User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2015/April

Question about indicies

I (not-so) recently had my username changed from Ajl772 to radar33. If I move the indices page from User:ClueBot III/Indices/User talk:Ajl772 to User:ClueBot III/Indices/User talk:Radar33 (and any other of my userpages), will it screw up Cluebot's script, or will it still function okay?

I don't monitor Wikipedia as much as I used to, so if you would be to kind as to leave me a message on my talk page, or at least a notice that a response has been made here, I'd appreciate that. – radar³³ 04:03, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I just realized that ClueBot isn't even archiving my talk page, so this is somewhat of a moot point. My curiosity still wants to be fed, though. – radar³³ 04:44, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Radar33: No, ClueBot III (talk · contribs) doesn't archive your talk page, because it's not set up to do so. Your talk page has {{User:MiszaBot/config}} which means that archiving is performed by lowercase sigmabot III (talk · contribs). --Redrose64 (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Initially, I had ClueBot III archiving my talk page, but CB3 was down for a lengthy portion of time, so I ended up switching to MiszaBot (which ended up getting rolled into lowercase sigma bot 3). – radar³³ 18:17, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure if you set up the ClueBot III "Archive This" template on your talk page now, it would simply create new indices for your talk page, ignoring the old ones. All data will simply be regenerated. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 14:48, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Level 4 archiving

• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure

According to what I'm reading, Cluebot should be able to be set all the way to level 7.

I set it for 4, and had some odd results. please check the history of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure, for the last several bot edits.

It is also archiving "some" level 3 headers (though not others), which, from my understanding it shouldn't be doing at all.

Any thoughts/suggestions/fixes? : ) - jc37 12:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Bhaktivedanta College wiki 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.

---

hi!

we are trying to update the wiki page for bhaktivedanta college radhadesh. i am not familiar with the rules how texts should be added. can you kindly let me know why our text is reverted by you? or, if you know how it is done, maybe you can adjust our text. I see the issue with the photos displayed also. not great at all. would be nice to change them also.

thank you!

with best regards, dinadayal dasa (BC staff member) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.132.232.171 (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2015‎ (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.

Govindudu Andarivadele

An IP user is repeatedly adding content from non reliable sources and i reverted it twice. That user added it for the third time and i explained the reason about my edits patiently. Please revert that IP's edit on the article because i cant do so adhering to WP:3RR. Thank you. Pavanjandhyala (talk) 09:32, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi Pavanjandhyala

ClueBot NG is not human and therefore cannot revert edits on request. I have checked the article and the disruption now appears to have stopped :)--5 albert square (talk) 23:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Cosculluela

The change I've made in the article is constructive. I work directly for Cosculluela. The picture I put in the article, does not contain any form of vandalism. I want to help in Wikipedia. I take full responsibility for anything. I hope that picture can be in the article. I hope you respond soon. Thank you so much. --MuekaDaBrain (talk) 07:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Hi MuekaDaBrain

Please note that ClueBot NG is a Wikipedia robot and not a human, therefore cannot respond to messages.

Looking at the edit, that would indeed appear to be a false positive. However, as you work for the subject of the article, please ensure that you are fully aware and familiar with our conflict of interest guidelines. Thanks.--5 albert square (talk) 04:41, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

ClueBot NG IRC feed not working

While ClueBot NG is up, I connected to #cluebotng-spam on irc.cluenet.org and I found no edits coming through. This basically makes tools like Huggle and STiki less effective, as well as breaks {{Defcon}}. Who has access to the Cluenet servers that can fix this? Thanks. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 16:57, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Pinging Richie and Damian. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 16:58, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Urm, I'll take a look - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

 Done - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:48, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

False positives

What is False Positives? 2602:252:D2D:4170:D4F0:1363:DA91:5811 (talk) 21:03, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

See User:ClueBot_NG/FAQ#False_Positives. A false positive is when the bot classifies a valid edit as vandalism (Basically, the bot makes a mistake). ClueBot NG is designed to make a few false positives here and there to be effective, so don't be angered or disappointed if your edit gets mistakenly reverted. Simply revert the bot's edit and report the mistake at WP:CBNGFP. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 22:49, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

ClueBot III

Per the editnotice, I posted to Rich Smiths' talk page, pinging Damian (who I now realize isn't active) (oops, I pinged the wrong damian. Sorry DamianZaremba) and Cobi, asking why ClueBot III tends to be on-and-off so often (going for a few hours, and then crashing). Now, I haven't gotten a response and ClueBot III has been off for a day. Why is this? --I dream of horses @ 23:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC) (changed at 04:41, 22 April 2015 (UTC)) (fixed ping template at 04:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC))

Hi I dream of horses, looking at all the above three editors contributions, they haven't been online since you posted your message so I'm guessing that's why there's been no reply. My understanding is that ClueBot III doesn't necessarily archive every hour or indeed every day because I'm sure that I've seen it where it hasn't archived for more than a day. I'm sure one of the above three will correct me if I'm wrong. I have emailed Rich to let him know of this conversation though just in case Wikipedia's notification system has failed.--5 albert square (talk) 09:53, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

I dream of horses Just to let you know I got a response from Rich, this would appear to be an issue at Labs. For some reason ClueBot III is being killed and not recovering. As the job controller still sees it as an active process it doesn't try and recover it either. Rich is thinking of asking the Labs server to restart ClueBot III after a couple of hours.--5 albert square (talk) 12:42, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

@5 albert square: Thanks for telling me! And thanks to Rich Smith for trying to fixing the problem! --I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message. (talk to me) (contributions) @ 00:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Unreportable False Postive

First, yes I know the usual way to report these, but the bot didn't leave a revert ID or a message on the users talk page oddly enough. Diff is here. No vandalism to be found, but may be because of false warnings on that users talk page or a previous revert... EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 00:19, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Cypress Hill

User:ClueBot III archived a comment I added on 13 January eight days later, even though it was the only thread on the Talk page. I'm not happy about that. That Talk page only had a couple of edits per year. It doesn't need a bot, and even if one is used for it, it certainly should not archive threads after eight days. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 12:31, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The Talk:Cypress Hill page has a {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}}, so it was intentionally set up for archiving by bot. This was done with this edit by Sugar Bear (talk · contribs) at 22:31, 20 June 2009. Inside that template, there is the parameter |age=168, which indicates that a thread should be archived once there have been no further posts within 168 hours of the last posting to that thread. 168 hours is exactly 7 days. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

And...? As I wrote, I'm not happy the bot did what it did. There's almost no traffic on that Talk page, so I don't see why a bot would have to move away messages after just one week. Why not move threads when sections didn't get any new posts for one month? almost nothing is happening on that Talk page; just leave people's posts alone and give other editors time to find posts and respond to them. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 14:25, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm not stopping you from altering that |age=168 to e.g. |age=744 (31 days), or even removing the {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} in its entirety. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:29, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've changed it to 31 days. --82.136.210.153 (talk) 15:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Ciara

Hi, my edit on Ciara Discogrpahy page was by no means an attempt to vandalize. I am sorry if it looked that way but I am only new. Did you look at my source? http://hitsdailydouble.com/new_album_releases This source is the most recent announcement of the sales for the album 'Ciara' which is why I updated the sales to 208,000. I would appreciate if you would review my source and change the sales from 133,000 to 208,000. Thank you and I look forward to your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brancott (talk • contribs) 22:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

CBNG is a bot. They will not answer you. Maybe ask someone else? --TL22 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2015 (UTC)