Looks like the KiranBOT thinks http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp/20100806 (also a dead link, so see archived link) is an AMP tracking link (see this edit by the bot). This just appears to be how Wizards of the Coast use to format links & isn't an AMP. Not sure if this error has appeared elsewhere (Editions of Dungeons & Dragons is on my watchlist). Sariel Xilo (talk) 00:17, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The bot reverted my correction; I reverted the bot again & added {{bots|deny=KiranBOT}} to the ref which will hopefully work as a stopgap but I've never run into an issue like this with a bot. Sariel Xilo (talk) 02:11, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sariel Xilo: Hi. I checked, the original URL doesn't give out 404, or something similar response, but it redirects, so the bot updated it. I am currently on mobile. I will add the URL in white-list soon. —usernamekiran (talk)08:06, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Back in Sept 2024, I put in a request at Wikipedia:Link rot/URL change requests because older sections on D&D 5E on the Wizards of the Coast website were turned into redirects. Wizards has done this a couple of times (for example, the above link was 2010 article from the D&D 4E era) so Link Rot has processed a few requests over the years to mark these sources as dead & add archive links. So I'm not sure why it matters that the original source link is a Soft-404 (ie. redirect) instead of a Hard-404 since Link Rot has already marked it dead with an archive link. If the source is marked dead, why would the bot need to update it (especially if it seems it can't determine a Soft-404 has occurred)? Sariel Xilo (talk) 08:47, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sariel Xilo: Hi. While talking about this particular task, there are lots of amp URLs that are non-functional but their canonical counterparts work. In some cases, amp URLs redirect automatically to the canonical URL. Thats why the bot tried to find canonical URL even if the amp is non operational. In rare case like our current one, the changes can be reverted, and the URL can be added to the white-list. Thank you for pointing out the error, the calm/civil tone is appreciated a lot. —usernamekiran (talk)16:09, 21 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Usernamekiran: I've run into another error where the bot has incorrectly decided something is a AMP link. The two main issues are:
Any Wizards of the Coast website link in this format: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/dramp is not an AMP link; dramp was some internal categorization they used way before the existence of AMP links. I flagged my concern above that this was a standard format they once used so the bot needs to whitelist any link in this format and you need fix any other errors of this type in the larger Category:Dungeons & Dragons.
The bot is adding redirects in a Soft 404 situation; even if the bot can find a redirect, if a source is marked is dead & has an archive link, it probably shouldn't change that original source link. Is AMP tracking an actual concern if the source has been marked dead? Is this something you should work with the link rot project on?
Please let me know if you have any questions. I'm going to restore the source & try to block the bot from editing this single case but I don't have entire D&D category in my watchlist to know if other articles have the same bot error. Sariel Xilo (talk) 17:30, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sariel Xilo: Hi. I'm currently on mobile. Even if the bot makes changes to other articles, it will be easy to find them using the insource search. When I come online from computer, I will add the URL to whitelist, rever changed, and think about your suggestions. —usernamekiran (talk)20:19, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sariel Xilo: Hi. Sorry for the delayed reply. I fixed the issue yesterday. I removed the deny template. Just one thing, these templates should go at the top of the pages. Thanks for your help/co-operation. —usernamekiran (talk)07:58, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, so I have it set on my talk page that KiranBOT, which you operate/own, won't notify me of my teahouse questions getting archived, but the bot did exactly that today. Might wanna look into that to see if it is glitching or something. Just thought I should let you know seeing as you operation/own the bot. Have a nice day. RedactedHumanoid (talk) 06:44, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question from PatthisMollak (14:53, 27 February 2025)
Hello, I have a very quick question on editing. I made a minor edit yesterday and notice it was undone by another user. I have confirmed information that the edit I made was correct, yet it was still undone. How can I prevent this? Thank you very much in advance. --PatthisMollak (talk) 14:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Happy First Edit Day!
@DaniloDaysOfOurLives: Thanks, much appreciated. Apparently, even though my first edit was a long time ago, I have been editing consecutively for only eight years now (started ninth year this January). Feels a very long time though. —usernamekiran (talk)04:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@AndrewJHerbert: Hello. For English Wikipedia, you can see it at Special:ListFiles/AndrewJHerbert, but you have no uploads here. However, you have one upload on Wikimedia commons, it can be seen at commons:Special:ListFiles/AndrewJHerbert. —usernamekiran (talk)08:15, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to restart the move discussion about the Western Syria clashes (December 2024–present) article.
Since the fall of Assad, clashes between Assad loyalists and HTS/New security forces and related assassinations haven't been confined to the areas defined as "Western Syria", namely Latakia, Tartus, Western Homs and Hama.
There have been numerous incidents, including clashes in other areas such as Rif Dimashq, Deir Ez-Zor etc.
As of now, there are no other articles on Wikipedia where these events are/can be documented and the number of these events(both inside and outside Western Syria) are increasing every day. Thus, the scope of this article is insufficient to document these events and as time goes by and when the move eventually happens, the retroactive documentation overhead will be quite big.
The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of a group of Wikipedians to better understand their experiences! We are also looking to interview some survey respondents in more detail, and you will be eligible to receive a thank-you gift for the completion of an interview. The outcomes of this research will shape future work designed to improve on-wiki experiences.
We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this survey, which shouldn’t take more than 2-3 minutes. You may view its privacy statement here. Please contact me if you have any questions or concerns. Kind regards, Sam Walton (talk) 16:35, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase III/Administrator elections.
—usernamekiran (talk) 10:28, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
You must be logged in to post a comment.