User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2014/January

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.

None of the Cluebots have archived Administrators: Incidents board since December 27. I am unsure which bot is suppose to do it; the notice at the top of the board says II, but the last archive was by III. The same notice says 36 hours but there is at least one section that was edited 23 Dec, then 26 Dec, and is still on the board. The page is getting rather long. 71.234.215.133 (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

{{/censor}}

This: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=HRM&action=history is not a problem.
Happy New Year! --151.42.32.250 (talk) 20:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

The article 3573 Holmberg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

notability since 2012

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Retartist (talk) 01:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

There is an incorrect link under #Dataset Review Interface. --Greenmaven (talk) 23:25, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

To be more specific, the link to review.cluebot.org leads to a "domain registry expired" page. This prevents us from offering to help with the training data set, which I would otherwise love to do. Mkkuhner (talk) 05:30, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Yep, my bad... I'll renew it on Friday if I can, for now use review.cluebot.cluenet.org - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 11:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Could you please respond sometime? I reported a so called "false positive" days ago but am still waiting for your explanation. Rump Bass (talk) 11:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your false positive report. I'm sorry if this is not the answer you were looking for, but the false positive reporting process is not geared up to provide an individual response to any given report. In fact, it can be very difficult to determine why a false positive occurred. On the other hand, reporting a false positive is useful because it can improve the future behavior of the bot. A more detailed explanation is available in ClueBot NG's FAQ: Why did ClueBot NG classify this edit as vandalism or constructive? and What do the developers do with reported false positives?. – Wdchk (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't. There's nothing there about my edits. Rump Bass (talk) 12:29, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

The review link is broken. http://review.cluebot.org/renewal.aspx --74.202.39.3 (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You should use http://review.cluebot.cluenet.org/ - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Unethical to contribute or donate to this organization. Utter rubbish nonsense that ClueBot makes few mistakes. In reality, it is rare for it to not make mistakes! Not a question... this is an attack on unethical practices of Wikipedia and why I stopped contributing. Gone! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deewells (talk • contribs) 11:07, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

I respectfully suggest you provide evidence before making claims like this. – Wdchk (talk) 00:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Wdchk, since you asked so WP:NICEly (thanks for that), here is some evidence of the efficacy of cluebot.  :-)

  This is a case where the person in question made a good-faith sentence insertion to Acacia, something about honey-manufacturing-infrastructure as an anon,[1] then after cluebot auto-reverted the changes (which *does* look like a buggy behavior to me... what was the trigger?), came back to re-insert a similar change as User:Deewells.[2] Apparently, the attempted unsourced data-insertion, from both of the attempts, is factually wrong. See first entry (with cite[3] to a scientific journal publication from 2004) in table at Monofloral_honey, hat-tip to Mukogodo for catching this and correcting the subtle error, nice work.

  Other than that, they've added an entry to the in-popular-culture section of the Salton Sea, linking to a youtube video of a 1957 sci-fi movie in which the Salton Sea was the setting.[4] This particular youtube-movie is 84 minutes in length, complete with subtitles in Russian, uploaded by sasha190019900, whom methinks we can safely presume did not receive written permission from Grammercy Pictures Incorporated, the folks listed in the first few frames of the video. The link to the allegedly COPYVIO was originally inserted as an anon,[5] but after cluebot blocked that, reinserted as a username. Hat-tip to Yngvadottir for changing the reference to the American Film Institute website,[6] rather than simply reverting outright.

  The bulk of DeeWells/79.102.63.209/79.102.128.233/79.102.18.250/79.102.29.102/etc (dynamically assigned by Telenor Sverige corporation) remaining recent edit-history,[7] as of the last couple weeks when they began editing wikipedia in earnest, has revolved around the scientific misconduct article,[8] inserting fairly detailed allegations about "workplace abuse" in specifically-named Swedish universities (and unnamed but not-that-difficult-to-pinpoint chancellors and rectors thereof), based on internal university documents "with no ISBN numbers",[9] which the user has "summarized" but without adding "much" of their own POV. Their explicit legal justification for this material was as follows. "Some EU countries forbid the naming of individuals in public, but not their institution, despite names being printed on the documents."[10] Perhaps this preoccupation with 'unethical' stuff in general, prompted the accusation that cluebot is merely a tool of a nefarious cabal of some sort?

  Finally, There is also this edit, to a BLP article.[11] I fixed that one myself. (Note that the previous edit to the BLP in question, by 108.73.46.236 from Missouri, isn't the same editor as 79 from Sweden.) If you need additional evidence for debugging cluebot, please watchlist the appropriate portions of class-A address-space, and other such things. In the meantime, thanks for improving wikipedia. 74.192.84.101 (talk) 15:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Have you read through the false positives section of the Cluebot FAQ? It should give you a better understanding of why these mistakes occur. Also you could spot check the recent contributions of Cluebot NG, that should satisfy you that >99.5% of reverts are genuine vandalism—try to bear in mind that for every example of a false positive you find, there are 100-1000 true positives benmoore 16:11, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

When anon IP changes height, weigh Cluebot notice it and revert it.[12] But when anon IP changes date of birth or year of birth, Cluebot doesn't notice it.[13]. This DOB changes in Indian celebrities articles is quiet rampant. I request you to make changes in bot to detect this problem. Thanks. Abhi (talk) 15:47, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

You may be interested in reading the core algorithm section of the Cluebot FAQ, which explains why Cluebot will miss some vandalism, and specific weightings such as, "watch out for DOB changes", cannot be explicitly set or changed. You should still be able to review edits for the training set if you're interested in improving the detection accuracy of the bot benmoore 15:58, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

See [14]. --Smkolins (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello, ClueBot Commons. You have new messages at Arunsingh16's talk page.
Message added 15:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Cheers AKS 15:20, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Chiklis&diff=next&oldid=590027846

I don't know how this works as the diff appears to show no changes that might normally cause this but the image box details end up with placemarkers like "Data1 {{{data 1}}}"

Weirdly, if I open up the editor for the article and preview it without any editing, the infobox data renders in the preview. Any ideas what's happened here? 94.2.169.149 (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Weird, nothing to do with Cluebot though. Just needed a WP:PURGE, for future reference you can do this by performing a null edit, just click edit and then save (without changing anything). benmoore 23:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Resolved

 – An administrator has protected Kangkung. – Wdchk (talk) 13:30, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I think Kangkung page should be protect because there is so many vandalism.Apli kasi 12:04, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I see it's now been protected. Next time, WP:RFPP is where to report it. Thanks :-) Yngvadottir (talk) 13:27, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I move we start a list of occurrences when ClueBot NG has demonstrated a surprisingly good eye for vandalism.

• Featherwinglove (talk) 21:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC) My Cousin Vinny's was not directed by Frank Capra III: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=My_Cousin_Vinny&diff=589248591&oldid=589248588

FYI it appears as of this revert Cluebot NG no longer posts a MYSQL ID with its edits, it just shows 0. --Jnorton7558 (talk) 03:52, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, the bot has a limited amount of MYSQL IDs it can use. Once it reaches this limit, it recycles the old ones and starts at 0. K6ka (talk | contrib) 22:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

It did like 17.5 hours worth of edits with an ID of 0 and then when there was a MYSQL ID again it started back up with the next ID number from when it stopped editing, ID 1656332 ID 1656333 --Jnorton7558 (talk) 23:50, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't able to report it (the page appears to be down), but this revert was a false positive. Tad Lincoln (talk) 05:19, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I swear. This is like the third or fourth time ClueBot NG is down again. As of this writing the bot hasn't reverted a single edit for almost an hour. K6ka (talk | contrib) 17:54, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

At User talk:Mommatruth2 gave level 1 - but then 2 days later only did level 1 again, should it not have been level 2?  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 23:01, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

So, seeing that CBNG's been experiencing a few hiccups recently, I wanted to present a new, wild idea that might've been composed while sitting on the toilet (In reality, the idea came to me one night whilst asleep). My idea is that we set up a "ClueBot NG 2", but it won't replace the existing ClueBot NG. ClueBot NG will be hosted on the Wikimedia Labs Server (like it is now), while CBNG2 will be housed in another external server. Both bots will be running simultaneously, but they should be coded in such a way that they'll be able to collaborate just fine, and not duplicate work or collide with each other. This kind of design is already in use on Wikipedia - the HBC AIV helperbots that maintain WP:AIV and WP:UAA. The goal of that design is to ensure that the AIV pages are always properly serviced, so I put the idea together to ensure that there will always be at least one bot actively fighting vandalism. So if there's a problem with Wikimedia's servers, it won't leave the encyclopedia to the mercy of delighted vandals. If that's not possible, we could always call the original ClueBot out of retirement as a temporary replacement if its younger brother ever goes down (because a crappier anti-vandal bot is better than no bot at all, IMHO).

Well, that's me just noting down some ideas. Doesn't have to become reality, but it would be nice if someone at least thought it over. K6ka (talk | contrib) 01:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

hi, this is the evidence:中国大陆电视剧列表_(2014年) which shows that it hasn't broadcast yet, thanks. --Pedrotangtang (talk) 17:40, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi,

I posted this question on 19 January 2014 at the HelpDesk: I've recently run across edits to pages I've previously worked on in which someone using only an IP address has changed dates in the articles without citing sources or offering any explanation in the edit comment window, as with this editor today [15] and [16]. These edits appear to contradict the sources already cited in the articles. In the course of the discussion at the HelpDesk I mentioned ClueBot NG. I'm not technologically adept, but I'm wondering whether ClueBot NG could be modified to detect this sort of vandalism, which is very damaging to Wikipedia because when essential dates in a biography, such as dates of birth and death, are clearly wrong, Wikipedia users will tend to distrust Wikipedia biographies entirely. NinaGreen (talk) 20:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Edits to dates by a vandal can be narrowed down by ClueBot NG to those which are (1) from an IP address, (2) have no edit comment, (3) do nothing to the article other than changing the date (anyone changing a date in an existing article should add a bare citation at a minimum, and if a citation isn't added, chances are good the edit should be reverted irrespective of whether or not it was deliberate vandalism). These three criteria alone should eliminate most false positives. NinaGreen (talk) 02:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello a younger sibling of mine has been doing these horrible unjustified evil malicious edit(s) unfortunately he knows my username and my password I would like you to change my username and password as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gokufan8989 (talk • contribs) 20:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Usernames#Changing your username. 82.132.233.233 (talk) 13:09, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe you have made an error on your remark on the Grits page, this was a genuine quote regarding grits from Mr. Tipton illustrating the attitudes of the south. Please restore this. Hella New Thing (talk) 17:11, 27 January 2014 (UTC)