User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2014/March

how to add pictures

hey cluebot i know my acount is not confirmed yet. I have made 10 edits. But i just made my account yesterday. I just want to put a picture on the pitch invasion site. Why is that. And please inform me of any help please. Thank You! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TyTyKKWIki (talk • contribs) 22:26, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello and welcome. This page is for comments on or questions about the ClueBots, so normally it's not the best place to come for help on other topics. However, I see you also posted a question on your own talk page, so I have replied there, including some links that should get you started. Regards, – Wdchk (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

New section

As you can see in this edit by ClueBot NG, the bot created another "February 2014"-header, even though one already existed. (t) Josve05a (c) 14:25, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a part of how ClueBot is supposed to work; possibly ClueBot is programmed so that it creates a new header if there has been a considerable time (though less than a month) since the last warning and hence creates a new section header even though an older one with the same title already exists. This is not the first time I noticed this, and I never considered it as a bug. Smtchahal (talk) 14:52, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for vandal user dataset

I am a computer science Ph.D. student. Is there a list of vandal users/IPs which frequently do vandal edits? That would help me a lot. Srijankedia (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think there is (or can be) a list of active vandals – new vandals usually come up everyday and the old ones either leave or sometimes become good contributors. Long-term abusers and spambots get globally blocked, i.e., from all Wikimedia projects. There is a whitelist that I'm aware of though, which includes users that can be relied on to not vandalise pages and are ignored by most anti-vandalism software and bots. Note that the list can never be complete, since it cannot include IP users, even the ones that can be good-faith contributors. It can be found here. Smtchahal (talk) 07:32, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. The whitelist is useful. I know that a comprehensive list and totally updated list is impossible to build and maintain, but I was just wondering if there was. Admins User:Hut_8.5 and User:Gogo_Dodo adviced me to use the database dumps. Srijankedia (talk) 00:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

You could look in Category:IP addresses used for vandalism to see IP-adresses who have been repeatedly blocked for vandalism. (Like schools, which should not be blocked indefinitely.) (t) Josve05a (c) 01:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I looked at it. Its useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Srijankedia (talk • contribs) 20:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

False neg

Hi Cluebot,you missed this one maybe for some bug reason in the article that requires a fix I thought I'd drop a line; here's the diff [1]. Cheers. Poepkop (talk) 15:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot NG sometimes deliberately ignores edits that it is 100% sure is vandalism due to a low false positive policy. The best response to this is to revert the edit CBNG skipped. K6ka (talk | contribs) 22:26, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Francis I of France

RE your reverting my comment

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francis_I_of_France&diff=597504573&oldid=597504562

Please reinstate my contribution

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Francis_I_of_France&diff=597504562&oldid=596224909

given as a hidden comment suggesting a change, and certainly not to be treated as vandalism!

--90.2.113.193 (talk) 10:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I've responded at your talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 13:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Archive now

About 10 hours ago I placed the Archive Now template on sections of my talk, but CB3 has not yet done so. Is there an issue, have I made a mistake or is it just queuing? Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 08:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) In a brief look at the config on your page it appeared to be valid. The Archive Now templates also appeared valid. ClueBot III (CB3) can sometimes take a while (days) to start archiving a page new to it. — Makyen (talk) 12:27, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Makyen. I'll try to be more patient. BethNaught (talk) 13:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I have never edited anything in wikipedia! So how come I get this message about my edit being reverted?

Not guilty! I have never ever edited or changed, ammended.added nor subtracted anything on wikipedia???87.111.26.178 (talk) 20:58, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Because the edit was made without logging in, the IP address was recorded as the user. Therefore the warning notice was put on the talk page for that IP. Since ISPs reallocate IP addresses from time to time, you are now using the IP address used to make the edit. The message was not intended for you, but you have received it as you are using that IP address. Please don't worry about it. BethNaught (talk) 21:06, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

If you don't want to receive irrelevant notices like these, feel free to create an account. It's free and you won't receive irrelevant notices like such. K6ka (talk | contribs) 15:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 March 2014

On the page for "User: ClueBot NG", under the heading "Vandalism Detection Algorithm", the first sentence reads: ClueBot-NG uses a completely different method for classifying vandalism than all previous anti-vandal bots, including the original ClueBot. The word "than" in the sentence shown above should be replaced with "from".

14.96.117.64 (talk) 08:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Normally, a page should not be edited simply to switch from one valid use of English to another (MOS:RETAIN). Both "from" and "than" may be considered correct; see for example [2] and [3]. Having said all that, since we're talking about a user page, the opinion that counts most is that of ClueBot NG's owner. – Wdchk (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: As Wdchk notes, this edit should likely only be made by ClueBot NG's master. Also, for the record, I find "than" the "more correct" (whatever that means) usage in this case. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 19:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot NG Down

CBNG is down as of this writing. All vandal fighters, please dedicate some of your time to help clean up. If you use STiki, remember to change your queue to "STiki (metadata)" queue, as the CBNG queue will not contain any recent edits. K6ka (talk | contribs) 15:28, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks K6ka! (t) Josve05a (c) 16:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Red alert has ended. The bot is back up. Thank you to everyone who volunteered their time to catch vandalism. K6ka (talk | contribs) 21:11, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Back after a little mysql issue, also now moved to the new dcs, on new tools, on a new filesystem, on a new real database... so hopefully things will be better. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:15, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

...or not. Looks like something killed the bot again. K6ka (talk | contribs) 01:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, the ClueBot NG queue in STiki is working - I am receiving edits that were recently made. Seems like since the bot can't revert any of the edits it catches, it dumps it all in its IRC channel. At least some parts of the bot is working. K6ka (talk | contribs) 01:45, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

No warnings?

I just blocked someone after ClueBot NG had reverted them, and noticed their talk page was still red. Looking at the bot's contributions, I see no warnings being placed on users' talk pages. Is this a deliberate change or has something gone skewiff? Yngvadottir (talk) 00:16, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be warning again now, according to Special:Contributions/ClueBot_NG. Apparently about 25 minutes when it wasn't doing so. --David Biddulph (talk) 00:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Warnings after blocks

Could CBNG report vandals to AIV immediately if it reverts them again within, say, a week of a block expiring? Or at least within a week of the timestamp on the block notice or something similar? I quite frequently see vandals continuing to vandalise very shortly after a block expires, and CBNG just gives them a level one warning, which just means they get to carry on regardless until a human reports them to AIV. I'd much rather decline a few more premature AIV reports than wipe the slate clean after a short-term block. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Stop

You must stop reverting my edits without reason. --Sammen Salmonord (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

You say "edits", but I can find only one case where ClueBot NG reverted one of your edits, this one. I can assure you that ClueBot NG never reverts for "no reason". There is a lot of information available about how the bot works, starting with its user page. Occasionally it does identify a false positive, and if you believe this has happened, you are welcome to report it. A good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia is not vandalism, by definition. However, with respect, this edit would probably still have been removed by a human editor on the grounds of not being an improvement to the article. – Wdchk (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Talk:Creation Museum

Resolved

Why isn't the bot acting on this page? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I don't have a complete answer for you. The changes you made to the configuration do not appear to have broken anything and should do what your edit summaries indicated you desire. My experience is that ClueBot III (CB3) will sometimes take a while (days) to either begin making archive edits on a page, or act on changes to a configuration. As you can see from the history, it took CB3 4 days to start making archives from when I initially added the configuration template on that page. I have not looked at the code for the bot to see why this is the case, but it is what happens from the outside looking in. My assumption has been: that in order to reduce the load on the servers, it does not look at every page each time it runs. Even though it has been about 48 hours since you made the change to reduce the |age=, let's give it a bit more time. If CB3 does not pick up the change in the near future, we can switch to User:lowercase sigmabot III which usually picks up changes immediately. — Makyen (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

CB3 has archived the page per the edits to the configuration. There was a 3 day lag time between when the edits were made and CB3 performing the archiving. — Makyen (talk) 07:27, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I would like to get access to the Dataset Review Interface

I would like to get access to the Dataset Review Interface and help review edits and classify them as either vandalism or constructive, but I tried applying like a month or two ago, still no answer. What should I do? Apply again? I f I get denied, will there be a messaged sent to me? (t) Josve05a (c) 23:36, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Same here. I've applied via Cluebot Review Interface a number of times and never received any response. I've made over 500 constructive edits and never encountered any negative feedback. I do think good-faith applicants should receive some response, and if the project is no longer recruiting helpers, the webpage should be modified to make this clear: Noyster (talk), 17:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Creation of a page requested

Please could you create a page fot the 2013/2014 season of the tunisian Football league?? Please could you volunteer and do it? i would really appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.29.253.239 (talk) 17:38, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This is not really the appropriate place to ask for the creation of a new article. You will probably reach a more appropriate audience at Wikipedia:Requested articles. — Makyen (talk) 21:39, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Ibn Taymiyyah

Hi How are you? please can you tell me  : Why you delete my amendment Although I developed a reliable reference???? — Tamim506 talk) 19:26, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

(Talk page stalker) - these are just my two cents, I do not pretend to speak on behalf of the owners of the ClueBots.

Your edit added large amounts of content, the same content in three places, to be precise. This probably set off the bot. Now about the edit itself - it purports to give a source proving that the subject had the idea of the theory of relativity. The source you added is not an appropriate citation, as holy scriptures, or writings based on them, are only believed by followers of a religion. Also it does not actually say anything about the theory of relativity. We need a reliable source. Please also read about inline citations. BethNaught (talk) 16:00, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Use protocol-relative URL for links on ClueBot NG Report Interface

Hi! Could you please update several links on the ClueBot NG Report Interface to use protocol relative URLs, so that if users go to that page in HTTPS, they will not receive "Only secure content is displayed" message. The links needed to update are:

• Main page: the four pictures (e.g. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/CBFPHowto1.png/400px-CBFPHowto1.png -> //upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a3/CBFPHowto1.png/400px-CBFPHowto1.png
• Create Account: Google recaptcha
• page=View (e.g. Viewing 12345): Google recaptcha

Thanks! Chmarkine (talk) 21:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot III is malfunctioning

Resolved

ClueBot III does not appear to be making any archiving edits. It is making an edit to its source code with the edit summary "Automated source upload" every 2 minutes see: Special:Contributions/ClueBot III. This has been done at least 500 times over more than the last 24 hours. It may have something to do with Wikipedia:AN#Possible_bot_malfunctioning.3F. I have alerted Rich and Damian. This is also posted here as there are watchers of this page which might find it helpful to know. — Makyen (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot XI

I took it upon myself to block Special:Contributions/ClueBot_XI after someone noticed it on IRC. I doubt very much this is actually ClueBot, and I wanted to bring it to your attention. It may be no more than a vandal who assumed that any edits by someone with ClueBot in their name will automatically be approved. For that matter, I can't even tell if the edits were malicious or not; I'll leave that up to someone else. —Soap— 19:15, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not mine. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 19:43, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Tommie J. Frazier

Thank God for you, ClueBot. I also had to go into Tommie Frazier's page and edit vandalism. I really do wish that Wikipedia would force everyone to sign in before they can change biographies. It's crazy! Anyway, I had to rid Frazier's biography of more vandalism. Maybe one day Wikipedia will make some changes to take better care of its articles. I think it's sad that people can come on this dictionary website and just "nickel and dime" the articles of their choosing. It tears up the quality of the articles. Again, thanks for helping out with keeping Frazier's biography cleaned up over time. Rod Hayes (talk) 23:23, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Questing regarding archiving

Resolved

Hi all, I just set up ClueBot III to archive old threads over at Hertzsprung–Russell diagram. Could someone check that I did it right? I'm not seeing it generate any archives although there are lots of old threads that could be archived. How long does it usually take the bot to stop by an article? Is there a way to force it to check? Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 20:29, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) It varies greatly, but it can take days. I've checked your config and it seems fine. If it doesn't start archiving in say, 5 days, there's probably something up with the bot. Hope that helps, BethNaught (talk) 21:56, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) (talk page stalker) I concur. In a brief look at your configuration it appeared to be valid. ClueBot III can take up to 4 days (example), perhaps more, to start archiving a page once a valid configuration template has been placed on the page. You placed the configuration on the page only a couple of hours ago, so it might be quite some time yet. — Makyen (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I'll wait a couple of days then. Regards. Gaba ^(talk) 23:45, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thanks for letting me know! PercyJackson.12 (talk) 19:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot NG: Possible malfunction?

Hello Coby/Crispy1989/methecooldude,
I noticed today, while warning this user, that ClueBot NG creates a new talk page heading for each of its posts, even if they are in the same month. If I recall correctly, ClueBot NG did not do this when I first came across it. Is this normal, and if so, what causes this behavior? Passengerpigeon (talk) 11:18, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

@Passengerpigeon: It's just the way the bot warning system works. The bot doesn't check for headings - it only checks for previous warnings. The level 1 warning template the bot uses has the level 2 heading with the month and year on it, so all it does is substitute the template and hit publish. That's why you'll see two "==March 2014==" headings on the page. K6ka (talk | contribs) 16:04, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

d Jjoseph1909 (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2014 (UTC)