User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2015/August
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
Can ClueBot block users
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.
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} if not can you please make it be able to block users A8v (talk) 22:37, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- ClueBot can't block users as it's not an admin. We also wouldn't be able to make it an admin as it's a computer program not a human.--5 albert square (talk) 23:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- Some bots are admins. Some admin bots do block users; for example ProcseeBot (talk · contribs), which has no contributions but has handed out plenty of blocks. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
- ClueBot is very accurate at spotting vandal edits, and if it was allowed to autoblock users for making several disruptive edits in a short space of time it would be unlikely to get it wrong. However, the fears of creating a HAL 9000 on Wikipedia mean that this is unlikely to happen.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Does Cluebot notify anyone (or an appropriate noticeboard) if there is a user that should be blocked? Etamni | ✉ 07:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, it files reports at WP:AIV.--5 albert square (talk) 15:52, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Does Cluebot notify anyone (or an appropriate noticeboard) if there is a user that should be blocked? Etamni | ✉ 07:23, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- ClueBot is very accurate at spotting vandal edits, and if it was allowed to autoblock users for making several disruptive edits in a short space of time it would be unlikely to get it wrong. However, the fears of creating a HAL 9000 on Wikipedia mean that this is unlikely to happen.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:30, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
- Some bots are admins. Some admin bots do block users; for example ProcseeBot (talk · contribs), which has no contributions but has handed out plenty of blocks. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
August2015
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.
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Hi clueBot thanks for your message. So it means that i can't edit anything on Wikipedia. Am i right? Zaif1010 (talk) 08:32, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
- See the message at the top of the page. ClueBot NG is a robot, not a human, and makes mistakes. In the case of your edit to Love marriage, I would say that you were trying to help, but it wasn't exactly an improvement to the article. Eman235/talk 11:01, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism
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.
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} can you block user 79.40.15.108 who is making vandalism on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiesa_Cristiana_in_Italia thanksMaurizio.morandi-1970 (talk) 11:12, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- It appears that someone has already blocked the IP user as of 11:15, 4 August 2015 (UTC) due to multiple instances of disruptive editing and vandalism to the page Chiesa Cristiana in Italia and the corresponding talk page. Etamni | ✉ 11:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
- Also to note, ClueBot NG is not an administrator, and cannot block users. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 15:35, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
False Accusations
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.
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} You have the wrong person! Be very careful who you accuse because these accusations of yours' are not true and they are actionable. This is the first time I have ever seen such a thing in all my years Online. Please do not let it happen again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.39.197 (talk) 03:05, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Did you read the note at the top of this page? (And what exactly do you mean by "actionable"? Be very careful with that; see WP:NLT for the consequences of making legal threats here.) General Ization Talk 03:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- Also, as you can clearly see for yourself by reviewing your edit history, someone using the shared IP address you are using did in fact make an edit that was correctly reverted as non-constructive by ClueBot on August 1. If that was not you, you can ignore the message, but consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices. General Ization Talk 03:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Yeah its called leave my Fixes Alone!
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.
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} What's the point of making changes on here For you to just change them back? Madonna's Character in Shanghai Surprise was a "Missionary" Not a "Nurse" JoshEndicott83 (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
- @JoshEndicott83: Your edits were not reverted by Cluebot because you changed the word "nurse" to "missionary" at Shanghai Surprise. They were reverted because you inserted supposed quotes from the movie which were unsourced and full of misspellings and grammatical errors. In addition, we do not include lists of "best" quotes from movies in articles about them here, because the decision as to which quotes are "best" and which to include is highly subjective depending on the individual editor, and therefore not neutral. General Ization Talk 18:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Question from 182.185.147.53
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.
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Why you are making False news in articles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 182.185.147.53 (talk) 10:24, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Presumably you are referring to this edit. It seems possible that this may have been a good-faith attempt to improve the article, which by definition would not be considered vandalism. However, the added text was not written in understandable English, and it was added to existing text citing sources without consideration of whether the new information was actually supported by those sources. Therefore, removing your contribution seems to have been the correct action, for now. I should emphasize that it is not necessary for contributions to be in perfect English, because someone else will always be able to tidy up spelling and grammar if necessary. However, for that to happen, the meaning must be clear, and the addition must be verifiable. – Wdchk (talk) 15:38, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Long edit summaries
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.
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
This edit was a false positive (the IP's edit was not particularly constructive but not vandalism either). However, because the IP address in case is "2601:204:CC01:C358:C0A0:A212:2B29:C7BA", which is used twice in ClueBot's edit summary ([[Special:Contributions/2601:204:CC01:C358:C0A0:A212:2B29:C7BA|2601:204:CC01:C358:C0A0:A212:2B29:C7BA]]), it runs out of space and ends its summary halfway through with "[[User:ClueBot NG|C...". This means it doesn't have the usual number in brackets with which to report the false positive. As this number seems to be perhaps one of the most important parts of the summary, is it possible for ClueBot to find ways of shortening its summary when it goes over the character limit of 255?
ClueBot's edit summary seems to be: Reverting possible vandalism by [[Special:Contributions/xxx|xxx]] to version by yyy. False positive? [[User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives|Report it]]. Thanks, [[User:ClueBot NG|ClueBot NG]]. (#######) (Bot) This is 193 + (2*xxx) + yyy characters. So if the names of the vandal being reverted or the person who lasted edited the article previously are too long (a total of >62 characters), the edit summary will be cut off.
I think the easiest way to shorten the summary (something that should only be done if the longer version above is > 255 characters) would be to change [[Special:Contributions/xxx|xxx]] to just xxx, which reduces the text by 27 characters plus the length of the username/IP address. In very exceptional circumstances, however, this might still not be enough; in that case, I think removing to version by yyy altogether would be best. I don't know if usernames longer than 62 characters are possible, but in that case, more characters would need to be removed somewhere.
An alternate or additional way to reduce space would be to create the redirect U:NGFP or something even shorter to use instead of User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives, which is 30 characters long (not including the [[ brackets ]]). — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 14:58, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- This has come up before, but as far as I can tell you're the first to come up with a solution.
Reverting possible vandalism by [[Special:Contribs/2601:204:CC01:C358:C0A0:A212:2B29:C7BA|2601:204:CC01:C358:C0A0:A212:2B29:C7BA]] to version by yyy. False positive? [[WP:CBNGFP|Report it]]. Thanks, [[WP:CBNG|ClueBot NG]]. (#######) (Bot)would have worked, it's 238 characters, renders Reverting possible vandalism by 2601:204:CC01:C358:C0A0:A212:2B29:C7BA to version by yyy. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (#######) (Bot). Eman235/talk 15:10, 7 August 2015 (UTC)- The revert ID is also posted on the user's talk page, you need to edit the page and look for the
<!-- MySQL ID: ### -->part. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 15:41, 7 August 2015 (UTC)- Ah, thanks for the information. I still think the edit summary could be improved, though, even without needing to remove any information; this would be preferable to searching around the user's talk page even if the person trying to make the report is aware that it can be found there. I really think at least the U:NGFP shortcut could be considered: it could be used in the standard edit summary, so there isn't even a need to have ClueBot use varying summaries based on character length. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks all for your inputs on this, I am looking at implementing some of these right now :) - RichT|C|E-Mail 18:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- There we go | And because Rich loves to typo :D - RichT|C|E-Mail 18:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thanks all for your inputs on this, I am looking at implementing some of these right now :) - RichT|C|E-Mail 18:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, thanks for the information. I still think the edit summary could be improved, though, even without needing to remove any information; this would be preferable to searching around the user's talk page even if the person trying to make the report is aware that it can be found there. I really think at least the U:NGFP shortcut could be considered: it could be used in the standard edit summary, so there isn't even a need to have ClueBot use varying summaries based on character length. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:29, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
- The revert ID is also posted on the user's talk page, you need to edit the page and look for the
Was expecting ClueBot NG to catch this
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.
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AZps-manager.jpg&type=revision&diff=603402455&oldid=491599334
Samsara 13:37, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not aware that it does, I certainly don't remember seeing it revert image summaries before.--5 albert square (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- What would be the rationale for that? Samsara 19:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Probably, the File: namespace has different "rules" and would require a different dataset. Also, there's a lot less vandalism there. Eman235/talk 20:34, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- Samsara, I have found out that CBNG has never made any edits to the file namespace, and also that trying to find out puts unnecessary load on the servers. Now we know, anyway. Eman235/talk 17:38, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- What would be the rationale for that? Samsara 19:07, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
- I'm not aware that it does, I certainly don't remember seeing it revert image summaries before.--5 albert square (talk) 18:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Page deletion.
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.
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} It has been requested by the owner of the trademark that this page and its content be deleted. I have tried 2x and to delete it and the content keeps being put back.
Please remove page. Normanwright227 (talk) 10:37, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please read the red box at the top of the page.--5 albert square (talk) 22:28, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Robert Hight
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.
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} How is updating information to reflect something that changed Months ago? I thought wiki was trying to be as accurate as possible? I want this subject escalated and researched as my edit was NOT vandalism! Amd28 (talk) 03:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please read the red box at the top of the page. ClueBot doesn't know what an "SS Funny Car" is, but knows that someone inserting the word "funny", combined with certain other circumstances (such as the small number of edits you have performed) often indicates that vandalism has occurred. I see that you have successfully made the change, and that ClueBot did not revert it the second time. The issue will not be "escalated" because ClueBot is working as designed. General Ization Talk 03:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Why reverted my edition in the page Klasky Csupo?
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.
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}
Why reverted my edition in the page Klasky Csupo?
The logo of Klasky Csupo in based in the 
danish character S'il vous plaît.
189.121.4.247 (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2015 (UTC).
- No idea. From what I can see, this would appear to be a false positive, if it is then please report it here so we can train the bot and remove ClueBot NG's warning from your talk page. Thanks!--5 albert square (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
False accusations!
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.
{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I don't know what you're talking about. Who's DeAndrew white? Please stop accusing the wrong person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.86.176 (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- This edit occurred from the IP address assigned to you. If you have shared network, this edit may have not have been made by you but by someone else using your network. This is not accusatory towards any particular person, but more of a notice that the edit was not useful and was reverted in order to keep Wikipedia as a reliable and useful resource. Thank you for your time. Inomyabcs (talk) 04:46, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
His dark materials
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 bot replaced 'theologians' with 'theologists', the first is the UK term, which is proper to this article. I can't get the false ++s to work.Pincrete (talk) 06:27, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Pincrete: I have reported the false positive for you. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 13:57, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Racism in Russia
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.
The page I edited is not a good one.
It attempts to blame immigrants for viollent racist attacks.
I added (sorry, deliberately provocative) comments challenging this view.
Advice please: how to slap the foul nazi bastards penning their filth?
[email redacted] Whisky202 (talk) 21:04, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
- Please see the red box at the top of this page. I would also suggest that you don't add such comments again.--5 albert square (talk) 21:17, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Phil Lester- cinnamon roll
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.
Why did you change my edit ?? Phillesterisbae (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
- Because your edit was unrelated to the subject of the article and Wikipedia is not for self-promotion. – Wdchk (talk) 11:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
Typo in edit summary
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.
@Rich Smith: Cluebot NG currently uses the text "Report False Positive?." in its edit summary. Either the question mark or the full stop is unnecessary (probably the former). It's a very small thing, but it's been bugging me. This is vaguely related to a previous conversation found at User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2015/August#Long edit summaries. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 16:39, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
About "Jaisalmer" Page
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.
I did not make any unconstructive edit, then why you reverting my last edit??
And don't send me stupid warning ⚠ SmTkMrVrA (talk) 00:15, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
- Actually, looking at your edit, I can completely understand why a robot would perceive that as possible vandalism. You've put something in a foreign language and then put the "native name lang" as being "hi". I'm not saying that your edit is vandalism but the word "hi" is used very frequently by vandals, as ClueBot is not human, it works on probability and when it has come across your edit it has worked out that it is possible that this is vandalism so has reverted it. I can see though that you have now found another way to make the edit.--5 albert square (talk) 03:28, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism to this talk page
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.
An IP user removed info from the pink notice above. I don't see any consensus to change the message, so reverted as vandalism since any legit changes would likely be completed by the bot's keeper, or someone closely associated with the bot.Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 05:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
About Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur Page
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.
Why are you always reverted my edits!! I don't edit any unconstructive!! Be faith with you work!! SmTkMrVrA (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- @SmTkMrVrA: Please see the red box at the top of the page and the instructions below it. General Ization Talk 18:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Incorrect level 2 headers?
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.
I noticed today that ClueBot NG seems to be adding new lv2 headers in its warnings even when there is already a section for that month, possibly in error. This month, CBNG created a new section and lv1-warned a user who I later lv4-warned (out of sequence, but the vandalism was quite egregious). A few days went by, then CBNG created another new section header for the same month and lv1-warned the user again, which led to the next report being lv2 when the user really should have been reported to WP:AIV by that point. Is the bot misbehaving?
As a side note, I don't think that either of the last two warnings really corresponded to blatant vandalism, so I haven't reported the user myself. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 20:42, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Ivanvector: There's a good explanation for both.
- For the first one, about CBNG adding new level 2 headers even when there's a section for the same month, that's normal. The bot's warning messages are templated, much like the warning templates you and I use. The level 1 warning for the bot contains code that automatically generates a section heading for the bot, while the level 2, 3, and 4 warnings do not. This is why you'll never see the bot create a new section with a level 2, 3, or 4 warning. To save time and resources, the developers did not code the section-heading stuff into the bot itself and instead let the template message handle it. It has been suggested before and the developers are aware of it, but AFAIK there is no plan to code this into the bot, since it's not that big of a deal.
- For the second one, that's actually proper form. IP addresses should not be treated as one person like user accounts because they can be shared or reassigned, and someone else may soon get that IP address. If an IP address is used by some grouchy, angry university professor that vandalizes Wikipedia and gets four warnings, and then that IP address gets reassigned to a child who makes a test edit for fun three weeks later, it wouldn't make sense to block the IP because the child probably did not see those warnings, and we could potentially lose a reformed vandal (Or at least, one who realized that Wikipedia gave chances before ripping its prey to shreds). In practice, if an IP address vandalizes 24 hours after the last warning was issued, they should be "reset" and a level 1 warning should be issued instead. Huggle does this automatically, and when I Twinkle I base my philosophy off that too.
- Hope this clarifies some stuff. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 23:06, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Vandalism to this talk page
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.
An IP user removed info from the pink notice above. I don't see any consensus to change the message, so reverted as vandalism since any legit changes would likely be completed by the bot's keeper, or someone closely associated with the bot.Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 05:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
About Muzaffarpur, Bhagalpur Page
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.
Why are you always reverted my edits!! I don't edit any unconstructive!! Be faith with you work!! SmTkMrVrA (talk) 17:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
- @SmTkMrVrA: Please see the red box at the top of the page and the instructions below it. General Ization Talk 18:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Would it be possible to have ClueBot edit-war against known vandals?
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.
ClueBot follows 1RR and doesn't edit-war, right? Which is great. But sometimes vandals are really insistent about telling us that Goku has a big butt, or whatever. ClueBot shuts down the first such edit, but then lets successive ones through.
Would it be possible/desirable for ClueBot to repeatedly revert edits it identifies as vandalism, if the last entry on the contributor's talk page is a vandalism warning (and it's less than, say, 24 hours old)? It seems like the odds of this backfiring are negligible, and it would save us humans a lot of tedious reverting. --Ashenai (talk) 19:49, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
- Although it's been agreed that CBNG should follow 1RR, you can pop the page on User:ClueBot NG/AngryOptin to allow it to carry on reverting. Please make sure to clean it up after it's calmed down :) While I would agree with your idea for a registered user, that can't be the case for IP. Less than 1 hour? maybe... not 24 - RichT|C|E-Mail 21:27, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
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.
please check all of my refs. It has been hard work. ThanksSrbernadette (talk) 07:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for your contributions. I'm not sure why you posted here – did you have a question related to ClueBot NG or ClueBot III? (See notice in the red box at the top of this page.) I see you have been talking to other editors elsewhere, so perhaps your questions have been answered now? – Wdchk (talk) 17:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
Odd ClueBot warning
{{atop}} I'm putting this here because I couldn't find another appropriate place. I received a warning from Cluebot for my IP address about a Wikipedia page I had never accessed much less edited. It seems bizarre, and if I were actively editing I would have logged in so it would be under my username. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.39.157 (talk) 02:03, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
- You can ignore the warnings left on the IP's talk page on 22 April 2015. If you didn't make the edits mentioned, the explanation is that somebody else was using that IP address on that date. Perhaps the address has been re-assigned by the Internet Service Provider, or somebody else was sharing your Internet connection on that date. You just happened to be the next person to come along to Wikipedia with that IP address. (By the way, it's perfectly OK to ask that question here.) – Wdchk (talk) 02:40, 30 August 2015 (UTC)