User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2012/April

This is an archive of past discussions with User:ClueBot Commons. 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.

This edit is very clearly vandalism. How did you miss reverting it? Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Even bots miss things. The edit was disguised well enough to pass as a non-vandalistic edit.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 20:56, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Right. Can you use it as an example to improve the bot? Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:07, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not the owner of the bot, User:Cobi is. Besides, the bot improves itself learning more and more as it goes through Wikipedia hunting down vandalism.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:13, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, ambiguous "you". I didn't mean you, but the owner of the bot. Acps110 ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It's ok. Like I said though, ClueBot NG uses a form of Artificial Intelligence as it always learning and improving itself.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 21:17, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

I think his point is that this instance should be added to the bot's training set since it is a "false negative" that he thinks should be caught. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, without scraping though LOADS of MySQL, there would be no way to know now why the bot skipped over the edit. I'll try, but I won't promise anything - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 01:03, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

The automated computer program called ClueBot NG is vandalizing Dustin Hoffman page and it's impossible to revert its work. Thank You.84.221.93.177 (talk) 23:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the diff: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dustin_Hoffman&diff=484614466&oldid=484614442 ☮Soap☮ 23:18, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you bumped into a false positive. Did you know reporting these helps ClueBot to not make the same mistake again? So, why not report a false positive at the Report Interface – it's really easy to do! Thank you. Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 01:01, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Not sure if it's malformed code on our side, however I switched our archiving to CB3 last week with an age of 5 days, but it doesn't seem to be archiving?

I have a feeling looking at other posts that because it's not archiving to a subpage, we may need a key? The archives should be at /2012_1 (existing one), /2012_2 etc. - Happysailor ^(Talk) 00:41, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello? there's this vandal u should keep an eye out for. an IP address, that is. 68.45.241.10. this anonymous user is continually doing unconstructive edits and general vandalism to Warner Bros. cartoon articles here and such and I want u to moniter this user's every move. U will do that for me? Visokor (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm, you do realize that this is a bot right?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 22:42, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

the edit is a valid and referenced update of their destinations, its not vandalism or removal of content.116.71.30.180 (talk) 14:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you bumped into a false positive. Did you know reporting these helps ClueBot to not make the same mistake again? So, why not report a false positive at the Report Interface – it's really easy to do! Thank you. – Wdchk (talk) 01:44, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

What happened in [1]? I got involved when the user asked for help at Wikipedia:Help desk#User page. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot III keeps making the strange list of articles at User:ClueBot III/Indices/User talk:Pluma so I have disabled the index.[2] PrimeHunter (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't know about copyrighted edits now i have know about it OK sorry in future i will take care about it thanx Khan810 (talk · contribs)

Hello ClueBot! I know that you are a bot and cannot answer but I just wanted to report to you that I spotted vandalism in Roshon Fegan page. (See the revision history of the page so you can what it said and determine if it is vandalism.) So what I just did was to remove it and I put in the edit summary "Removing possible vandalism." Thank You! Mr. Tagle (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is vandalism, thank you for removing it--5 albert square (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Bot, How do you do?

Please see this page and see what can be done aboutUser_talk:184.65.125.202. This little nuisance IP has been vandalizing in other Wikis (eg. ml.wikipedia.org )too.

Thank you! ViswaPrabha വിശ്വപ്രഭ (talk) 02:03, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your interest in preventing vandalism of Wikipedia. Unfortunately, Cluebot NG is not trained to investigate individual users or IPs in the way you describe. However, you can help! There is lots more information available at WP:VANDAL. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 03:41, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello, ClueBot is not an admin and is therefore not able to do anything other than revert vandalism. If the IP is still vandalising I would suggest that you file a report at WP:AIV once the IP has been sufficiently warned. One of us admins can then take a look at it.--5 albert square (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I update Evanna Lynch middle which is the truth, Evanna Lynch middle name is PATRICIA. Evanna has confirmed her middle name is PATRICIA on her official facebook profile, Evanna has post her facebook website link on her official, verified twitter account. Here is official sources for everyone to look at, at the official information: Evanna Lynch official Facebook account: http://www.facebook.com/pages/Evanna-Lynch/238235589546563?sk=info Evanna Lynch official and verifeld Twitter account: https://twitter.com/#!/evy_lynch I know I am new user on wikipedia and I am still learning how wikipedia works but this information on Evanna Lynch middle name is the truth and a fact. Thank you. Hogwartsfanzone, 12 April 2012, 09:21am (UTC)

I reverted the archive of a talk page with an open (backlogged) move request. I do not know how to fix the archive box on the page now, which still points to the de-created archive. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I've reviewed about 1064 edits, and I have a couple comments regarding the interface, a case that keeps popping up, etc. Should I ask here or on Cobi's Talk page or where? Thanks! Allens (talk | contribs) 10:10, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Hey Allens, first, let me thank you for your hard work reviewing edits ;) Second, please post any questions, comments or complaints here so all the devs can see it. Many thanks - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 23:48, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Quite welcome; happy to help! I've also been doing some reviewing/revision using STiki, incidentally, particularly when I haven't been able to connect to the ClueBot review server.

The first comment is regarding that the interface sometimes presents the exact same edit two or more times in a row; the current leading example is 404142727 for Radulf - a constructive (IMO) albeit highly contentious edit. I actually can see the utility of presenting something to the same reviewer more than once if it's unusually difficult to decide; I changed my mind on one such (from constructive to skip) after determining it was a copyright violation as well as, well, clueless. (That one still comes up sometimes - it's regarding ferrets in the movies...) However, there needs to be enough time between them that one has a chance to forget one's previous response and possibly come to a different conclusion.

Second, the interface screen that one gets if one clicks on the number starts not working very well with a significant number of edits reviewed. Specifically, what it displays gets farther and farther from the current edit, and finding the correct edit - when, for instance, one's trying to figure out why it's showing up so many times, or look at comments others have made when one is uncertain - gets harder and harder. (That interface is also undocumented...)

Third, there are a number of other sources that could be either used alone or combined with reviewing (but only requiring a single reviewer's agreement instead of requiring two reviewers agreeing, thus halving the reviewer load). These could also be used to help update the database - I worry that some aspects of vandalism, specifically the more subtle sorts, may have changed since the database was created. Such other sources include:

• Vandalism-reverting edits (picked up by such means as detecting the "signature" of Twinkle and similar) by administrators and other trusted individuals (e.g., those already doing reviewing for Cluebot and possibly those with the rollbacker ability) provide both an example of a "bad" edit (the one being reverted) and a "good" edit (the reversion). For that matter, the edits in general of such trusted individuals may be used as "good" examples (unless they were self-reverted).
• Similarly, STiki's database may be usable, particularly now that reversion of non-constructive edits made in "good faith" (not vandalism) are being distinguished. This could be done either with using the actions of all non-blocked STiki users, or using the actions of trusted individuals (as per the above). More importantly, in order to have the proper balance of "good" and "bad" edit examples, those edits classified by STiki users as "innocent" can be used as examples of "good" edits.

Fourth, I have seen in the current database the amusing presence of ClueBot's own actions as ones to classify. These should be considered at least reviewed by one reviewer and found "good", if not either automatically considered "good" or "skip", unless they are instances needing checking for possibly being false positives.

Thanks for all your (plural) work in programming ClueBot! I'm somewhat familiar with such work myself, having helped out with SpamAssassin. Allens (talk | contribs) 03:42, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That diff 404142727 comes up repeatedly for me, too. – Wdchk (talk) 04:12, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm setting up the archiving for an article, and am wondering if this is how index=yes is supposed to work (with "ArchiveThis" substituted for "DontArchiveThis", of course...):

{{archives
|auto=no
|list={{User:ClueBot III/DontArchiveThis
|archiveprefix=Talk:Joan Pujol Garcia/Archive
|format= %%i
|age=720
|index=yes
|minkeepthreads=2
|maxkeepbytes=500000
|maxkeepthreads=10
|maxarchsize=150000
|archivebox=no
|box-advert=no
}}
|collapsed=yes
|search=yes
|bot=ClueBot III
|age=30
}}

Thanks! Allens (talk | contribs) 10:23, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You can do it that way, yes. That's basically what archivebox=yes does, but it just uses a different box template. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 20:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Can you tell me what CBIII did here that it copied the entire talk page to an archive page? Now the bot code has been transferred to an archive page. Brad (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

CBIII is a great bot to use; especially on busy pages and explanations as to why things go awry would really help those who are reluctant to use this bot. The instructions given are a bit intimidating to the average user. Would you like some help revising the setup instructions? Brad (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Bueller? Brad (talk) 13:55, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 4706 Dennisreuter is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/4706 Dennisreuter until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Dicklyon (talk) 06:14, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

{{/censor}}

Hello young sir

We are deeply offended that my/our account for the UNOFFICAL Rachel Elnaugh Fan club is been accused of Vandalism after posting real reliable posts, please explain how we can avoid this tag?

Thankyou for your endulgance much love xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rachel Elnaugh Fan Club (talk • contribs) 21:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Your edits do not follow NPOV, and they are not encyclopedic. Oxfordwang (talk) 21:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! My Cluebot III was working fine until he started creating multiple pages for a single archive page as can be seen on my talk page. Is anyone capable of fixing it? I would really appreciate that, thank you very much. --Lecen (talk) 12:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Anyone? --Lecen (talk) 20:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It appears what happened was someone left you a message above the cluebot archive template, this caused cluebot to archive the template with the message as seen here [3], it then found the template in User talk:Lecen/Archive 12, and concluded it was supposed to archive the archive. It then began recursively archiving... Your removal of the template code in User talk:Lecen/Archive 12/Archives/ 1/Archives/ 1 will have fixed the problem. You can clean it up by just copying the archived messages back into archive 12 manually, and then requesting deletion of the sub archives. Monty₈₄₅ 20:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Monty, I really appreciate your help. Cheers, --Lecen (talk) 20:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot NG reverted vandalism to Algorithm; however, the vandalism is still there and I don't want to leave a second warning on the IP's page unless it's justified. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 22:09, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me like ClueBot removed it, perhaps your having a caching issue? Monty₈₄₅ 22:20, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks; I made a null edit and it's gone. All the best, Miniapolis (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please dont delete my account dude, I was just trying to edit the page but I accidentally erased everything then I accidentally hit submit i'm sorry im so clumsey plz forgive me and please dont delete me! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PBTF-Guitarist (talk • contribs) 03:06, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The capitalization of "ClueBot" on User:ClueBot NG is inconsistent. Within the text it is very often written as "Cluebot". Can it please be made consistent? —Al E.^(talk) 15:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The page that can be edited is here: User:ClueBot NG/Documentation. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 17:53, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

And...fixed! —Al E.^(talk) 18:22, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't read/write English.

About ⑨, I answered, User talk:Starchild1884#April 2012. Thank you.--Starchild1884 (talk) 23:55, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

The normal procedure resulted in an error message which I'm not sure how to report because that didn't work either.

This is the number I was supposed to enter: 1026157. This is the diff.

The edit was good faith and with rewording and removal of some details, I feel it is a valid addition.— Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 17:34, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I suggest you look again at this reversion which occurred in the middle of a concerted campaign of constructive vandalism by someone apparently in Spain. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That revert by ClueBot NG appears to be correct. – Wdchk (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Technically, yes--but the infobox destruction and other vandalistic messups were not addressed. That's why I said "Look again". I have no interest in mindless bot machinery, just in preserving good human editing. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware ClueBot, being a robot and not a human, ClueBot can only revert one editor at a time. The page was also being edited by experienced editors who should have noticed this vandalism.--5 albert square (talk) 09:28, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I tried setting up archiving on Talk:Cinavia with this edit, but the page has not been archived by ClueBot III. Why not? —danhash (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

On Dennis Hare. The user is Crusher123. --38.113.94.234 (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, but I don't know what Vandal is. I certainly didn't mean to vandal anything. I was simply trying to improve the page. Crusher123 (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, 38.113.94.234, but this is not a good place to report vandalism. None of the ClueBots are capable of responding to vandalism reports on this page. For more information about responding to vandalism, please refer to WP:VANDAL. To request administrator intervention, see WP:AIV. – Wdchk (talk) 19:58, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

{{/censor}}

Seeing this edit makes me curious — is Cluebot NG programmed specifically to look at modifications to filenames? Obviously this would have been caught even if it had been a change to normal text, but I wonder if unexplained changes in filenames might be a particularly good tip-off that an edit is vandalism. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 28 April 2012 (UTC)