User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2011/November

Possible glitch?

I gave an IP user an only warning for content blanking yet ClueBot NG seems to give only a level 1 warning after he vandalised again instead of reporting it to administrators.

Is this a glitch or an intentional move?

Click here to see what happened.

Thank you for listening. EpicWikipedian (talk) 08:39, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

If you know C/C++ you might be able to find out by requesting the sourcecode on IRC. I haven't read the sourcecode myself, but my best guess at a reason is that the subsequent vandalism occurred in a separate month. - ProtoFire^→talk 15:50, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

It's because the month changed, CBNG created a new section. The bot code is all in PHP, only the core is in C++. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

You issued a warning on 27th October, the IP then didn't edit again until 2nd November. By that time, your final warning would be stale because it is nearly a week old. If anyone had reported the user to AIV at that stage, the report would have been rejected because of the time lapse--5 albert square (talk) 03:14, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Monitor of revertions by Cluebot

00:05, 2 November 2011 Citizenship was a correct revertion Emaha (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi there,
Thanks for letting us know, however in order for this report to be more useful, please report it using the special ClueBot reporting tool found just here. By doing this, you will be helping to add to the dataset in which ClueBot learns what vandalism is!
Many thanks
ClueBot NG Administrators

Edge/Adam Copeland

The same user reverted your edit and has continued to delete sourced information from the page. I believe that it may be from the same user using different computers so it may be hard to block the user. Maybe protecting the page will be the appropriate step to take. Just thought I'd say something instead of getting in an edit war with the user. (MgTurtle (talk) 14:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC))

Hi MgTurtle. None of ClueBot's admins (with the exception of Cobi) are Wikipedia admins and therefore cannot protect the page and since ClueBot itself is not an admin it cannot do this itself, maybe requesting for protection at WP:RPP might be what you are looking for. Thanks! - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 18:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

'Pathetic Fallacy' Mistake

On the pathetic fallacy page, there is a 'new message' sign which says something about Professor Green. I believe this is a mistake.

Inconsistent numbering

Looking at Talk:Toronto, I see an Archive Index that looks more or less like this:

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 2
• 3

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Note that links to go 7 different places, not 5. This sort of numbering is much too exotic for staid old Toronto -). I presume it either represents a bug in ClueBot III or, perhaps more likely, a procedural error when ClueBot III took over from whatever method of manual or automatic archiving was previously in use.

Side comment: I wish these lists explicitly indicated which archive was the oldest and which one the newest.

--70.48.228.250 (talk) 06:58, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

The issue is that the ClueBot III config on that page says that it should archive to /ArchiveX (no space). What needs to be done is there needs to be a space after the "=", and before the "%%i", then the starting number should be updated to be 5 or 6, and the other two archives need to be merged back into "Archive 5", and then deleted. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 12:35, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Dejparove statistics is correting

Don't revert. I'm correcting about wrong statistics.

Well played....

Well played... Brony *Slow Clap Processors* *Clap. Clap* — Preceding unsigned comment added by DurSah (talk • contribs) 15:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Awan - Disambiguation page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Awan)

I have not vandalised the page in question, in fact the addition I have removed is inappropriate, as it has no place on a disambiguation page, because it is a reproduction of an existing Wikipedia article (Awan [Pakistan]), save for an inaccurate addition being made by a user who is attempting to pass off a Rajput tribe (the Gungals) as Awans. 92.20.12.92 (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Fanfiction in Fiction and Fictional category.

I am not yet sure or I don't know what Fanfiction is in Fiction and Fictional category. What's wrong with it? What to do? Any response? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.68.59.76 (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Reverted Edit Error

Your bot reverted edit 712909. Please fix it.

It did the right thing. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

What is wrong with guinea pig brain?

Your bot reverted the addition of "in guinea pig brain", in article Butamirate, please fix that for heavens sake.(score 0.944!) It was a sentence about neuro-research with guinea pigs as experimental animals. (receptor binding study). Your bot has previously reverted "frog eggs" Xenopus oocytes in a similar context of cell research. 70.137.132.242 (talk) 07:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC) 70.137.145.221 (talk) 18:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Awan - Disambiguation page

Once again, I have not vandalised the page in question, in fact the addition I have removed is inappropriate, as it has no place on a disambiguation page, because it is a reproduction of an existing Wikipedia article (Awan [Pakistan]), save for an inaccurate addition being made by a user who is attempting to pass off a Rajput tribe (the Gungals) as Awans. 92.20.3.203 (talk) 19:10, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Duplicated headings, duplicated warning levels

Please fix this bot so it stops duplicating month headings and warning levels. Jojalozzo 16:44, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The Great Valco is displeased

I submit facts, they be true. Cluebot come in like disruptive snowleopard and ruins my hard work. Why is this? Why do I not get revisions from actual members? It is my right — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smashingocarina (talk • contribs) 04:45, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if you didn't vandalise Wikipedia then the anti-vandal robot would have no reason to revert your edits. If you carry on vandalising then myself or another admin will just end up blocking you. How about you stop vandalising Wikipedia and start contributing constructively?--5 albert square (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Proof missing?

I found ClueBot (I believe your sibling) has made changes to Moringa oleifera on 19:40, 22 October 2007 with difference available at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moringa_oleifera&diff=prev&oldid=166349514 . I can see the below sentence added as part of the change,

In Siddha medicine, the drumstick seeds are used as a sexual virility drug for treating erectile dysfunction in men and also in women for prolonging sexual activity.

I am not sure where the proof for the above sentence comes from. Can you please point me out with that? Viswanath Vellaiappan (talk) 20:56, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello

First of all, ClueBot hasn't said that at all. All of the ClueBots are robots and are not human editors, the robots make automatic edits, in ClueBot's case it is to revert possible vandalism. I can see there it looks like an IP has vandalised the page by removing a chunk of information without explaining why, so ClueBot would then automatically revert the page back to its previous status, it doesn't actually edit the page.

You could just try and source the above statement yourself, it's either that or you will need to go further back in the article history to find out which human editor added it, if they still edit Wikipedia they may be able to provide a source. Or why don't you ask on the talk page and see if anyone can source it? Hope this helps.--5 albert square (talk) 02:36, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks much 5 albert square for letting me know ClueBot is a robot (I was unaware of this). I being new to Wikipedia community is still not well aware of how to easily spot who added a specific statement in wikipedia article. Can you please throw some light on the same. May be a easy way to spot who has added the above statement I had mentioned in my question? . Also I am just curious how ClueBot robots work, so can you share some pointers for the same? Thanks much Viswanath Vellaiappan (talk) 06:51, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for the delay in the reply, been a bit busy recently. There's no easy way of doing this as far as I know, it really will be a case of working your way through the pages history. As for ClueBot, what exactly are your questions as to how it operates? I may not know the answer to that but if I don't I can make one of ClueBot's 'parents' aware of your question :)--5 albert square (talk) 01:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

One way to find the person whi added the statement, is to use WikiBlame - google will find it for you. Rich Farmbrough, 19:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

Volunteering to review dataset

9 days ago I submitted my details as a volunteer to help create and review ClueBot NG's dataset. I repeated the submission several days later. I still haven't heard anything in response. Is this sort of delay to be expected? Mark126 17:38, 8 November 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark126 (talk • contribs)

Nope, I've just been very busy! The review interface is over quota at the moment but when it comes back I'll start going though the list of applications. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:43, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Ben 10

You don't understand, Ben 10: Ultimate Alien season 2 has 32 episodes 98.21.192.146 (talk) 21:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep, it doesn't understand. But it tries hard. Rich Farmbrough, 19:11, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

Possibly correct revert for possibly wrong reason

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=English+Defence+League&diff=459777393&oldid=459777133 - adds the sentence "In fact the group is moderate and has both gay and Jewish divisions." Rich Farmbrough, 19:12, 12 November 2011 (UTC).

Something wrong with the heuristics

Your bot reverted the addition of "in guinea pig brain", in article Butamirate.(score 0.944!) It was a sentence about neuro-research with guinea pigs as experimental animals. The edit "Ibuprofen is a homo" (by somebody else) only scored 0.87! 70.137.133.184 (talk) 07:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

"in guinea pig brain" does not agree -- "in a guinea pig's brain", "in guinea pig brains", "in guinea pig brain tissue", all agree singular/plural-wise. I don't know if that is why it was reverted, but there a ton of statistics that go into the ANN, and it determines which are the best statistics to use. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 19:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Well you would also say "in rat liver" and the like, to indicate the material used in an experiment. There is nothing wrong with it. XYZ induced P450 2C9 in rat liver at micromolar concentrations. Cannot be misunderstood. The material is rat liver, not rat liver tissue, not one rat liver, not several rat livers. I guess it triggered because it contained "pig" and "brain" sounding like I am talking about somebody. It does not trigger on below text excerpts from William Burroughs. 70.137.157.124 (talk) 21:56, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I scored 0.899497 for using the words 'blows' 'weed', 'skin' 'grows', 'night' 'delight'. See #Your bot is offering scores?, above (and blown-off). Ya don't even need quarters to play ;> Alarbus (talk) 07:18, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

<deleted test text> 70.137.157.124 (talk) 22:19, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

What is this? I am confused as to what relevance these big blocks of text have, and why they are on this talk page. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 19:51, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

You can delete them. Just trying if the bot would be triggered by this slightly pornographic material by William Burroughs. It did not trigger. Or is the bot not active on talk pages? 70.137.157.124 (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The bot is not active on talk pages or any page outside of the main namespace because the statistics it relies on are vastly different for different types of pages. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 23:09, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Then you can feed the deleted text through the bot and see what scores it gets/ if the bot finds something wrong with it. 70.137.157.124 (talk) 23:17, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It takes more into account than just text. Previous text, and a ton of metadata -- article history, user history, text on user's talk page, user's talk page history, edit summary -- a ton of other information. It is not designed to work on the text you posted anyway since it is not in line with what an article looks like. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 23:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

I see you're the owner. This would be per my #Your bot is offering scores? thread at the top. The IP-user commented on my talk, too. Alarbus (talk) 11:02, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sounds rather complicated, reminds me of the opaque heuristics used for anti-terrorism. Just do something out of the ordinary for good Americans, and whammo your on the list, and nobody knows why, its just the heuristics. Dangerous and opaque. 70.137.157.124 (talk) 23:45, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

It is not heuristic based. It uses an ANN. The source code is posted, and if you want, you can see how it works. Our processes have been very transparent, and have been explained in detail on the user page and on the BRFA. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 22:14, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The processes may be transparent, what a neural net makes out of the training is even more opaque than heuristics based filtering. Fortunately they seem not to use neural nets for anti-terrorism far as I know. There is little factual info about echelon. 70.137.146.146 (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Your bot is offering scores?

Your Cluebot NG reverted me, called it vandalism, which it wasn't. The "ID" is "692086". I've restored the edit.[1]

I'm stunned that you're passing out scores to vandals. To actual vandals, I would think this a reward, an incentive to get a higher score. I'm sure this bot mostly gets it right, reverting actual vandalism. But your message offering a 'score' implicitly eggs them on. Don't make vandalism a game they can play, seeking a higher score. Alarbus (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

It's a unique sequence number, not a score or rating. Rjwilmsi 10:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'ID' may be, but see my talk page, where it says "ANN scored at 0.899497", which I'm thinking is an 89.9% probability of vandalism. Alarbus (talk) 10:48, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

This vandal scored 0.955658 (they used the words "Nazi", "Hitler", "SS", /and/ "fat"). "We've recorded your IP on our high-scoreboard; please insert another edit to play again." Alarbus (talk) 18:31, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

The 'score' is judged by the ANN based upon the amount of vandalism and is the main factor for an edit getting reverted based upon the threshold set. It does not make vandalism a game and is useless to a vandal however useful to us as cluebot's parents. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I have a fair idea of how it works, know what ANN it's about. And I know that scorekeeping is not the intention, here.

However, vandalism *is* a game, to the vandals, and offering them a 'score', regardless of its actual maning and purpose, feeds that. I'm sure the 'score' is useful to you as parents, but offering this to vandals on their talk is inappropriate, so log it quietly somewhere where they'll not see it. As things are, it's promoting a vicious cycle.

As said, I'm sure this tool mostly gets it right, so I'm not faulting the overall scheme of things, just the message left on talk pages. Alarbus (talk) 07:59, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Even if vandalism is a game for them, the idea that they would want to get a higher score would be completely counterproductive to them. It will only make the vandalism be more likely to be reverted by Cluebot. If they do try to get a higher "score", all the better for legitimate editors who don't have to bother with reverting vandalism. - ProtoFire^→talk 15:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Vandalize ALL the pages! Get ALL the high scores! -- SnoFox^(t|c) 08:08, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

• Actually OP has a good point. The score would be better logged, in batches, on a log page. Puerile vandals might try to gain higher scores, slightly smarter ones might look for ways to reduce their scores to less than threshold, while still delivering their vandalistic message - which would be trivially easy. Neither outcome is good. Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 12 November 2011 (UTC).
  

• I agree with Rich that % 'scores' being left on vandals talk pages is not a good thing, I'm assuming this info is logged privately in the bot's database anyhow? Feels beanlike to me.Crazynas ^t 19:08, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

• They are not "% scores", they are confidence scores -- how confident the bot is that the edit is vandalism, not how bad of vandalism it is. Furthermore, the old ClueBot gave out information as well, in fact, it gave out exactly which heuristic triggered. Also, the information is provided on the report interface, and should be. There hasn't been a vandalism apocalypse, vandalism hasn't increased significantly or anything because of it. In the interest of transparency, I think the scores should stay public, because, in my experience, there hasn't been an issue with making them public. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 22:22, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

  The thread below, and a few of the posts in this one, speak loudly to the fact that some are seeing this as a "score", a wiki-game (unsurprising, really; you use the word "score"). This is not good. Your bot was 89.9%-sure that my edit was vandalism, which it was not. Alarbus (talk) 03:14, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

nb

playingfield is at #Something wrong with the heuristics, below. Some has been deleted.

Alarbus (talk) 11:05, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Archive wierdness

Something odd has happened with the archive numbers for Talk:The Lord of the Rings (1978 film) Bluap (talk) 12:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Suggested enhancement - offer a "yes you were right" link in the edit text

Hi! ClueBot NG rocks! In the edit text you write out: "....False positive? Report it...." but I think you should add a link "On the mark? Reinforce it..." Clicking on the link would be an easy way to give the bot human feedback that, yes, edits of this type are in fact vandalism. (I know one can give feedback as a separate exercise, but what I want is a link that shows up in my Watchlist.) Make sense? Watching here for your thoughts. Woz2 (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Huh? I think I understand what you're saying but it would be kinda pointless doing this. There's already the link to report false positives in the edit summary, therefore I think we can assume that edits not reported under this link are vandalism. When a false positive is added the bot is trained on that then and knows not to revert it in the future.--5 albert square (talk) 20:59, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

It seems to me that if the bot had a tag on every edit that had one of three values:

1. a human says this one is vandalism
2. a human says this one is not vandalism
3. no human has explicitly commented either way

...it would be in a better position to improve than having only two tag values:

1. a human says this one is not vandalism
2. no human has explicitly commented either way

...just a thought... Woz2 (talk) 21:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Another way of thinking about this is that the bot is falling victim to the Fallacy of the undistributed middle: "Some edits that are vandalism are not reported as false positives therefore all edits on which there is silence must necessarily be vandalism." Woz2 (talk) 02:15, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

The review interface is where edits are classified. The reporting just adds them there to be reviewed, but other large random samplings are there as well. The interface is currently over quota, but we are looking into resolving that issue. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 04:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the review interface is a good hub especially once the quota issue is resolved, but my suggestion was to spider out its reach so that the bot gets bidirectional inputs not only at the central hub, but at the point of revision. Thanks for listening! Woz2 (talk) 18:21, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Missing links

The link from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClueBot_NG#Dataset_Review_Interface to http://cluebotreview.g.cluenet.org/ seems broken (as is the "new section" button at the top of this page on the top of this page... or at least, it's MIA).

But what concerns me is the link to cluenet.org, not the talk page. The error I get is

Error: Server Error The server encountered an error and could not complete your request. If the problem persists, please report your problem and mention this error message and the query that caused it.

There's a link from this error page to http://code.google.com/appengine/community.html to "report" the problem, and frankly I have no time to sort out what is happening there.

Your bot is excellent. Some of the infrastructure is not. Andrewa (talk) 16:03, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The link is correct and works fine, the review interface is based on Google app engine and sometimes goes over quota. The report interface as well as the bot and most the admins are hosted on ClueNet. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:36, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Strongly suggest you give some more helpful help (by whatever means) to those who run into this quota restriction. Andrewa (talk) 20:08, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Very Confused About ClueBot

I'm a little confused as to how it works. Do you have to "put" the ClueBot on a page, or does it look at all pages anyway? Also, I have some people on another article that are continually posting unverified information, and I'm constantly having to undo the edits (there is no way I'm letting it stay up there as long as I can help it). That's the main reason I was wondering. It would be quite useful to the article in question. SmallCheez (talk) 02:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

You might find this article helpful WP:R Van Woz2 (talk) 03:24, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, thank you so much for that. Actually, I had already notified the users as to the reason behind the edits before I posted the question, so I'm glad I did that right. I'm hoping a stop has been put to it, because the nature of the spam was opinion, and people unfamiliar with the content weren't getting a fair chance to form their own opinions about the subject, which wasn't right.SmallCheez (talk) 03:34, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Zebra

I just wondered why ClueBot seemed to miss this?  Chzz  ►  12:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

ClueBot won't revert to itself. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 13:13, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I know that, but that doesn't seem to be the case there - the editor prior to that edit was ClueBot, but that was 22:52, 17 November 2011‎ when it removed something totally different; this edit was 03:42, 18 November 2011‎.  Chzz  ►  14:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Gah; apologies, forget that. I see what you mean; I just can't read. It won't revert to <a rev by> itself. Got it. Thanks, apologies for my stupidity.  Chzz  ►  14:28, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Cobi, if it is very little effort, could you possibly tell me approx. how frequently ClueBot NG would revert something if it wasn't going back to a rev it had made? ie, how often does it hit that condition?

(I fully appreciate that this is something you've no doubt given much thought to; for me, it's just curiosity, really; if it's any hassle to get the number, don't worry)

Cheers!  Chzz  ►  17:24, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Help In Dataset?

Hi,I saw the announcement regarding the help in dataset.

unfortunately, the database review interface shows an error. Over QuotaThis Google App Engine application is temporarily over its serving quota. Please try again later.

Let me know if there is any other way i can help. Arnavchaudhary (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

We're working to resolve this at the moment. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Some [more] falafel for you!

you s[cratch] itch[es]. Travo245 (talk) 05:36, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Mission accomplished. →Στc. 05:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Look at this

Hi. This user is claiming that you have made him as a bot. You might wanna take some action quickly. Secret of success ^{Talk to me} 11:04, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Abberations

The bot appears to be not taking into account previous warnings when determining escalation level. See: User_talk:173.8.229.2. It also started a new month heading even though one already existed. ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 23:12, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Here's another example: [2]. Is the bot supposed to take into account previous warnings? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

This problem is pervasive. Cluebot leaves redundant section headers and warning levels all over the project. I have brought this to the attention of developers here multiple times with little response and no fixes. I don't know what it would take to get it fixed. Maybe we need to take it up with administrators. Jojalozzo 23:40, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

• With regards to not taking previous warnings into account: ClueBot ignores warnings that are older than a few days. This was one of the original requirements made when the original ClueBot was approved and was still required during ClueBot NG's BRFA. If you want this changed, you will need to bring it up at WP:BON and WT:BRFA.
• With regards to creating a new header: If you want to fix the template for the level one warning (which includes the header), you are more than welcome to. The template is: User:ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal1 -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 13:27, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
  • It's great to get an explanation. It would be helpful if there was a place that answered these frequent questions so we didn't have to pester you here to get information.
  • How many days is "a few"?
  • To make sure I understand: if I add a parameter that turns off the header for the level one warning then you will modify the bot to use that parameter when the month hasn't changed but it's been more than a few days since the last warning?
    • Perhaps we could instead add another level one warning (Vandal1NH?) that doesn't have the header and the bot could use that when the month hadn't changed but it had been too long since the last warning to elevate the level. Jojalozzo 13:48, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
    • A quick perusal through the archives shows several places it has been answered:
      1. User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2007/October#Redundant heading
      2. User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2007/October#ClueBot warning format
      3. User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2009/February#Duplicate section headers
      4. User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2009/September#Duplicate month headings
    • A few days, IIRC, is 172,800 seconds, or roughly 2 days.
    • Preferably it could be done in the template itself, but it's been a while since I've looked at templates. The bot doesn't read or parse headers right now, only the signatures in the last 2 days. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 14:03, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
      • I can fix it but I want to be sure of the design first. Will it work to add a parameter, "monthheader", which when absent or set to 'yes' will display the header and when set to 'no' will not display the header? Then the bot can add monthheader=no when the month hasn't changed since the last warning. Jojalozzo 02:46, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
      • ??? Jojalozzo 22:09, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Need assistance regarding a user who continues to troll Cung Le articles

Hi, I just wanted to know if you can help edit or help me contact someone regarding a specific user who refuses to acknowledge any proof that I have provided regarding a recent error by the UFC.

The specific user in question is Glock17gen4. His only evidence is a picture based on a mistake by UFC production, where MMA fighter Cung Le has already responded that he did not know about, yet Glock17gen4 refuses to accept that and continues to revert Cung Le's Nationality as a current Vietnamese national.

I have provided significant proof in both discussions at the UFC 139 and Cung Le's articles. Please take a look. Cung Le has acknowledged both his American nationality and his Vietnamese heritage (especially with the 3 striples flag which represents the fallen Saigon). I hope you can help. Both his website at CungLe.com and UFC.com profile describe him as a Vietnamese-American and he quoted as calling himself an American Wushu champion. Glock17gen4 seems to not understand the differences between Nationality and Ethnicity. He continues to only use that one picture as his proof. PinoyFilAmPride (talk) 22:51, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest taking this to dispute resolution as it sounds like a content issue, not a question of vandalism, Cluebot is a computer program that deals with WP:Vandalism, so I'm not sure how much help it can be. Crazynas ^t 23:00, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Template:uw-cluebotwarning2

Your warnings include a commented-out reference to Template:uw-cluebotwarning2, but I can find no template of that name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

They use that format so they can be picked up by other scripts that look for warnings on user pages. The real templates are:

Many scripts look for warnings by looking for

<!-- Template:uw-*X -->

where * is anything, and X is a number indicating the severity of the warning. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 20:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Is there any reason that Template:uw-cluebotwarning2 (etc) couldn't redirect, or have some explanatory text? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:06, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

what's a bot doing editing my stuff when it was intended for a person to read? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.46.192.170 (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Toshio Yamaguchi

Please add the phrase

"fix backlinks pointing to archived sections"

to the Task(s) parameter in the infobox (see discussion at WP:BON#Undocumented task of ClueBot III?). Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Cobi already did it. Anomie⚔ 05:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 09:39, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Why you accusing me of an edit I didn't make?

Hi. I own this IP address (71.238.204.174) but I didn't edit the article Bruin, because I don't even know about that article. I would appriciate not being falsely accused of an improper edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:71.238.204.174 (talk • contribs)

Take a look at your contributions. Someone using your IP did in fact vandalize that article. —Entropy (T/C) 02:14, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

not me

You gave my ip address a warning for editting the Brian O'Driscoll article, which I have never done, in any form. Whatever this edit was it was not made by me. Please retract your allegations.

Jdorney (talk) 11:36, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

If you have a dynamic IP, you may have received a warning that was not intended for yourself, if you are sure you did not make the edit then please ignore the warning. - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 13:07, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

November 2011

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. 86.178.56.119 (talk) 00:36, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, really? - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 13:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Something else to watch out for

Would it be possible for ClueBot to add to its types of edits to be reversed this kind of edit, where an editor adds a #Redirect[[Foo]] to a page, where "Foo" is a nonexistant page? Cheers! bd2412 T 03:34, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

That's a very good question, I will pose that to Cobi as soon as I see him on IRC - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 13:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Please explain?

What was wrong with my edit? I changed the colour to the normal colour used. Formion (talk) 00:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)