize _ 22:58, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't know. It would guess so if it shows up in the edit log. It compares it to the touched parameter which I believe implies anything. Also can you unblock my bot? It's disabled.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 23:01, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to resolve this issue first. There's no rush to getting the bot back to editing. Changes to the protection status of an article do not show up in the edit log. Does this mean that there is a chance that the bot might add/remove a protection template from an article based on old data about its protection status? If so, that needs to be fixed. Bots should not be making incorrect edits, nor should this type of bot be making 7 edits to the same page within 2 days. Bots must be careful not to fill up people's watchlists and make page histories hard to read because of endless edits. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 23:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Pending changes is something completely different. It's an extension to MediaWiki and doesn't get recorded in the standard protection log. What's more, the bot has to HTML scratch a page from Wikipedia because the API currently does not supply a list of stabilized articles on Wikipedia. It would be somewhat difficult to have it constantly recheck to see if it's protected. What you are suggesting is pulling a page from Wikipedia about 1000 times per run and it's set to run every 5 minutes. That's 12,000 calls to Wikipedia. That's just way too high and would blatently violate BOTPOL.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 23:50, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Done I also reduced the task to run every 5 minutes. If that doesn't resolve the issue, then I'll have to take a deeper look into the code.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 22:52, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

The duplicate tagging issue should be resolved, but having the bot recheck every edit is something I truely see as unnecessary. If someone protects a page, the bot will be likely tag it first before it gets unprotected. And if it does the bot will remove it again. I do not see that being worth making an additional 12,000 calls every hour.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 00:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, you don't have to scrape the HTML of a page to find out if it's PC protected. You can find that out from the API. Here's an example url of a PC protected page. Here's what a page that is not PC protected looks like.

Second of all, I don't know where you're getting 12,000 calls per hour from. If there are 1,000 articles that are currently PC protected, and your bot runs every 5 minutes (which is too often IMHO), that doesn't mean you have to check 1,000 articles every 5 minutes. You should be getting a list of all protected articles and the list of articles that currently have a protection template on them, find the differences between those two lists, and then you only have to check the articles that might need to be edited by the bot. In other words, if there are 1,000 articles in the list of semi-protected articles, and there are 998 articles in the transclusion list of the semi-protected template, then you will need to do a check on 2 articles, not 1,000 articles. Sure, when the bot does its first couple of runs, there might be a lot of articles to check. But after that initial run, I highly doubt that there will often be more than 1 or 2 articles that actually get protected/unprotected in the span of 5 minutes.

I'm not trying to make your life difficult, but I want to impress upon you the importance of getting things right vs. doing things quickly. Right now, there are demonstrable cases that your bot will not react to correctly, and the fix is relatively simple. Sure, it will take some time to fix, but if it will prevent the bot from making another run of 500 problematic edits, then it's worth the delay. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 00:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure if my explanation above is sufficiently clear. If it were me coding this task, my algorithm would be:

Get the list of protected articles
Get the list of articles with a protection template
Find all articles that only appear in one of the two above lists
Iterate through each article in that list generated in step 3. For each article, check the protection and PC-protection status, and get the wikitext. Determine what template should be on that page, and determine what template(s) are already on the wikitext of that page.
Make a single edit that removes inappropriate protection templates from the page and adds the appropriate template to the page. Then move on to the next article.
Wait x minutes, then repeat steps 1-5.

How close is that to the way you're currently doing it? ‑Scottywong | express _ 00:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Also, have you figured out why there are two instances of the script running? One thing I might be able to help you out with are toolserver issues, since I'm familiar with toolserver. How are you running the script? ‑Scottywong | babble _ 03:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It's solved already.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

~~I KNEW IT!!! I knew there was an API call for that and I just couldn't find it. With that I won't have to worry about the bot breaking.~~ Well is there a call that returns all of the titles that are protected. That's the one I need and I can't find it. Anyways, I have received a lot of input from fellow botops including you and well implement your suggestions. Should be painless to do. Also my bot has the following procedure right now:
1. Get the list of protected articles
2. Get the list of articles with the protection templates.
3. Iterate through each article that is protected checking to make sure it's not on the other list. If it isn't, tag the page.
4. Iterate through each article that is tagged checking to make sure it is on the other. If it isn't remove the tag.
5. Wait and repeat steps 1-4.
—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 18:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Found it. Yay. It's list=configuredpages. That will return the pages that are protected.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
Damn. Enwiki doesn't have that in the API.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure about getting a list of PC-protected articles. You might have to scrape HTML for that, or query toolserver's SQL server (although that isn't guaranteed to be up-to-date). Also, the list of steps that you indicated above still has some holes in it. There's still nothing that will stop the bot from adding a template to an article that already has a template. You could prevent this by checking the wikitext of the article, or by doing an API call for prop=templates (although that won't tell you about duplicate templates on the page). Additionally, the bot should strive to make only one edit to each article it is modifying. So, for instance, if an article is semi-protected but it gets changed to PC-protected, the bot should make a single edit that removes the semi template and replaces it with a PC template (rather than one edit to remove, and another edit to replace).

Finally, how do you plan on dealing with the articles that still have duplicate templates on them, as a result of the bot? The last thing we need is for the bot to go through and strip all of the templates from all of those pages, and then go back and add a single template back to all of them (i.e. 2 edits per page). Can we get those fixed with a single edit? ‑Scottywong | spout _ 19:56, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

It would seem like you could just do a regex search for the pending changes templates, delete them all, then readd the new correct one (querying the API/scraping/whatever to check), all in one edit. —Theopolisme (talk) 21:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Scottywong, I don't think you understand the scope of my bot. It's only designed for pending changes. It will not touch any other tag. Secondly, to clarify step 3, if the page is in the transclusion list, it will not tag. The multiple tags problem can from the several instances of the script running and doing the same thing. Also the multiple instances problem came from a duplicate entry in the crontab.

Ok, I've unblocked the bot. Please make every effort to ensure that the articles that the bot has edited in the past are corrected, that the bot doesn't make future mistakes, and that the bot minimizes the number of edits made to each article (preferably it should always be a single edit to an article). I'll try to monitor the bot from time to time, but ultimately you are responsible for checking its edits to confirm it isn't malfunctioning (and quickly stopping the bot if it is malfunctioning). The quality of the bot's edits is always more important than the speed of its edits, or the speed of its operator in getting it up and running. Make sure all your ducks are in a row before restarting the bot. Thanks. ‑Scottywong | confess _ 22:04, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Scottywong. I appreciate all of the input you have given. I'll restart the bot once I have the mods in place.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)