User talk:Rlink2/Archive 4

WP:LINKROT and archive website discussion
Are you able to? Every time I do so, after the captcha episode, it gets stuck on loading. Kailash29792 (talk)  08:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I am able to do so right now. If archive.today can't archive something, it may give the appearance that it's taking forever to load. According to what I've heard, this can happen with captcha-enabled sites they call "cloudflared."
 * The best option is resubmit the page for archiving, and if that doesn't work, try again later. Same thing applies for archive.org and ghostarchive: if you have to wait more than 2-3 minutes on the "loading" screen, it's most likely had an archiving error and you should restart. Rlink2 (talk) 12:44, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Rlink2, please don't change accessdate to access-date (or vice versa), this shouldn't be a standard AWB change and shouldn't be done otherwise as part of an AWB run as both versions are acceptable. Fram (talk) 14:53, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

By the way, is there otherwise a reason for these changes? Both the old link and the new link to archive.today work, so there seems little reason to change these en masse. Fram (talk) 14:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Visit https://twitter.com/archiveis/status/1450140729209200643 and https://blog.archive.today/post/659307974748160000/ for more info. As I previously stated, the archive.today mirror is supposed to redirect to a different location. He has has been on the verge of losing the archive.is domain several times (this is the third or fourth time), and he has previously lost domains forever. The purpose of .today is to act as a mirror to redirect to the right one at all times.
 * The accessdate -> access-date is supposed to remedy a flaw in IAbot in which if there is already an accessdate, it would add another access-date, causing citing errors. Because the majority of IABot users are unaware of the flaw, and because the bug will not be fixed when IABot auto-fixes dead links, the access-date conversion in my awb run was put in. As per your request, I will stop doing that. Rlink2 (talk)
 * Okay, thank you! Fram (talk) 15:17, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't access anything that you have changed to archive.today. For every link I have tried my browser reports 403 Forbidden, followed by a hard rule then "cloudflare." Whatever site the links are supposed to mirror to is not working.— JlACEer ( talk ) 01:38, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The site uses captchas at times, so you have to do them if requested, applies to all mirrors, post the exact link where .is worked but .today did not. Rlink2 (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that .is worked either. I monitor multiple amusement park pages so when I see changes I check to see what was changed. So far everything that has been changed hasn't been working: Volcano: The Blast Coaster, The Smiler, Hypercoaster, Nemesis (roller coaster), Kennywood, Cedar Fair, Six Flags Darien Lake, Kings Dominion, Six Flags Over Texas. The other error I get is: This site can’t be reached, archive.today’s server IP address could not be found. ERR_NAME_NOT_RESOLVED. When I click on ERR_NAME_NOT_RESOLVED, I get the cloudflare 403 forbidden page.— JlACEer ( talk ) 04:41, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you are using Cloudflare's DNS (1.1.1.1). Archive.today and Cloudflare have beef (see archive.today tweet) so you will need to somehow use a different DNS server, maybe you try "dns-over-https"? It should be an option in both firefox and chrome, but firefox uses cloudflare "DoH" so you need to change it to something else. Rlink2 (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Switching DNS to 8.8.8.8 worked. Not sure what to do with other wiki users who use Cloudflare DNS.— JlACEer ( talk ) 04:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add a Wayback machine reference to those articles side by side by the archive.today reference if you want. I can do that myself later today. Rlink2 (talk) 15:44, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm also here to inquire about this: was Ghost Archive's origin and reputation discussed on WP before massively adding links to it? This has security implications for WP readers and editors. Also, do you have a relationship with the site? Thanks, — Paleo Neonate  – 15:55, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I should probably first have searched before posting, but will check:
 * * Bots/Requests for approval/Rlink2 Bot 2
 * * Special:Permalink/1059766964
 * * Special:Permalink/1059778641
 * * Village pump (technical)/Archive 192
 * * Help:Archiving a source
 * — Paleo Neonate  – 16:14, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rlink2 Bot task 2 is suppoed to be a bare ref fixing bot with archiving built in as an optional feature, but i took the archiving out after realizing the BRFA discussion was being derailed from bare ref fixing to archiving. Archiving Youtube videos is not the only thing I do on here, but for some reason it attracts the most controversy. Rlink2 Bot task 1 is to fix archive.today links, and Rlink2 Bot task 3 is to fix a bug with IABot.
 * Like said before, it's the only site doing Youtube properly. Just like how archive.today is the only option for paywall news sites. Archive.org youtube is still broken and slow. And someone above you made a similar comment, to which I explained many of the supposed problems with ghost are also present within archive.today. Regarding "relationship" with any of the archive sites, I have asked questions on the blog about the Youtube archiving functionality that they responded to, same deal with archive.today's blog. And if we could guarantee all links were perfect and would have "no implications" we would not need archives in the first place since the links would never die. Remember Webcite? I think that the WMF should fund an internal web archiving project, but I digress. Rlink2 (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I've not investigated very long, but when I tried to find information about the site, its owners, who is responsible, the garantees that they are not selling their logs, when YT deletes a video for legal reasons, why we should keep linking to unauthorized copies, etc. All I could easily find was an anonymously registered domain, a (non-anonymous) hosting provider that may or may not be directly affiliated, an anonymous FAQ page that speaks about anonymous funding written in bad English (and some first-person sentences suggesting that it may be one person's project) with an invitation to go on a Tumblr thread (with little more information there).  Archive.today/is also is controversial for similar reasons.  YT is also rarely acceptable as a source on WP, except for some official channels.  I'm also only one concerned editor, wider community input would be good and some people may know more about the site than what I could discover...  To contrast, archive.org is a notable registered organization, works with donations, has faced copyright trials and adapted its practices, has at least one long term employee who worked in collaboration with WP, etc.  — Paleo  Neonate  – 03:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I understand that both ghostarchive.org and archive.today are highly controversial sites, my ghostarchive usage now is limited in scope for Youtube for reasons I explained before. If we have one Youtube archive, we should not be wasting our opportunity. If some people may know more about the site than what I could discover we would love to hear from them. Honestly I suppose WMF has a team investigating these archive sites. If there was something wrong WMF would have intervened long time ago.


 * Note that most people like and appreciate my edits - I have been thanked countless times for my Youtube archival edits. My talk page might seem like I'm going against what people want, which is not the case. My Youtube run also involves tagging permadead links, and replacing dead ones with Wayback references - see Special:Diff/1059961299 since IABot can not fix them.


 * As for Youtube being used on the Wikipedia, many articles have Youtube references in them. I think Youtube cites was more controversial back when the site first started but today it is more accepted depending on who uploads the video. Rlink2 (talk) 04:21, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for archiving links; this is important but seldom appreciated. This ended up creating duplicate  parameters, possibly because the older one is  . Is it possible to modify your AWB run to not duplicate these parameters? I came across the edit because it populated Category:CS1 errors: redundant parameter. You may have already done this, in which case I apologize. Urve (talk) 08:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the support this has been fixed for future edits. Rlink2 (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, wow you are all over my fairly random watchlist and you’re generating a huge number of rapid semi-automated edits in a short period. Just to be very clear: I’m not at all saying you are doing anything incorrectly. But you’re obviously doing something new by using ghostarchive.org in this way because I just haven’t seen use of that website before, at least not in these volumes. Could you just give a bit of background on how that archive website was selected, that it meets WP requirements and has community support. As I say, I’m not at all saying you are doing anything incorrectly or wrong. I just get a bit nervous when I see those sort of semi-automated volumes and, with respect, that your account is only 4 months old. Thanks. DeCausa (talk) 22:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Just to be very clear: I’m not at all saying you are doing anything incorrectly. thank you for your kind assumption of good faith.


 * The primary sites I use for preempt archiving and ensuring WP:V are ghostarchive.org, archive.today, and archive.org. Each have specific uses and advantages, and I use the right tool for the job. When fixing bare refs in a similar semiautomated manner, i used web.archive.org. I also did a lot of work on archive.today link repair, and still am. Webcite stopped taking archive requests a long time ago. Archive.org is good, but doesn't bypass the paywall all the time, and up until very recently didn't archive Youtube videos. Many sites also don't work properly with archive.org.  And archive.today is also good, but it has captchas, so usually I use it when one off archiving (for example: a specific article).  Most people seem to be fine with the site, while there are legitmate concerns people have brought up, the same concerns they said also apply for archive.today, which is bigger than ghost. To be clear, these sites supplement the Wayback machine, not replace it.  I think the Wayback machine is the "best", when the page displays properly on it. Rlink2 (talk) 23:54, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Bare URL refs again
Hi Rlink2

With all the work you are doing on bare URL refs, I thought that you might have some use for a set of lists I produce for my work on bare URLs.

Database dumps are produced on the 1st and 20th of the month. For each dump, I produce a set of scans for my own use: articles with non-PDF bare URL refs, articles with PDF bare URL refs, etc. The 7zipped file is only ~3MB; the pkzipped copy is ~4MB. If any of this lot are of use to you, I would happily email you a copy. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look at it, could be useful. Feel free to email me with the link. Thanks. Since you left a message on my talk page, I'm assuming you saw the edit notice ;) Rlink2 (talk)
 * Haha!
 * I didn't see the edit notice, 'cos I used a widget to reply. But I see it now, and it looks familiar ...
 * You have mail. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You have more mail, with attachments.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 23:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

washingtonpost.com
An insource search finds over 1,400 pages with untagged bare URL refs to washingtonpost.com.

I chucked the list at, but it appears to be making no progress with them. The pages will nearly all have been fed by me to Citation bot in my 5-month run of 24/7 batch jobs, but I hoped that the fuzziness of Citation bot would see at least some of them being filled in a second pass. Alas, no.

I have tried using Reflinks on a few of them, but with only patchy success. If you have time and inclination, would you be able to see how your tools work on them? Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in responding . I was able to fill them with the tools just now, see Special:Diff/1060679827, Special:Diff/1060680303, and Special:Diff/1060680158. EDIT: Oh, it seems like one was missed at the end of Special:Diff/1060680158. I think WaPo needs to be tweaked slightly in the settings for near 100% filing performance. Will do Rlink2 (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No prob at all about the wee delay.
 * And it is great that your tool did so well on them. Way better than other tools.
 * If you felt up to doing them all, that would be great.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * That will certainly try to handle before going back to my YT edits. Rlink2 (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

cbignore
It might be a good idea to tag cbignore's with who added it so future processes have the ability to ignore the tag for any future maintenance of the cite. Example. Could say rlink2. A cbignore with no bot tag is basically a hard stop presumed added manually by a user. Green C  20:47, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, OK good to know. I will add something like this in there. The phab bug has been triaged and is hopefully about to be fixed anyway, so cbignore for ghost will soon be a thing of the past. Rlink2 (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes hopefully, having the same problem with webarchive.nla.gov.au -- Green  C  22:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Gyaru article and archived YouTube
Hello!

Thank you for archiving most of the YouTube videos on said article; there were though, apparent mistakes that I made and were found through some of the citations (such as the first presumed dead YouTube link ) but others were either in fact truly removed/dead or seemed to be dead? This might be on your end but I am able to access said YouTube videos... I'm unsure why this is possible and I do not know how to use the archived used for these. Yet I must thank you once more for helping but I hope this isn't passing any boundaries but is it possible to check the ones that I've stated aren't dead for archival?

Thank you & may you have great festivities and rest (or Merry Christmas)!

89.99.169.177 (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC) User 89


 * Thank you for your extremely kind message. First off, even though it is totally your call, I recommend you sign up for an account. You've been editing for some time and that is great, I personally think editing under an IP might rob you from credit from your hard work. Also some editors don't respond to IP messages on talk pages because pings don't work.


 * The addition of an archive does not always mean the link is dead. it also serves as insurance against Linkrot. One of the videos (video ID 2U910HbdDUc) from which you removed the template is a half dead video. Half-dead videos can indicate that the video is only available in some countries, in specific browsers, or that the owner has restricted visibility. I mark videos based on what I see, so if the video doesn't work for me, I mark accordingly. The purpose of labeling the links rather than deleting them is to make it easier to find a replacement, important cuz WP:V. Rlink2 (talk) 00:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi again!


 * I thought it might've been linkrot or inaccessibility for those reason of citations being noted as dead. Sorry for undoing your work, I thought it was on my part, just as I made with the first archived link; now I understand. Should I revert the code added on the article by the way?


 * Also no worries! Wikipedia is a work effort even if I'm visible through other ways that the Wiki denotes; I'd rather work this way than with an account. But thank you! Ah, so the archive is implemented with a membership; I don't want to seem rude but due to how I use this website and how as you've seen that I have no prior or current knowledge of archiving URL's. I have to unfortunately pass. Even though I might dip my toes in learning how it works but I doubt I'll be contributing for the foreseeable future.


 * P.S.: I am stumped on how to make this look as a reply (if it is supposed to go below)...


 * Thank you for the swift reply! 89.99.169.177 (talk) 01:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC) User 89


 * Well, yes, it is linkrot or inaccessibility for the citations being marked as dead. You didn't do anything wrong, just misunderstood. To reply, just use :: smybols. If you use the text editor instead of the visual editor, you'll know what I mean. I idented this one for you. Feel free to keep whatever you've done, it's not a big deal to me. Someone (or you) will eventually come around to it anyway. You can add archive links without an account, my message about account had nothing to do with archives. Rlink2 (talk) 01:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

WP:SEMIAUTOMATED and consensus
Please check out WP:SEMIAUTOMATED and consider whether you should be seeking consensus for your edits. You are performing multiple edits per minute over an extended period of time. I also see from above that others have questioned the archive being introduced by your edits Slywriter (talk) 04:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe I have consensus for my edits, other wise I wouldn't be making them ;) Yes, I am aware of WP:SEMIAUTOMATED: I am going at a rate consistent with other editors cuz someone else warned me i was going too fast. I also have bot requests in the works for some of the stuff I do, as suggested on the page you linked to and by the individual who warned me. I have been thanked many times, both here and in the edit section. I link to policies in my edit summaries, which further supports my edits. Many of the people who brought up concerns have signaled they understood my edits after clarification. The rest have not responded or reverted future edits I made on the page they came from.  Rlink2 (talk) 05:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

The Conjuring Universe and your recent edit to an Instragram citation
Hi,

Regarding this edit, I strongly urge you to reconsider where you add alternate links like this. If you are going to go through pages bot-like and add these kinds of alternatives, I would highly advise you do it after the actual citation, which is structured in a human-readable way, and whose info is more important to be able to quickly parse than the addition of a non-login link. I've already changed your one at this page. On top of that, the Instagram alternative you're using seems very fly-by-night... you might want to reconsider whether it's stable enough to be used to supplement a bunch of Instagram citations because if it goes down, that's going to lead to a tonne of linkrot that you'd be responsible for. —Joeyconnick (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Bibliogram is not an archive site it is an alternative way to access the Instagram link without requiring a login. Making sure anyone can access the citations is an important part of WP:Verifiability. Note this is an WP:Verifiability run, not a WP:Linkrot run, so I am not adding archives to Instagram posts. If the original Instagram link is dead, the Bibliogram link will also be dead.


 * Bibliogram has been up for some time and Bayseian theory says sites that have been up for long will likely stay up for the forseeable future.


 * It is easier to place before the link before than after due to the possibility of trailing text being far higher than leading text, and to avoid weird cutoff but since multiple people want supplementary info to come after the citation, I'll have to find a way. Thanks for the feedback. Rlink2 (talk) 19:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * To second what was said, please please please get this approved through WP:BOTREQ. This really should be done through a bot account with approval, there's just too many edits.  Ravensfire  (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have three bot requests already in the queue. As more requests get approved I submit more requests. There was a time that i was going too fast, but someone warned me so now I am editing at a rate consistent with other editors who use the tool. In fact, there are editors who are doing 25-30 edits a minute so I am really just going at a leisuerly rate. Also, I would only create a bot if I am confident that it would be needed in the forseeable future. Many of my edits are one off things that don't really need a bot.  Rlink2 (talk) 21:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I would strongly recommend you do not use that Bibliogram site for paywall. We have no idea about the reliability of that. Instead, you should be using the Internet Archive or something like archive.today which we do accept as appropriate cache sites, and that can work past paywalls at times. --M asem (t) 21:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Only archive.today and Ghostarchive can bypass paywalls and loginwalls, and I have already been using those, so I will just keep using those sites for IG. Most people seem to be fine with archive.today and Ghostarchive anyway.  Rlink2 (talk) 21:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see any problem using archive.today (or its various other names) given that this seems to be accepted as an archiveurl link. That's how you should include these links is through the archiveurl/archivedate mechanism in citation templates, particularly if you are using archival sites. --M asem (t) 21:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you mean by "accepted" as an archiveurl link, you can put anything in there (the CS template won't throw an error), but IABot will remove it in its runs if it doesn't recognize the archive site, so there is a de facto archive whitelist, of which Archive.today is a part of. For the sites not on the whitelist Cbignore exists, but this has its own issues so this is a temporary solution. Cyberpower has been busy with ArbCom elections up until recently hence the delay. He did recently fix BrownHairedGirl's bug though, and now working on adding Ghostarchive support and fixing the "Users trying to analyze pages are being told they are blocked when they are not" bug (both of which he marked "high priority").


 * Anyway, when using an archive site, I always use archiveurl. Biblogram wasn't an archival site so I didn't use archiveurl. I'll go back and revert my edits to replace with an proper archive link. Thank you for your swift action, civility, and assumption of good faith. Rlink2 (talk) 22:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have also reverted some of your edits adding that site, as it does not look reliable, and it is especially not appropriate to add it to the beginning of the citation before the actual link. I hope you will be going back and reverting the rest of these link additions soon, as it looks like you are fixing bare links now while hundreds of your edits adding that link to citations are still live. Also, in the future, you should probably stop making mass edits after the first editor brings up issues to you, rather than waiting until three editors have asked you to stop. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 05:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I did stop when the first editor asked me to explictly stop. I've stopped editing for the night, but I will take care of the other links tomorrow morning. Rlink2 (talk) 06:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! And thanks so much for all your other edits as well. The work you do is very important and helpful. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 06:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have taken care of 99% of the links, there are about 90 (from 500) left. The Bibilogram links were all replaced with archives instead. Will hopefully have it all done by end of week. Thank you for your extremely kind message.

Instagram changes
Hi there. A minor note on this change: Instagram only requires registration (i.e. free), not a subscription. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 00:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * At first, I was going to say that I thought that "subscription" was the only value that would work with url access, but then I looked a the docs again and it seems like "registration" or "limited" might be better. Thanks for letting me know. Rlink2 (talk) 00:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Please stop using "limited" and use "registration". —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:28, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Also please respect the article's date format and stop generically using yyyy-mm-dd. If the article specifies "use mdy" or "use dmy", use the specified format. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:30, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Why so? I think "limited" is a better choice than "registration" for instagram, since you need a phone number to sign up (an "other constraint" per CS1 template). There is no difference in reality, in the CS1 template limited and registration look the same. Nevertheless I can switch to registration if it makes you happy.
 * Where would the article say "use mdy" or "use dmy"? Please link to a diff where the article has a date format specified. Never mind, figured out what you meant. Will do, thanks Rlink2 (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Where would the article say "use mdy" or "use dmy"? Please link to a diff where the article has a date format specified. Rlink2 (talk) 23:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Instagram requires an email, nothing more, as indicated here.
 * Where would the article say? Check the header of this article and note the use of the Use mdy dates template. Other articles list Use dmy dates.
 * It's really concerning you are going through and making multiple edits to hundreds of articles and yet you seem not to have a basic understanding of how things work here. —Joeyconnick (talk) 23:45, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
 * All the Instagram accounts i've tried to make all require a phone number. Or maybe i'm thinking of Facebook. Anyway, its Christmas night and it took me a while to realize what you meant. I think i have a good understanding of how things work here, but if I am doing something wrong people can always leave a message on my talk page. When people point out mistakes or gaps in my knowledge, I try to correct them. 23:53, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding on here: Do check that the archive service that you are using can actually archive the instagram post first before adding the archive link. Some of these posts either are already deleted or belonging to accounts that are privatised, but still usable as primary source for basic facts. Please rectify this behaviour before continuing your semi-automated edits. Thanks! Examples: Special:Diff/1061942624 (https://ghostarchive.org/iarchive/s/instagram/BD8gwI8o0xr) and Special:Diff/1061922293 (https://ghostarchive.org/iarchive/s/instagram/CXk2FArvnPzL97YRmYxz_-toAPt26Bd2jNrXjg0). – robertsky (talk) 05:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for making me aware. Unlike Youtube, I can't check for myself if the Instagram link is dead (because of the login wall). So I just submit the links for archival, and hope that the image gets archived. I will have to make sure the image is archived before moving on. I appreciate your kind message. Rlink2 (talk) 05:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes please do check that the archival is completed first before inserting the links. Will you be going back to your past edits and check for similar instances? You have inserted cbignore template, which will prevent archive bots to insert their archival links in the future if they manage to somehow archive these posts. – robertsky (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I will be going back to check my edits. IABot doesn't recgonize when an Instagram link is dead or alive (see T294880), hence the need for cbignore in this case. Rlink2 (talk)

Bypassing NYT paywall
Use live when adding archive URLs to live URLs. Otherwise it looks like intentionally adding the archive URL for the purpose of bypassing the paywall. -- Green  C  07:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I thought for paywalls, we use url-access=limited and not url-status. I think there was a discussion about this on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_184#url-status%3Dlive_paywall_escape and other parts of Wikipedia, where consensus seemed to be that url-access=limited was the better option. If I'm wrong though, please let me know. Rlink2 (talk) 13:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of any such discussion. If anything that linked discussion shows consensus not to do what your doing, IMO. url-access does not preclude live, they do different things. Use them both. url-access will add a little grey circle icon next to the link. live will position the URL such that the source URL comes first and the archive second. Example:
 * -- Green  C  16:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * . that linked discussion shows consensus not to do what your doing, in there people said things like I think we should do so if and only if the alternative is legal and The more ethical, less user friendly option would be to always defer to the archive over live version (did he mix up the words "ethical" and "user friendly"?) However, since I highly respect you as an editor, and you thought it was a big deal to leave a message in a kind and polite manner, I'll start adding it for paywalls. Thanks again Rlink2 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words, and adding url-status. If it came up in an RfC I don't think there would be consensus to mark live links as being dead: I'm not sure we should make it so easy for readers to get around [paywalls] and Should we really be purposefully encouraging links to bypass the source's website to a paywall bypass? and we should not be in the overtly stated business of bypassing paywalls. Personally, I pay for access to the NYT ("The truth is behind a paywall and the lies are free"). Clicking a link I would hope goes to the website not an archive. It's a complicated thing, we can make balanced choices that respect the content and also provide archives. --  Green  C  19:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind words, and adding url-status. If it came up in an RfC I don't think there would be consensus to mark live links as being dead: I'm not sure we should make it so easy for readers to get around [paywalls] and Should we really be purposefully encouraging links to bypass the source's website to a paywall bypass? and we should not be in the overtly stated business of bypassing paywalls. Personally, I pay for access to the NYT ("The truth is behind a paywall and the lies are free"). Clicking a link I would hope goes to the website not an archive. It's a complicated thing, we can make balanced choices that respect the content and also provide archives. --  Green  C  19:07, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I noticed you are changing multiple citations for The New York Times. Why are you adding ghostarchive links to those citations? Is ghostarchive an approved archive and are you affiliated with ghostarchive in any way? Do you have consensus for making these changes? Thank you. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 22:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It looks like you are adding archive-url without adding url-status to those citations. Without url-status set to live the link is assumed to be dead. What is the purpose of the cbignore template added to each one? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 22:17, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I have answered all these questions before on this exact talk page. If you read the WP:LINKROT and the Bypassing NYT paywall (where I moved your message to)  sections of this page, you'll have the answers to all of your questions. If you have any other questions, I would happy to answer them.  Rlink2 (talk) 22:45, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointers to the posts. You wrote my ghostarchive usage now is limited in scope for Youtube but appear to still be using ghostarchive for The New York Times. Will you be going back and fixing the changed citations to add live and changing the archive host? Thanks. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 23:20, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I can certainly go back and add url-status=live, but I didn't say that I use a archive site only for one site, i said that I use it mainly for one site. As in, most of my Youtube archival edits are ghostarchive, while the other sites may be a mix of web.archive.org and ghostarchive.org. Regarding why that site in particular, archive.today has captchas so I can no longer use that, and web.archive.org sometimes fails at removing the paywall at the content. And webcite stopped taking archive requests. Rlink2 (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

MEATBOT
I don't understand how you're able to churn out 5 identical edits a minute on different articles without operating an undisclosed bot, or otherwise running afoul of WP:MEATBOT. Geogene (talk) 14:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you heard about "auto wiki browser"? I am not the only editor to use it, many do. And some go way faster than 5 edits a minnute. Rlink2 (talk)
 * I think they are saying per WP:MEATBOT: "Editors who choose to use semi-automated tools to assist their editing should be aware that processes which operate at higher speeds, with a higher volume of edits, or with less human involvement are more likely to be treated as bots. If there is any doubt, you should make a bot approval request." AWB is a semi-automated tool. --  Green  C  16:38, 2 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I can do 5 edits a minute manually without the assitance of an outside tool. I'm not sure where Geogene is coming from. Rlink2 (talk) 18:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Carcharhinus melanopterus
Hello! I'm Filet 123 from polish Wikipedia. I was translating to polish (this shark) – and I saw uncompleted references. Why this shark has got status: GA?!

Greetings!, Filet 123 from polish wiki! Filet 123 (talk) 08:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Based on the talk page of the article, it has been a GA since 2009. A lot might have changed since then and standards have increased. Articles can be nominated to be reassessed at WP:GAR. If you are able, you are also welcome to fix any issues you do see with it. -- The SandDoctor Talk 20:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Rlink2 Bot task 1 approved
Hello Rlink2, Bots/Requests for approval/Rlink2 Bot has been approved. Happy editing! -- The SandDoctor Talk 07:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * your bot seems to be malfunctioning and is appearing in the Recent Changes log. Not sure if you don't have the edits flagged as "bot" or its an API issue. Can you take a look? cc --Cameron11598 (Talk) 23:16, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Relink2, I have blocked because it looks like the bot is not correctly flagging its edits as bot edits, and it appears that this is disrupting the work of recent changes patrollers, since the edits are flooding Special:RecentChanges. I can see that the bot is running on AWB; do you know if AWB has a setting that enables the bot flag for its edits? Feel free to let me know when you think you've identified the issue, and I will be happy to unblock your bot account. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 23:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just got on back on the computer now. The bot is using a different framework (As of right now, https://github.com/siddharthvp/mwn) for this task. I think on the BRFA i said AWB was one of the possible options I will be using. I have no idea why the bot is malfunctioning, maybe the creator of the library could help? I thought that once the bot flag was assigned, no further work was necessary, right? Rlink2 (talk) 23:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Actually, once the bot flag is assigned, there is a change that you need to make to the API call in order to flag specific edits as bot edits, see Help:Creating a bot. I'm personally not very familiar with mwn, but based on, my guess is that you need to add a boolean  when submitting the edit. Mz7 (talk) 00:00, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Ah, that was it. Before the bot was approved (trial run), I had to put the "bot" parameter to false and forgot to change it to bot=true for the real run. Thanks for the trout slap and assumption of good faith and civility. Rlink2 (talk) 00:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * No worries! Glad we were able to solve the issue. Is it okay to lift the block now? Mz7 (talk) 00:51, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Feel free to lift it if you want, then I will test the bot supervised with the fix. If it works after then, ill then keep it running. If not, then I'll stop it and try to investigate further. Rlink2 (talk) 00:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅. Mz7 (talk) 01:23, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The bot should be working in the bot section now, at least from what I see it is not filling up human recent changes. If there are any other issues please let me know Rlink2 (talk) 01:39, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Requesting some help
Greetings @ Rlink2

Requesting your help/ guidance. I had saved following reference details of Washington Post for later writing. But after some weeks now, Washinton Post returns me to it's home page from link ref saved by me. I searched archive.org but I did not get it there. It's copy is available @ religionnews.com but still if I give reference of Washinton Post (which has better respectability as a source) verifiability remains an issue. How to get Washinton Post article back to prove verifiability or any other options?


 * Same article @ religionnews
 * Same article @ religionnews

Thanks and warm regards

&#32;Bookku, &#39;Encyclopedias &#61; expanding information &#38; knowledge&#39; (talk) 09:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I checked Wayback and it is there but not working. I then checked archive.today, in which I saw the washington post article was just a syndicated copy of the religion news article, So the religion news site is the original copy. We should be linking to the religion news copy. Just because its on the Washington Post website doesn't mean it comes from the washington post (which is what matters for WP:RS) Rlink2 (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)