User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2014/May

ClueBot NG edit not being hidden from watchlist

Hi, I noticed when looking at my watchlist, despite my having bots hidden, revert ID 1812043 still showed up in my watchlist, while right under it, I could hide an edit from ClueBot III just fine. Any ideas? Psu256 (talk) 18:10, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

I would expect that is because ClueBot NG does not have the bot flag. (The reasons for this are in the FAQ.) BethNaught (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) (edit conflict) CB3 and CBNG perform very different functions. The primary difference with respect to why one is classified a s a bot edit and the other is not is the level of human oversight which should be applied to both. CB3 performs archiving on talk pages. This is very much a bot like activity. While there are errors, there is a very low incidence of issues. CBNG performs reversion of detected vandalism. The reasons for its edits not being classified as bot edits are in the FAQ. — Makyen (talk) 19:07, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Archive transition help, please

ClueBot III, I am attempting to get autoarchiving going again on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Royalty and Nobility. Apparently, previously the Archive box template included automatic archiving which is no longer working for that page (the included text was Archive box|auto=yes in double curly brackets). That had apparently created 6 numbered archive pages, but has not done any archiving since 2011. I tried just replacing that with a direct copy from your Example: Numbered archives (with archive box), but that new archive box did not apparently detect the previous archives. I have reverted my change for now, but would appreciate assistance in transitioning the archiving so that the page is not as cluttered as it currently is. Thanks 1bandsaw (talk) 19:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

This should be done. Please note that it sometimes takes multiple days for ClueBot III (CB3) to start archiving a page (example of 4 day delay).

The configuration you had placed on the page would have worked, the only real problem with it was that it told the bot to start adding to the first archive indead of either the last, or beginning a new page. I changed it so that CB3 will start a new archive page when it begins.

Your confusion appears to have been that the archive box created by the CB3 template was not showing your current archives. This is because the list of archives shown in the archive box created by the CB3 template is not generated each time the page is viewed. It is generated when CB3 runs on the page and is static until CB3 runs again. Given that CB3 had not run on the page, there was no list of archives. With most of the archive box templates, if |auto= is not set to "no", this list is automatically generated each time the page is viewed. As a suggestion, I have changed the page to using one of the standard archive box templates. — Makyen (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

User:Makyen, thanks for your speedy help on this, I appreciate it! 1bandsaw (talk) 21:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Bot III edits a note at my talk

I'm just confused about this edit by Cluebot III: someone left a note about a discussion at WP:AN, and the bot's just changed the link to point to the place where the discussion has since been archived. Is it supposed to edit other people's messages on talk pages? Note that I've always archived my talk page manually: unless I've forgotten a vandalism-reversion incident, none of the cluebots have ever edited my talk page before. Nyttend (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

@Nyttend: The bot will edit links to discussions that have been archived so they point at the archive page instead of the main page, which would no longer contain the discussion in question. Therefore this is normal. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

A dog for you!

File:Attack dog.png	Wiki Attack Dog Star
	For Fighting Vandalism Amazingly. Happy Attack Dog (Bark! Bark!) 20:41, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Archive bust

After two years activity or so, I setting the template for my Talk page User talk:TheVirginiaHistorian archive with a 90 day configuration, it failed, but an editor here helped out manually for the first 80 or so for the #1 archive. The bot just ran archiving only one discussion into the #2 archive, which did not encompass 90 days, nor did it bring the page current. Thanks for the previous assist. Sorry to need another. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 09:28, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I am happy to help out. The bot is currently doing what the configuration template is specifying for it to do. It is moving all threads into the archive which have no dates in a signature which are more recent than 2160 hours ago (90 days). In other words, it is archiving threads which are older than 90 days. I have visually checked all threads on the page. None which remain are older than 90 days.

Obviously, the bot is not doing what you would like for it to do. If you describe what it is you want to be happening, I can see if we can get it working the way you desire. — Makyen (talk) 11:30, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience, my oldest Talk entry is now 2 months, 27 days. It seems I panicked early. Sorry. I've recently gotten very much more traffic, I misread the situation ... Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I did see that your page was looking a bit long and that most of the traffic was recent. If you desired, you could set the |age=720 (30 days) and let CB3 run once. You could then set it back to |age=2160 which would return it to the 90 days you currently have set. Doing this would clean a bunch of the older stuff off of your page. Most of it looks like stuff you probably have already dealt with. — Makyen (talk) 12:46, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Fire_Island#External_links

IP accounts regularly add the same links that don't meet WP:EL to Fire_Island#External_links. Can this bot handle this? I can supply the URLs. Lentower (talk) 06:30, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

I think there's an edit filter that can stop edits that contain links to blacklisted websites. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:01, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

There's a bot that automatically does this - User:XLinkBot. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 14:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Reverted page not flushed

I don't know if it is normal behavior, but when this bot has found an act of vandalism (such as on Golden ratio recently), it appears that the page is not refreshed. I had to do a "mock" edit to get the reverted version.

138.195.136.59 (talk) 08:39, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

The cache should get cleared, but sometimes doesn't. You can force clear the cache if that is the case, without doing an edit. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Bot logged out

Cluebot III just archived this page while logged out. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Another example. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

This should be sorted - seems something killed the bots cookie jar. I'll look into why nobots wasn't blocking it from editing (it should so the bot conforms to no logged out edits IIRC). - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:42, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

False positive - reporting here because the Captcha on the page I am supposed to use isn't working properly -- rejects everything I enter!

I would like to report this false positive 828668 on Ernest Austin (murderer). It's not my edit but it doesn't look like vandalism to me. Kerry (talk) 04:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why it gives captchas to registered accounts in the first place, but your report is there, and I have reverted the bot with modifications including a citation needed. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. No, I didn't understand it either, but it was really frustrating. Kerry (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

'Resetting' warning levels

If an editor receives a {{subst:Uw-vandalism3}} why is ClueBot adding a {{uw-vandalism1}} 3 days later? Surely in such a short timescale it should go straight to {{uw-vandalism4}}? Zarcadia (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

@Zarcadia: Normally, if the editor is an IP editor, the warnings "reset" every 24 hours. If an editor got "Uw-vandal3" one day, and 24 hours later vandalized again, they would get a "uw-vandal1" warning, because there's the possibility that the IP changed owners, as they often do. See WP:WARNING for details. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 14:06, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I didn't realize that. Thanks for the reply! Zarcadia (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Malakia

With regard to this undoing of the bot edit, perhaps it would be good to have a look at the RfC on Talk:Malakia regarding an article that was/is supposed to be about the Greek word. Esoglou (talk) 06:51, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:115.112.231.108

User talk:115.112.231.108, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:115.112.231.108 and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:115.112.231.108 during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Vishal Bakhai - Works 10:36, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi, first of all Bot is very succfl. There is some mistakes IP's made. == This is a normal title == , == THIS IS NOT A NORMAL TITLE == . Can you add a feature to bot for this kind changes. I hope I explained clearly. --Ayrıntılı Bilgi (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

@Ayrıntılı Bilgi: I'm not sure what you mean. The bot uses an artificial neural network that evaluates edits based off a huge database of vandalism edits and constructive edits. If you can find an edit with that, you could ask the operators to maybe scan it into the database, though that may increase false positive rate as some newbies may accidentally add all caps headings (I've seen it before, trust me!), and get a slap in the face by the bot as a result. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 00:23, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"based off"? I've heard that some young people use that locution. Here it is in actual use. 2601:2:4D00:27B:A005:1C09:61B2:8888 (talk) 07:43, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I mean return edits(automaticly) when headings with all letters Uppercase. Like this diff:THIS.I hope, I explained it clearly --Ayrıntılı Bilgi (talk) 10:52, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

As I've said before - might lead to some newbie biting. Also, the bot doesn't catch 100% of the vandalism on Wikipedia, and it's a good thing it doesn't. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

credibility

The credibility of the claim that this bot makes very few mistakes is not enhanced by the fact that it tagged this edit as vandalism. And the tagging of that edit is the only thing this bot has ever done, as far as I am aware. 2601:2:4D00:27B:A005:1C09:61B2:8888 (talk) 07:41, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

"Very few" does not mean "Never happens". The way the bot is designed is that it will make the occasional false positive (mistake), just like email spam filters occasionally tag legitimate emails as spam. Both ClueBot NG and email spam filters use something called an artificial neural network to learn and develop itself. Basically it attempts to emulate the human brain. As we all know, the brain makes mistakes, so there's no reason why CBNG should be judged on a mistake differently than humans do. The best you can do about a false positive is to report it here. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:49, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Michelangelo

A well-intentioned edit by a signed-in editor was deleted and described as "vandalism". The edit was plainly not vandalistic; it was sincere, personal opinion. We want to encourage young editors rather than drive them off by describing edits as vandalism when they are not. Amandajm (talk) 10:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

It was reverted, not deleted. It is still there and can be restored easily with one click. Furthermore, ClueBot NG never describes an edit as "vandalism". It describes it as "possible vandalism". And it is very nice in its first message it leaves on a user's talk page. In fact, it doesn't even mention vandalism:

== May 2024 ==

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Some Page have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see the Introduction to Wikipedia, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, place {{Help me}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: ANN scored 0.89

Thank you.

You can even edit this template if you would like:

• ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal-common

ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal1

ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal2

ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal3

ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal4

The only place it mentions vandalism at all is in its revert edit summary, and there it calls it "possible vandalism":

Reverting possible vandalism by 1.2.3.4 to version by SomeUser. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (12345678) (Bot)

-- Cobi^(t|c|b) 17:07, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

Second Sino-Japanese war

Why did you erase my edits as vandalism? I can't understand why Im called so. And why its problem to introduce revisionist historian's view? What you're doing is something like acoppression of speech, isn't it? Please explain it more clearly, thanks. ~~Wibdersteinburg~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Windersteinburg (talk • contribs) 04:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

ps3

	you are ace
	well done Whiteknight146 (talk) 12:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Review Interface

I have attempted to sign up for the ClueBot Review Interface several times via this page - none of them have seemed to work. I have got a message saying that an admin will review the form and email me, but haven't received an email. It's probably been a couple of months since my first attempt to sign up: what is happening? Bilorv (talk) 09:22, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I know: it's an experience many others have had over several years; others before you have enquired here but the people in charge seem too grand to reply. It wouldn't take much to say either "we are not at present recruiting for this project" or "sorry, your application has been unsuccessful". It's most discouraging to apply and hear nothing: Noyster (talk), 12:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

The current user page for ClueBot NG has a whole section on the Dataset Review Interface. At the top of the page there is an announcement saying that they are looking for volunteers. Even the top of this page has a link to the interface. If volunteers are not wanted, fine, but can't someone take down the links to the interface or put a message saying "This project is currently inactive/not accepting new members"? Bilorv (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I've also had this experience, I've requested 4 times but never gotten a reply. Even a "sorry, we don't think you're experienced enough" or even a "sorry, not now". Please, cluebot operators, get the act together or remove the "we are looking for volunteers" part. Thanks. --Lixxx235 (talk) 04:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Your edits to Patent Cooperation Treaty

Thanks for this edit. The next five edits by the same user could have been reverted as well. Perhaps the bot could be improved... Thanks anyway for the good work! --Edcolins (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Nice bot ;)  The Godslayer  04:48, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Messed up archiving

Somehow I messed up the archiving setup at User:Ww2censor/SuggestBot. I wanted to archive the SuggestBot's monthly posts into managable proportions but the first time it ran your bot moved all 40 discussions into the 1st archive page and due to the size took a long time. I mostly reverted it but it di so again. Today it has moved all the newer posts again even though I wanted to keep 2 posts on the page after each archive run. Can you help me figure this out? Can we start over from scratch from this edit? I can always copy paste in the April and May update once it is working correctly. TIA ww2censor (talk) 09:08, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Based on your statement that you want the current threads to be separated into multiple different archives, I am changing your configuration from ClueBot III (CB3) to lowercase sigmabot III (lcSB3). CB3 will always archive everything it is supposed to archive any single time it is run into one archive file. While this is fine if CB3 is continuously running on a page, it means that a backlog that exists at the time you set up archiving will get dumped into one and only one archive. You could get around this by manually changing the archive time after each run to progressively archive portions of the page, but that is inconvenient and takes greater attention oer time which setting it up. It is much easier in this case to use lcSB3 which will take the backlog and put it into multiple different archive pages. This will take a bit. I will post when done. — Makyen (talk) 16:36, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done All of the edits I expect to make to correct the situation are complete. I have reverted all content back to the User:Ww2censor/SuggestBot page and placed a lcSB3 config on the page. There were some things in your CB3 config which were wrong, so I corrected them to what I think you wanted based on your comments above and common usage. The most significant was the archive location which was invalid and CB3 had used its default archive page location combined with the |format= %%i you had. You also had |minarchthreads=2 in what I believe was an attempt to keep two threads on the page when archiving happened. This parameter actually told CB3 not to archive unless it was able to archive at least 2 threads. The parameter you actually wanted was |minkeepthreads=2} which would have kept two threads on the page. The configuration is now as I believe you desire it.

Yet to happen is the deletion of the pages created by CB3. I have tagged them for speedy deletion with {{db-g6}} as they were created in error. I also created an archive index page out of habit. Belatedly, I noticed that your CB3 config explicitly configured no indexing. I have also tagged for deletion the index page I erroneously created and removed both the archive indexing config from User:Ww2censor/SuggestBot and the link which I had included in the archive box. — Makyen (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Looks good so far and we shall see when the bot runs on it again. However, I didn't actually want each thread to be a separate archive but to be managebale chunks of multiplpe threads, such as 100K max. Is that possible or a suitable size? Thanks for the speedy response. ww2censor (talk) 19:18, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

It appears I did not communicate as I intended. As it is, lcSB3 will create archive pages which are each approximately 150k in length containing the number of threads which are needed to get to that length. While it will do so in a single archive task, it will create as many archive pages as are needed to archive the threads it is supposed to – leaving at least 2 on the page (|minthreadsleft=2) – while keeping each archive page to about 150k. The length is approximate because none of the bots break a single thread into chunks. The only reason I set it to 150k is that 150k was the length which I found in |maxarchsize=150000 within the CB3 config when I started making changes. When I set up archiving, I usually use a 100k length, just because. I highly recommend not over 230k because strange things can happen when a page is > 256kiB and archives are not guaranteed to be a specific length.

You can set the archive target size to whatever you desire. It is set in the |maxarchivesize= parameter.

Just to confirm: All pages I had marked for deletion have been deleted.

I should have stated this in my prior posting: As is my normal practice when helping like this, I will watch the page at least through the first archiving task that lcSB3 runs just to be sure that there are no problems. — Makyen (talk) 22:20, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Brilliant, I really appreciate the help. Thanks. ww2censor (talk) 10:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

User warning

I'd like to ask that the bot recognizes blanked warnings and proceeds to the next one on the list, because when editors blank the warnings and continue to vandalize, cluebot gives them a lv1 warning all over again. --Lixxx235 (talk) 05:29, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

@Lixxx235: I think it was deliberately designed this way so users wouldn't receive escalating warnings if they did what the lvl 1 warning notice instructed them to do - remove the notice, report the false positive, and then make the edit again. Removing the warning is to prevent the bot from eventually reporting innocent users to WP:AIV. Once a false pos is reported, it must first be reviewed by a human before it is added to the corpus, so until that happens the bot will still revert an edit with the same text. However, Huggle sees through this and escalates even when warnings are blanked, and even if CBNG or another user adds a level 1 warning after a level 3 warning was issued. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 20:06, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	;) Iiboharz (talk) 12:39, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi

This is for you

Nya Long (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Lies

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Your a liar, I didn't vandalise anything. You suck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.105.57.154 (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

All right, let's suppose your edits to Yorkshire dialect were a good-faith effort to add a little humour into the article. An edit made in genuine good faith should not be considered vandalism – yet we would still ask you, please, to not make joke edits. Readers looking for accurate information will not find them amusing. You might have guessed this when your edit was reverted by a human editor the first time, before Cluebot NG even got involved. Also, please refrain from using insults on a talk page. (I'm not sure why you would bother insulting a bot, anyway.) Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Jhené Aiko

I got a warning for editing the page for Jhené Aiko. I was trying to put the pronunciation of Aiko (ah-ee-ko) because for some crazy reason people do not understand how to pronounce it even after she has said it a million times.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AceyBae (talk • contribs)

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. Bilorv (talk) 14:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Doppelganger accounts for Bots

Hey, i think that Cluebot and the others should have Doppelganger accounts, especially with this incident-User:ClueBot GN ynow? --Coo coo pigeon (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

@Coo coo pigeon: Doppelganger accounts are for account names that may be too similar, such as HIFIVE and HlFlVE (the first one had uppercase "I"s, the other had lowercase "L". How many combinations can be assemble for "ClueBot BLAH BLAH BLAH"? Too many to count, that is. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 19:35, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

They could just add a space at the end. --Coo coo pigeon (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)