DemonDays64

Hi DemonDays64. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing pending changes, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators.
  

Chetsford (talk) 02:37, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply

An article you recently created, Christopher Larkin (Australian composer), does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 10:40, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply

I am just curious about the fact that "Bender the Bot" is changing the scheme from "http" to "https", and "DemonDays64_Bot" is also making this scheme change. I'm not sure whether one of these only does "wayback" links while the other one doesn't do wayback links. Can you clarify this?

Aren't there some domains for which the "https" scheme doesn't work? How does DemonDays64 know whether or not changing to "https" is okay? Is that the problem that's anticipated by the comment in the edit summary to report any issues with the edit? Fabrickator (talk) 03:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Fabrickator: It has a list of domains (copied to User:DemonDays64 Bot/List in a readable format) that it changes in references, not touching any others. Changing the scheme does not have any problems with the Wayback Machine, as far as I am aware. For some more info about the bot, see User:DemonDays64/Bot and the links there, especially to the requests for approval. DemonDays64 (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the info! Fabrickator (talk) 04:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

on Legend you fixed a lot of links that don't need fixing, the variety site goes https anyway, but more than half are dead 404 links Dave Rave (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, at Fontana, California the bot nuked most of the article. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Magnolia677: huh! I have no idea what happened. Running the bot again on the page did not do the same thing. Thank you a ton for catching this and notifying me!! DemonDays64 (talk) 19:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Hi, you recently did a bot replacement on url links to various magazines, among them Paste, NME, The A.V. Club, IGN, Entertainment Weekly, Stereogum and DIY

I have followed behind and found that I had to revise the url links for many of the NME articles and the A.V. Club article, and all the Paste articles so far have been dead and I have had to find a new article for replacement (I could have done an archive link, but easier to locate a new article for the album lists).

I have only reviewed the changes you have done for List of 2009 albums and for List of 2010 albums so far. If you visit those pages and look at my follow up edits, you will see what corrections I had to make to the url links, or which ones I had to replace entirely.

Also, thank you for doing this. I recently made a pass through these articles and corrected for a whole host of magazines that updated to https, but missed most of these. EW.com was on my list, so I am embarrassed I missed those, but I did corrections for Rolling Stone, PopMatters, Loudwire, Pitchfork, Consequence of Sound, Blabbermouth, Billboard, AltPress, and others I am forgetting right now. All but Rolling Stone and PopMatters only needed the http changed to https, but Rolling Stone and PopMatters needed updated url strands. I don't know if these other magazines were in your search engine because I didn't see the urls changed, but if they are not, you can include them as well.

To sum up, magazines that only need http changed to https are as follows: IGN, Entertainment Weekly, Stereogum, DIY, Loudwire, Pitchfork, Consequence of Sound, Blabbermouth, Billboard, AltPress.

Magazine urls that sometimes need additional work beyond the https change are as follows: Paste, NME, The A.V. Club, PopMatters, Rolling Stone.

Thanks for your work. Mburrell (talk) 16:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Mburrell:Thanks! I’m too inexperienced for something that would fix them, but could it be useful to maybe make a bot that finds those URLs with a broken pattern and marks them for someone to find where it moved to? Just a thought, DemonDays64 (talk) 17:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

DemonDays64, Primefac suggested that I contact you. I understand that you run a bot that converts instances of http to https. In many articles concerting Michigan Wolverines football, there are external links, in both in-line references and external links sections, pointing to pages at http://bentley.umich.edu. These links are now broken and redirect to the domain home page. But simply converting http to https will resolve the problem and direct the links to correct pages. See my last edit at 1901 Michigan Wolverines football team. Can we run a bot to update all these URLs? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 17:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jweiss11: I can probably do this today. Thanks! It's great to have someone tell me what to do to make my bot have a clear impact   DemonDays64 (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

@Jweiss11: This is running now — I have generated a list of 928 pages that have links to edit.

If you want a list of pages edited for this job, see the bot's edits with summary "HTTPS security (part of attempt to fix Bentley Historical Library links described here)." This might be useful as there are some links that are still broken but might have just moved URLs (e.g. Chicago has one that is an error even with HTTPS).

Also, I have set the bot to add the pages it edits for this task to its watchlist. If you want, I may be able to find a way to export a list of them. DemonDays64 (talk) 18:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply

Actually this is way too convoluted. Here is a page where the articles that should be edited are: User:DemonDays64 Bot/Bentley pages.

  Partly done @Jweiss11: I have run the bot on every page in the aforementioned list. There may be some links it did not get on those pages, as the settings are not really possible to make work with bare URLs in places such as non-template references. There also may be some pages it did not find. I will likely work on getting those last ones later, when I have more time. Thanks, DemonDays64 (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)!Reply

Awesome. Thanks for your help on this. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)Reply