User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2012/August

Strange error

I randomly got a message about how I vandalized this article. I've never even visited that page, and certainly didn't vandalize it. I'd never do that to any article, let alone one Ive never been to. The strange part is it just showed up today, but the "edit" was from January 2009. So, an edit that wasn't me, over 3 years ago?? I tried just reporting it but the link is broken. 207.118.124.212 (talk) 22:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Dynamic IPs explained on the user's talkpage. Acroterion (talk) 22:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

A chip for you!

	A chip for you!
	I award you this chip to improve you reverting vandalism on Wikipedia, hope you like it LOL The'ChampionMan1234 07:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Updating ClueBot NG's warning templates

The RfC on level one user warnings is closed and other templates have been updated, but ClueBot NG's warnings haven't been. A message from CBNG is often the first things users get, and the message should be made friendlier. I would do it myself, but I don't want to mess up the warnings (I'm not a good template coder). David1217 ^{What I've done} 23:38, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The text doesn't seem to work that well for a bot =/ - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Updated - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Uh, don't you think you need to explain that ClueBot NG is an automated program? I made some changes. David1217 ^{What I've done} 00:18, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Read the line above about it not working for bots, imo the old template was fine and explained everything as needed. 92.23.148.115 (talk) 19:44, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Review edit dataset

I volunteered to review edit dataset, but have received no response. Ansa416 (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I've emailed MTCD to make him aware of this query.--5 albert square (talk) 19:30, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Happened to me too. W.D. 16:08, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

India-Nepal relations

Hey, what I've removed is some matrimonial shit posted by someone on a political relations article. Please go through it before undoing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.169.233 (talk) 19:08, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot is a robot, not a human, therefore it cannot read edits. I've actually looked at the edit in question, I think what may have set the bot off is the text that you added. I've even typed it into Google Translate and nothing is coming up for what it means. The text that you added appears to be in a foreign language which is not allowed on the English Wikipedia and and like I say there doesn't appear to be a translation for it. In that case the bot is correct to revert it.--5 albert square (talk) 19:31, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

This edit by the IP is correctly classified as vandalism. Although the text he removed was rightly removed, the IP added a statement that was Hindi abuses ranting against the editors of the Article for not writing it properly. and our ClueBot has correctly removed it without delay. I am glad to see Cluebot removing abusive words from foreign languages as well. :) --DBigXray 20:04, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

I wondered if that was the case! I didn't know ClueBot knew Hindi - what a clever bot!--5 albert square (talk) 20:09, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed --DBigXray 20:17, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

IP, in case you're wondering what happened with your edit, as it contains abuse against editors I've removed it from the public archives.--5 albert square (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hell yeah, those were abusive words written by me against the moron who has so badly framed this Border disputes section. >:( Clever Bot you have there!! ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.176.169.233 (talk) 20:27, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

IP 122.176.169.233 if you found that it was wrong and improper content you could have fixed it yourself, see WP:SOFIXIT, Wikipedia editors contribute here voluntarily and some of their contributions might not be up to the mark, that does not mean you should go on adding abuses to the article, but rather you should correct it yourself. Regards.--DBigXray 20:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

3 New Shows Are Real You Know --76.29.246.204 (talk) 00:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A cheeseburger for you!

Thanks for sending me that message send me back another message on my talk page Kelenna (talk) 13:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Hey respond AGAIN on my page Kelenna (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{{/censor}}

Serious error

This edit is all kinds of crazy, definite mess up. GiantSnowman 20:25, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

5 albert square -- You deleted the revisions of this edit (for good reason, I presume), but is there some way to get this case into CluebotNG's training set? Seems like CNG needs better training for cases like this that are so bad the revisions are made unavailable by admins. -R. S. Shaw (talk) 03:17, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I had to delete it further as it made serious allegations against members of staff of the school. I can only assume that the fact that the registered user and the bot edited the article at the same time had something to do with this.--5 albert square (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This suggests that the CluebotNG code has a timing bug, wherein it reverts an edit other than the one it evaluated due to a concurrent update happening. Something for a developer to look at. -R. S. Shaw (talk)

No vandalism at Celtis australis

ClueBot NG reverted user:80.42.204.99 with revert ID:1167810. The edit should have been made to the talk page but it was not vandalism. User:80.42.204.99 has a point. Celtis australis cannot prefer acid, neutral and basic soils. Two out of the three maybe but not all three. Perhaps it thrives in all three. If so the article should so state. Meanwhile I will remove the impossible. - Fartherred (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Switching archiving bots

Howdy. My user talk page is currently set up to be archived by MiszaBot III. Unfortunately, that bot hasn't stopped by my page since May 30th. I've posted on the operator's page, but haven't gotten a fix yet. I'd like to switch the archiving of my user talk page to your bot. Ideally, all of the same options I had set up with the old system would be transferable to your bot. I've placed some possible code in one of my sandboxes. Will that code duplicate the old settings? Is there anything else I'd need to set up or change?--Rockfang (talk) 20:03, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked it a little, and now it looks good. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 21:38, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the assistance.--Rockfang (talk) 23:30, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

False positive statistics

Currently, a user has a 50% probability of being reverted after 692.8 edits. If false positives is set to 0.05%, a user has a 50% probability of being reverted after 1386.0 edits. Those numbers are rounded to the nearest tenth.

I've done some math, describing how likely it is for ClueBot NG to incorrectly revert a user within their first N good edits. See the image to the right. These are the cumulative distribution functions of two geometric distributions with p=0.001 and p=0.0005. I thought you might like to add it to the statistics section. Caveats:

• This is not based on actual data. This is a purely theoretical calculation based on the false positive rate.
• This assumes that ClueBot NG looks at every edit made, and does no post-processing.
• Therefore, this is rather pessimistic compared to reality.

My reasoning is that we eventually want to have ClueBot looking at as many edits as possible, perhaps by running multiple instances, so this depicts the ideal deployment scenario. Post-processing is difficult to account for without taking actual measurements, which have their own problems (users don't report every false positive), so even in that scenario, this would still be somewhat pessimistic. Thanks for reading this. --NYKevin 17:14, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Post-processing limits reverts to users with less than 50 edits. Therefore, both of those lines would flatline after 50 edits. Furthermore, I'm not sure what you mean by assuming it looks at every edit with multiple instances. The current bot looks at every edit to the main namespace. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 21:35, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

I had been operating under the mistaken belief that ClueBot didn't have the resources to examine every edit. And limiting oneself to <50 edits is a form of post-processing that the graph doesn't cover. Perhaps it should, however. --NYKevin 00:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The core can easily handle the edit rate of the main namespace (actually it sees all edits then filters to main pre-processing), if the edit rate significantly increased there are still optimisations that could be made. Currently, most the delay is actually in pulling data from the api/toolserver and mashing it together. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

syobon action page

i just got rid of a TON of vandalism on the Syobon Action page and cluebot put all he vandalism back! wtf! 24.187.191.151 (talk) 22:47, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message, another editor has edited and reverted the article to pre vandalism version--DBigXray 23:02, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

new edit filter to (try to) prevent new users from shutting down ClueBot NG

I've created a new edit filter (484) that warns users against disabling User:ClueBot NG/Run without a good reason and directs them to the false positive page. This should reduce the amount of vandalism to that page, and at the same time, still allow established users to turn off the bot in the event of an emergency. Of course, we should go back to full protection of the page if vandalism still proves to be a problem. --Ixfd64 (talk) 17:32, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Good idea - I'm actually toying with the idea or removing it all together as admins should block the bot if it's malfunctioning, it is rather handy for developers/operators though occasionally. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there may be a word missing from the warning message. "Tampering with bot settings may result in a block without further warning." – perhaps? Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Good catch! I've fixed it. --Ixfd64 (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:67.82.124.122

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User talk:67.82.124.122, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. IRWolfie- (talk) 15:16, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Now look here, sonny.

I don't know who you are, and I don't know why you think you own the place. You act rudely and thoughtlessly against your fellows and I do not think of any of us appreciate it. If you are to continue in such an innappropriate manner, please leave the site. I think I speak for all wiki editors in this matter.

Yours sincerely, IP> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.14.184 (talk) 10:00, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

There was nothing rude in cluebot's message, but yes, you are rude. See WP:BOT for more information. You should thank cluebot for alerting you quickly about your mistake. --Tito Dutta ✉ 07:25, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Pepsi Orange Streak

Can you revert the vandalism for Pepsi Orange Streak? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikipedia201 (talk • contribs) 20:12, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Well no it can't as ClueBot doesn't revert vandalism by demand. You could just revert it yourself. I've looked at the article and I'm not even sure where the vandalism is unless I've missed something.--5 albert square (talk) 20:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot NG doesn't revert page-move vandalism?

The original ClueBot was able to detect and revert page-move vandalism. However, its successor has never moved a single page. Does ClueBot NG not detect page-move vandalism? Since the bot uses an artificial neural network, I imagine it wouldn't be too difficult to program it to detect inappropriate page moves. But then again, machine learning isn't my expertise, so I could be wrong. --Ixfd64 (talk) 16:30, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think it wouldn't be too difficult to detect inappropriate page moves? And I don't think we face lots of clearly inappropriate page moves (like 1) Google → Haha ha ha 2) Facebook → Add me there) type moves. BTW, it may be difficult for a bot of 2012 to detect and revert these two mentioned moves too. --Tito Dutta ✉ 16:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't revert legitimate edits

Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at ILOVEYOU, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read Wikipedia:NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Also note that I also reported your false positive; you can find it here. --187.126.187.228 (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

You are talking about this edit. It is still unsourced! --Tito Dutta ✉ 14:21, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources for nett gross in India for Bollywood films

BoxofficeIndia.com cannot be used as official reference(tracker) for Bollywood films nett collections in India. BoxofficeIndia is not updating its website on a regular basis ,so the reports og nett collections in India are reported very late on its website.Also, Wikipedia is not able to utilize lists of film grosses created by Box Office India, until permission is provided to the Wikimedia Foundation of permission by Box Office India. Respected critics such as Taran Adarsh and Komal Nahta are giving regualar and genuine nett collection figures in India for Bollywood films.Taran Adarsh has website www.bollywoodhungama.com and Komal Nahta has website www.koimoi.com We can also use OneIndia.com, The Times of India as sources it doesn’t means that a magazine like Hindustan Times or The hindu will not report genuine sources ,compared to a not so updated website of BoxofficeIndia.com BoxofficeIndia should be used only when other sources stop giving gross report.First bring a consensus on this nett gross issue. --Ghajinidetails (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Its looks ridiculous,that by Monday,August 20,2012 at around 4 pm,the news of Ek tha tiger grossing 100 crore nett in India,came out on www.bollywoodhungama.com and even Taran Adarsh also tweeted the 100 crore figure.crossed in 5 days only.TV news channels like CNN-IBN,Zee-News,ABP News and Aaj Tak all showed 100 crore news of Ek tha Tiger on Monday itself .But BoxofficeIndia figures are so clumpsy and outdated.they showed ek tha tiger crossed 100 crore in 6 days and reported that news on Tuesday,August 21,2012.They even haven’t given reports of Bol Bachchan crossing 100 crore nett in India,while the news has already came out on all TV channels.Can u show me piece of information that Wikipedia wants only this waste crap website www.BoxofficeIndia.com source only? --Ghajinidetails (talk) 7:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Box OfficeIndia gets data directly from the distributors & exhibitors which is supposedly lesser than what the studio / production house reports to trade analysts ... that makes all the difference of nearly Rs 6-7 crores in nett gross always.Like see the case of Singham starring ajay Devgn,which is in 100-crore gross in india according to both Taran adarsh website www.bollywoodhungama.com and Komal Nahta source www.koimoi.com . but BoxofficeIndia has given its nett gross around 98 crores,which is not correct. All people and trade experts will say one data and boxofficeIndia will say some 6-7 crore less data.So try as much to follow other sources,other than BoxofficeIndia.com ,wherever its possible. --Ghajinidetails (talk) 7:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Sources for worldwide gross and overseas gross of Bollywood films

BoxofficeIndia has demerit that it is not giving overseas reports of films on a regular basis.It will show figues only once or twice,So u cannot include BoxofficeIndia figures. Also,When u wil see infobox of Holywood films,they have worldwide gross. So try to include worldwide gross which includes domestic gross(nett gross in India+entertainment tax) and overseas gross. --Ghajinidetails (talk) 20:16, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

BoxofficeIndia doesn’t give overseas information within week.Also it is not generally much detailed.So don’t go for BoxofficeIndia.com as it doesnot give country-by-country breakup of collections. --Ghajinidetails (talk) 7:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Screens count of a Bollywood film’s release needed.

Every Bollywood films should have information of screen count when it is releasing.So I added Rowdy rathore screen count.Its not a vandalism.Not even think about it. --Ghajinidetails (talk) 7:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

From MiszaBot III to ClueBot II

I was just recently thinking of switching from MiszaBot III to ClueBot III, since MiszaBot III hasen't been archiving for me. If I do decide to switch, is there any way I can set it to archive 75 threads per archive? LikeLakers2 (talk | Sign my guestbook!) 13:02, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot III archiving to wrong location

Hi. I'm trying to implement automatic archiving at Wikipedia:Files for upload and after my initial test, instead of archiving to "August 2012" it archived to "April 2001"! You can see the history here. The code I used is here. We need to have it set so it only archives pages when the archivenow text is present. Thanks! —JmaJeremy✆✎ 18:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
	Could you help me delet my profile tell me how to delete my profile because I want to quit wikipedia. Kelenna (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi. I'm afraid you won't get general Wikipedia help here, as this page is for comments on or questions about the ClueBots. However, a good place to look for information would be WP:RETIRE. Cheers, – Wdchk (talk) 01:39, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You idiot

Why you so idiotic? What did you do at Jess Ennis? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.183.124.89 (talk) 13:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

There is no way that this can be seen as anything other than vandalism. If you have an issue with the page redirect, do not just take it off redirect, instead discuss issues like this on the articles talk page--5 albert square (talk) 23:06, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Problem with the "false positive" reporting system?

When I go to User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives and click on the link to http://report.cluebot.org/ to report a false positive, and then enter my "Revert ID" (1179907) and answer any other prompts, then I get a "Not Found" error. (I can, however, reach the false-positive reporting interface by clicking on the link from my own user talk page.) Please check and advise. Thank you. 71.178.165.11 (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This appears to have been reported - the ux is not so hot, I'm working on it (slowly). - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

don't article section

Is there any option for not archiving a particular section/thread? (IE FAQs or other sections that should not be archived) ? Gaijin42 (talk) 15:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe so, usually you'd transclude the section into the page which the bot will happily ignore. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)