User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2014/February

Dab page false positives

All IP edits which update {{disamb}} or {{disambig}} to {{Disambiguation}} generate false positives. Can this be fixed? 82.132.245.233 (talk) 00:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

For example, this edit made three changes: {{Wiktionarypar}} -> {{Wiktionary}}, {{TOCright}} -> {{TOC right}}, {{disambig}} -> {{Disambiguation}} - ClueBot then reverted this edit and the preceeding two edits. 82.132.236.222 (talk) 11:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Can Cluebot recognize previous warnings?

When Cluebot places a warning on somebody's talk page, can it recognize the presence of previous warnings on that talk page? I ask because of this case: User talk:69.4.57.137. There was already a section heading for January 2014, with a level 2 warning, but when the user made another vandalism edit, Cluebot created a new January 2014 section heading and gave a level 1 warning. I ask because there needs to be an escalating series of warnings if a case is to be made for a block. Thanks for any comment. --MelanieN (talk) 15:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Here's another example: User talk:209.34.114.229. --MelanieN (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN. Cluebot can give escalating warnings. In the examples your provided, because they were IP editors, and because a significant gap occurred between edits, the second edit was treated as coming from a new editor. Human editors are supposed to take this into account also and adjust warning levels accordingly. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:59, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. --MelanieN (talk) 17:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Baroque Music

I do not understand why ClueBot reverted my last comment at Baroque Music article: my comment was a hidden question & a suggestion very politely addressed & signed, concerning the source of the word *baroque* spelled *barocque* in a 1734 text:

"Is the quote "c'est du *barocque* found in the 2001 New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians? If so, then the page number is needed (Blue Indigo)"

I do not see how my using the correct orthography, then the following day adding a hidden comment after being reverted can be considered acts of vandalism!

Also, please note that I did not revert the correction brought by Jerome Kohl, but only added that hidden comment.

Should you take the time to look at the various changes/corrections etc. I have brought to articles for the little time I have been on Wikipedia (English & French), I do not think you will find much vandalism or even many mistakes.

--Blue Indigo (talk) 22:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Firstly, don't take it personally, it's just a bot. If you're interested in learning how the bot works and why the edit was undone, the FAQ or an explanation of the algorithm may be of use.

Of course the edit you made wasn't vandalism, but the best place to open discussion or comment on an article is its respective talk page. benmoore 22:16, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot NG Report Interface is broken, please fix it

I get some PHP error messages: "Notice: Undefined index: recaptcha_challenge_field in /data/project/cluebot/public_html/pages/View.page.php on line 22 Notice: Undefined index: recaptcha_response_field in /data/project/cluebot/public_html/pages/View.page.php on line 22".

Before you auto-flag others for vandalism, why don't you make sure your program works? Thanks. Srezz (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, the false positive seems to have been successfully reported as far as I can see. If you're interested in why the edit was mistakenly classed as vandalism, there's some useful information on the Cluebot NG userpage. benmoore 12:21, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the feedback. Hope you caught that php bug as well :-) Srezz (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Conflict

On the main page, it says Cluebot is grounded for maintenance, but on other parts (like the new section for talk page) it says Cluebot is running. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmelc9 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 27 January 2014 (UTC) Creepypasta fools — Preceding unsigned comment added by BEASTY73 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 31 January 2014 (UTC) Stay out of my articles ..do you read me . Jerk reporting your but stay out and away — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jenlgfc (talk • contribs) 04:18, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

that was AMAZING!

I added the sentence "This text should be removed from this wikipedia article" and you removed it in like, no joke, under a minute. How did you do that so fast? You are really good at your job!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DudeIncognito (talk • contribs) 08:32, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your interest. Yes, ClueBot NG works really well, but we already know that, so please don't carry out tests in articles. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. I'll leave you some more information on your talk page. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Govinda (actor)

In regard to your edit The following is the log entry regarding this message: Govinda (actor) was changed by Raj007bond007 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.88361 on 2014-02-09T09:50:07+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)--

My edit is from a reliable source. Please check references which i have added.--Raj007bond007 (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Archive box links to the wrong article

There is a problem with Talk:Toronto Star. The archive box has stuff from Talk:Toronto. Can anyone fix this please? I tried everything without screwing it up. Thank you. Johnny Au _{(talk/contributions)} 02:32, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

This is because the template was originally wrong. Since it has been corrected, once the bot performs an archival run (and actually archives something from that page), the links in the archive box will be corrected. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 03:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker)  Done It appears that your ClueBot III (CB3) config had the wrong page for archiving at the time the archiving occurred. This resulted in A) Your archive page being created with the default name prefix (which from your point of view it was the wrong page name); and B) CB3 generating a list of archive pages and an archive index which reflected the Talk:Toronto (specified in your config) page instead of Talk:Toronto Star.

I have A) moved the archive page to the correct name (as now configured); B) changed the archive box to use a non-CB3 specific method; and C) corrected the archive index generated by CB3 and linked from the archive box. If you want to use the CB3 generated archive box in the future, you will probably want to wait until CB3 runs again and re-generated the list of archive pages.

You will also want to make sure that CB3 re-generates the index correctly the next time it runs. I have left that page on my watch list, so I should remember to take a look at time the next time CB3 changes it. Makyen (talk) 04:02, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

CB3 has run again on Talk:Toronto Star. As expected, the files CB3 keeps which provide both the list of archives included in the archive box provided through the CB3 template and the detailed index have been rewritten with good versions. The version of the page prior to my making any edits will now provide an archive box with correct information. If you prefer the archive box provided by CB3, feel free to revert/undo my edit on Talk:Toronto Star. Makyen (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Reporting ClueBot NG Outage

As of this writing CBNG has not edited in about an hour. I suspect an outage. K6ka (talk | contribs) 03:56, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Titusfox Vandalism FP

Hi,

I rejected an edit due to it's irrelevance and Cluebot NG detected it as vandalism [[1]]. I think That it reverted it to vandalism... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Titusfox (talk • contribs) 19:20, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

EPIC FAIL on my part, vandalism was reverted to my version. Damn! TitusFox 19:23, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Nice Job!!!

I noticed that your bot reverted a change on a page where the person put a very inappropriate word, So I just want to thank you to the Cluebot for reverting those changes. - Danke! (that's German for "Thank you" :) ) Happy Attack Dog (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moore%27s_law&diff=594973260&oldid=594973235 ありがとう!!!! Featherwinglove (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

AlisaJay

I'm sorry but my edit's aren't vandalism, all I've done is just add a little <!-- Stop! sign, can you please tell me how that is vandalism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AlisaJay (talk • contribs) 16:17, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

WikiLove

I sendz u happinez, enjoyz!

Happy Attack Dog (talk) 03:17, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Clubot edit

In the Cats (musical) article, 174.102.111.166 made an edit (22:16, 7 February 2014‎), then 76.95.108.103 posted "Cats are so cool but dogs are better" (14:43, 13 February 2014‎) and then ClueBot NG reverted (14:43, 13 February 2014‎) to version by 174.102.111.166 to remove "Cats are so cool but dogs are better". The version by 174.102.111.166 does not include "Cats are so cool but dogs are better", yet the phrase "Cats are so cool but dogs are better" still is in the article lead (as of this post). Also, when you look at the Clubot removal diff, it says it removed "Cats are so cool but dogs are better", the diff edit shows "Cats are so cool but dogs are better" being removed, but the article text below the diff show the phrase still in the article text. -- Jreferee (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Further, Biddulph purged the page and the "Cats are so cool but dogs are better" text no longer shows.[2] Shouldn't clubot's edits show up in articles without the need to purge? -- Jreferee (talk) 13:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Adorable

Your bot is clever enough to handle the batch of stupid anons dumb enough to go around blanking pages and inserting "Wales is dumb poop licker LOLOLOL", but how what can it do? 184.44.3.48 (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 19 February 2014

false

81.157.48.25 (talk) 18:49, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

 Not done - no request - Arjayay (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2014 (UTC)