User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2010/March
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:ClueBot Commons. 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. |
Cluebot needs to be able to automatically sense warning levels.
I have seen many times in which Cluebot reverts vandalism and then gives its default warning to the vandal, but after the vandal has been given warnings for other unconstructive edits. If a user receives the L1, 2, and 3 vandalism templates, then ClueBot comes along and gives its warning, most users see it as an L1 and "reset" the counter, giving the vandal more opportunity to damage Wikipedia. Therefore, Cluebot's code should be updated to sense the warning level given to the vandal and choose its own accordingly. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail 03:12, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- It does. The existing warning was probably old, and therefore stale and irrelevant. Ale_Jrbtalk 23:28, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
- No, they are not. I often see something like this:
| February 2010
February 2010 
|
That user received the final warning, then the cluebot, then two more, for a total of seven warnings, and technically, nine would be required for a block. Compare this to the normal, where, after four, a block is applied, but Cluebot's limitations allowed the vandal to continue damaging Wikipedia. This is a major problem. -RadicalOne•Contact Me•Chase My Tail 00:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
- ClueBot considers 2 days a "stale" warning, and resets after that. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 21:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
It would be nice if the bot had the smarts added for it to know that there already exists a dated section, on a User talk page, such as "February 2010", so that it not create a redundant one --Jerome Potts (talk) 07:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
Can Cluebot catch this?
Recently, somebody vandalised my userpage, and typed fu<nowiki>ckehe</nowiki>ad. This apparently was not caught by Cluebot, as I personally reverted it after discovering it 8 minutes later. Is Cluebot capable of detecting this sort of vandalism, and if not, is it possible to make it so that Cluebot does, so that vandals don't take advantage of this? Brambleclawx 04:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- here's a diff so you can see all instances of similar uses of the nowiki function. Brambleclawx 05:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I hate you ClueBot/AV!!!!
You keep beating me to a large chunk of the AV reverts!!!! :-)
Glad you and your brethren are around!!! You rock, my bot friend! Keep up the good work!!!
RobertMfromLI | User Talk 17:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Improper talk archiving
ClueBot III is insisting on archiving the only two threads that currently (except for this bot's action) exist on Talk:King Kong (1933 film). They are only a few weeks old and their issues have not been resolved. Between that and the fact that the bot is leaving the page blank (as far as actual discussion posts are concerned) there can be no doubt that this archiving action is inappropriate and improper. It is clear evidence that this bot is malfunctioning. Somebody please do something about it. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
I hate you ClueBot/AV!!!!
You keep beating me to a large chunk of the AV reverts!!!! :-)
Glad you and your brethren are around!!! You rock, my bot friend! Keep up the good work!!!
RobertMfromLI | User Talk 17:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Blanking of History of logic
This whole article was created by the notorious troll User:Peter Damian. The heroic vandal fighter User:Fram has been deleting contributions by this enemy of Wikipedia. Surely it is right to remove the noxious poison that this Jimbo-hater is wreaking upon our beloved project. 86.186.147.165 (talk) 22:11, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- ClueBot only reverted you after you blanked the entire page. Please see WP:CSD#G5, "Pages created by banned or blocked users in violation of their ban or block having no substantial edits by others." That criterion does not apply here. The page history goes back to June 2002, well before Peter Damian came to the project, and has been contributed to by many different people. Reach Out to the Truth 15:09, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
User:ClueBot II not editing
User:ClueBot II has not edited since February 25 so some sandboxes like Template:X5 are not cleared. Is there a reason? Should User:SoxBot or another be asked to clear more sandboxes? PrimeHunter (talk) 18:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I think that the person you should be going after is Rodrigo Araya P. He made a lot of incorrect adjustments to the fall schedule, and then made a midseason schedule that would make one think that not a single midseason change had been made. I happen to know that Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew Mysteries was launched by ABC at that time.192.220.136.213 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
Improper talk archiving
ClueBot III is insisting on archiving the only two threads that currently (except for this bot's action) exist on Talk:King Kong (1933 film). They are only a few weeks old and their issues have not been resolved. Between that and the fact that the bot is leaving the page blank (as far as actual discussion posts are concerned) there can be no doubt that this archiving action is inappropriate and improper. It is clear evidence that this bot is malfunctioning. Somebody please do something about it. --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:23, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
- Now it is doing the same thing here. An act of CYA? Somebody please fix this malfunctioning bot, and soon! --Tbrittreid (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
- The bot is doing exactly what it has been instructed to do. It archives this page after 72 hours of inactivity, and the King Kong talk page after 168 hours of inactivity. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 00:36, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- Then it needs to have its instructions changed. I stand by my statements that what was on Kong was (and is) still pending, and that a talk page should never be blanked. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- How many threads would you like to be kept on the talk page? You can set minkeepthreads to whatever you feel is appropriate for the page. Reach Out to the Truth 05:10, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Then it needs to have its instructions changed. I stand by my statements that what was on Kong was (and is) still pending, and that a talk page should never be blanked. --Tbrittreid (talk) 22:23, 10 March 2010 (UTC)
- As should be quite clear, the problem is that the archived threads were not very old nor were their issues resolved. Many other talk pages show threads several years old and long since settled. The quantity of threads is irrelevant, other than noting that archiving every thread on a talk page, as I complained about this bot doing both on Kong and right here, is not generally done. --Tbrittreid (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
- Thank you. I have now fixed it. --Tbrittreid (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Nu metal discussion
I made a new discussion on Talk:Nu metal but Cluebot keeps archiving it. Why? Portillo (talk) 02:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for answering my question. Portillo (talk) 23:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Not Archiving
I have had stuff siting on my talk page for 7 days now, the archive interval is set to three days. Is the bot working? -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 20:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
William Wallace vandalism by 190.58.32.19
Thank you! I have become a huge fan of this historical figure since I saw Braveheart back when the film was released. I have since studied other works on Wallace. I was honored to make my first modest edit to this fine article. I do hope to contribute more in the future, but I wish to take my time and not make edits which as too hasty. I had first though that it was my edit reverted, but after looking closer I realized what had happened. Again, thank you for the revert on the vandalism by 190.58.32.19 to my edit. Armorbearer777 (talk) 16:55, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
could Cluebot catch this?
Cluebot didn't catch this vandalism - it seems like it could. Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 21:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
User:Peparazzi edits
Please can you look into a problem, to me, that User:Peparazzi is causing, which i'd consider vandalism. i've already taken this matter to Wikipedia talk:Tambayan Philippines and to Wikipedia talk:Requested moves.
The page was originally Diva (TV series) until User:Peparazzi moved it to Diva (Philippine TV series) and Diva (Philippines TV series). I just wanted to correct it because there is no other series in Wikipedia that is called Diva, so the "Philippines" in the title, that Peparazzi added, is not needed. However, I was pointed out that there is another series titled Diva on IMDb, however, is there need to have to move Diva (TV series) to Diva (Philippine TV series) when the other Diva on IMDb do not have a Wiki page no seems to be interested into making one. I believe while there is no page for the Diva on IMDb, Diva 2010 series is the most notable to recieve the "(TV series)" title, and not "(Philippine TV series)".
Can you help me find a solution to restore it to Diva (TV series), this isn't the first time this happened, Peparazzi also redirected First Time (TV series) to First Time (Philippine TV series), which I also tried fixing. In this case, there is no other TV series on IMDb titled First Time. It is only right that the "Philippine" in the page title removed. Another page is Panday Kidz, it was originally Panday Kids, however the series image uploaded on Wiki has a "z" instead of "s", however the shows' official site titles the series as "Panday Kids", with an "s" and not with a "z". Same goes with the image being used, the image that User:Peparazzi seem to use is the one with "z" and it is clear that it is edited, i've reverted it many times providing enough explanation and proof, and yet User:Peparazzi continue to revert my edits. User:Peparazzi had also moved The Last Prince to The Last Prince (Philippine TV series), without reason really, even though there is only one series or page in Wiki called "The Last Prince". Please consider my request and action is taken. Thank you very much for the time. -- ISWAK3 (talk) 21.00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- Please discuss this issue on one specific page. You have already started it on Tambayan page. If the admins/higher users have said to wait for the decision, it doesnt mean to start bragging on other pages. --CocaCirca2009 (talk) 22:20, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
They're not always minor changes.
At heuristics/cluebot.smallchange.heuristic.php, they should probably be changed to making a change with obscenities and making a change adding "!!!" without the word "minor". They're not always minor, and sometimes it involves the vandal replacing a legit sentence with an unnecessary one, hence the edit is not minor. mechamind90 14:06, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
- I call it minor because the vandal added or removed a total of less than 200 characters. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 14:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
...
Stop archiving new sections before they have been discussed. Portillo (talk) 23:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
- ClueBot III's archival settings are configured on a per-page basis. You may want to change the settings for the page if it's archiving sections too early. Take a look at How to archive your page. Reach Out to the Truth 02:01, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Cute
Cluebot is cute Evenios (talk) 01:15, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Cluebot broken?
cluebot deleted what I, at least, consider to be a correct edit (deleting self-promotional material from the article Jake Bernstein). The feature " False positive? Report it" however, seems to be broken-- it gives two SQL errors when I tried to use it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.35.250.146 (talk) 04:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
This is interesting... not sure what has happened but there are archives from all over the place... SGGH ping! 08:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Drain_cleaner
The now unregistered user Pgdp123 altered Drain Cleaner on February 7, 2010 nine separate times in less than an hour. Pgdp123's third alteration that day was:
15:32, 7 February 2010 Pgdp123 (talk | contribs) (13,989 bytes) (Reverted ClueBot false positive. Undid revision 342494972 by ClueBot (talk)) (undo) [1]
From this evidence and the fact Pgdp123 no longer exists, indicates this was indeed vandalism and not a false positive. Further investigation of the changes made would suggest the information removed by Pgdp123 might be helpful to specific manufactures while harming other manufactures by limiting available information.
If all true, Cluebot caught the vandalism and took the appropriate step to repair Pgdp123's major edits. However, Pgdp123 was allowed to self verify that Cluebot had created a false positive. Not only was a potential vandal allowed to self disable Cluebot's safety measure, but was also allowed to do so within a 9 minute time frame.
Would it reason to not allow potential vandals the option to claim false positives? In the case of the potential vandal actually being the only or one of few who can verify the changes are not vandalism (e.g. in a field of study with a limited number of knowledgeable individuals who might not frequent the wikipedia site and/or page), then perhaps having another individual corroborate the user's credentials and/or page corrections before accepting as a false positive. If that fails, then at least a time delay longer than hours before the user can self-verify a false positive. Too, perhaps adding a note at the top of the article which asks viewers to review the possible vandalism. Thoughts?
14:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Token of Appreciation
Thank you for protecting Tau Gamma Phi article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.79.217.68 (talk) 19:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
I suggest updating Warning #4
This is the final warning you are receiving regarding your disruptive edits, such as the one you made to [[:{{{1}}}]]. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Your edits have been automatically marked as vandalism and have been automatically reverted. The following is the log entry regarding this vandalism: {{{2}}}. Thank you. ~~~~
It does appear as though the warnings have been steering away from WP:BITE anyhow. mechamind90 17:14, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Suicide Silence's No Time to Bleed
I made this edit that wasn't intended to be vandalism and it was reverted by ClueBot and I thought it was an error; so I reported it as such. All in all; it was in quoted text and so thus I thought the bot would understand before I made the edit. ------ 69.109.46.225 (talk) 23:45, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Matra logo
Hello, I have tried to insert a logo of Matra company in Matra article but I do not know how to insert pictures into wiki articles. Could you help me and make article about Matra better ? Thank you. The logo may comes from web page: http://auta5p.eu/katalog/matra/matra.htm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.40.240.88 (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
yuck
i do not like the poo bot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.224.42 (talk) 14:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Errors on Bot
Tried to undo reversion 577759 - got the following errors!
Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /afs/acm.uiuc.edu/user/carter11/public_html/wikibot.classes.php on line 355 Warning: Invalid argument supplied for foreach() in /afs/acm.uiuc.edu/user/carter11/public_html/wikibot.classes.php on line 355 Done.
Please fix. This was a valid edit to create a Aberdeen City Council stub using that data to create a transcluded stub to the existing page to allow dbPedia to have urls for local government bodies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryuchitorian (talk • contribs) 15:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Major error
Your bot turned the disability page back into a page purely about dogs, make sure it doesn't do this again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valethar (talk • contribs) 10:31, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys
Your bot is pretty sharp, I dig that, but I tested it on vandalism and came to conclusion that if a non-vandalist edit is made by the same user/ip JUST BEFORE the user/ip commits vandalism, the bot removes both. Maybe you should make it react only on filtered content, but yeah, I understand this is a bit too much to ask. 65.92.163.83 (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- The assumption is that if the second edit was vandalism, the first one is probably vandalism too. That's usually the case, and if only the second edit is reverted then it could leave previous vandalism on the page. If there was actually constructive material among the vandalism then it can certainly be restored, but they shouldn't be kept by default. Just because ClueBot didn't detect vandalism in the first edit doesn't there wasn't any, and most people will assume vandalism was fully removed when they see ClueBot revert something. Reverting only partially would mean we'd have to constantly check up on ClueBot's activity to make sure vandalism was fully reverted, and that would defeat the point of using a bot. A vandal could also make constructive changes in the same edit as the unconstructive changes. But it's still a vandalism edit and should be reverted. Any useful changes that may have existed among the vandalism can be re-added to the article after the revert. Reach Out to the Truth 19:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Hey guys
Your bot is pretty sharp, I dig that, but I tested it on vandalism and came to conclusion that if a non-vandalist edit is made by the same user/ip JUST BEFORE the user/ip commits vandalism, the bot removes both. Maybe you should make it react only on filtered content, but yeah, I understand this is a bit too much to ask. 65.92.163.83 (talk) 21:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
- The assumption is that if the second edit was vandalism, the first one is probably vandalism too. That's usually the case, and if only the second edit is reverted then it could leave previous vandalism on the page. If there was actually constructive material among the vandalism then it can certainly be restored, but they shouldn't be kept by default. Just because ClueBot didn't detect vandalism in the first edit doesn't there wasn't any, and most people will assume vandalism was fully removed when they see ClueBot revert something. Reverting only partially would mean we'd have to constantly check up on ClueBot's activity to make sure vandalism was fully reverted, and that would defeat the point of using a bot. A vandal could also make constructive changes in the same edit as the unconstructive changes. But it's still a vandalism edit and should be reverted. Any useful changes that may have existed among the vandalism can be re-added to the article after the revert. Reach Out to the Truth 19:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Template
This bot created many asteroid's articles, Is it possible adding the template {{MinorPlanets Navigator}} and {{Small Solar System bodies}} like this ?--Tranletuhan (talk) 10:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Inability to report false positive
I've tried to report, but get a program language message telling me there is some error. Here's my report (as this is the only place I can see to put it). Page Keppra Rage ID = 580199 "I've PRODed the page Keppra Rage, and then ClueBot reverted an edit by the page creator that was stated to include 'obscenities' - but I couldn't see any. It was just a link to a forum." Peridon (talk) 21:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
Clean those sandbox templates
Some templates of the SandBox are not cleaned when they should. Please clean the sandbox templates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Somebody500 (talk • contribs) 12:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)