User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2015/September
 | This is an archive of past discussions about 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 NG, I need a lot of help to revert repeating vandalism on Wikipedia!
{{atop}} Dear ClueBot NG, On the article Minions (film), someone has put vandalism into it. I reverted the vandalism, but eventually, after that, the user put back the same vandalism into the article. Could you please help me revert the vandalism? Thanks.
- "This user is NOT a human"
Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi 14:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- "This user is NOT a human"
- "...and cannot operate outside of [its] programming." ClueBot NG is deliberately programmed not to revert the same user/page combination more than once per day. While ClueBot's first revert is usually helpful, if suspect edits are repeated it is important for humans to get involved and make sure that what is going on really is vandalism. Thank you for your interest in helping to keep Wikipedia free from vandalism! If you haven't already done so, you will find it useful to read WP:Vandalism. – Wdchk (talk) 16:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
why.
{{atop}} why did you misspell riley anderson? Daderpda (talk) 16:32, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- The correct spelling of the last name of the Inside Out character is Andersen. See this link to information from Pixar. ClueBot (which is a robot and cannot misspell anything) was rejecting your change of this content to an incorrect spelling. General Ization Talk 16:41, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Pixels (2015)
{{atop}} I didn't vandalize anything on this page. I just added something that happened in the movie on the plot section that was vey important to the movie and I'm very confused how you thought i vandalized the page. Please explain. AwesomesauceCats (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Please reply AwesomesauceCats (talk) 15:54, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hello AwesomesauceCats. This is the talk page for User:ClueBot Commons. You were reverted by User:ClueBot NG. Also, both of those users are WP:Bots, they can't reply to you. I think your edit was reverted as a false positive...you *could* replace it if you want, though it seems to me like that's a very trivial plot detail and perhaps shouldn't be included in Wikipedia's plot summary. Howicus (Did I mess up?) 15:57, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much, this is strict because that was a pretty important plot detail AwesomesauceCats (talk) 16:02, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Thanxs Racerx11
|
Thanxs Racerx11 |
| Thank you for reporting vandelism racerx11 and also to anybody out there who reads this Falcope (talk) 19:40, 1 September 2015 (UTC) |
- Courtesy pinging Racerx11, as this seems to be addressed to him/her. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 19:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
Vandelism thanks
|
|
Vandelism thanks |
| Thanxs to anybody who reported vandelism and also deadend pages im sorry i made a deadend page. Falcope (talk) 19:43, 1 September 2015 (UTC) |
WP:FFU archiving
{{atop}} Hi! So all of a sudden today, after months of ClueBot III not archiving WP:FFU, it has suddenly started archiving again... which is great! I'm optimistic that we might get to stop manually archiving. I do have two questions, though:
- ClueBot III is archiving the page to Wikipedia:Files for upload/Archives/August 2015 instead of just Wikipedia:Files for upload/August 2015, which is how the archives have been set up. This is despite the
|archiveprefix={{FULLPAGENAME}}/ |format=F_Yparameters which I'd hoped would avoid the /Archives/ level of subpages. If this cannot be fixed, its not the end of the world, I suppose we can move the archives to fit the new page name system, but I'd rather not if there's a setting I'm missing. - More importantly, is that ClueBot III is archiving file upload requests which started and ended in September 2015 into the August 2015 archive. I'm not sure why this is happening... This is problematic since the notifications which go out when requests are accepted or denied direct the requesters to the current month's archive.
I'm also pinging TLSuda who has more historical experience with this page than I do. Thanks, Nick—Contact/Contribs 05:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- As far as the first question is concerned: ClueBot III cannot interpret advanced wikicode such as templates inside its template. It sees that archiveprefix as invalid, and so uses the default, which is to take the current page and add /Archives/ to the end of it.
- As far as the second question is concerned: ClueBot III takes the current date, subtracts the age threshold for the page, and uses that to calculate the archive to which the threads should go. Given that traditionally ClueBot III runs every couple of hours, this means that after the initial archive of a page, ClueBot III gets all of the threads in the right places. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 15:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Cobi: Thanks for the prompt reply! I've changed the template to
|archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Files_for_upload/ |format=F_Y... Do you think that should resolve the issue raised in my first question? --Nick—Contact/Contribs 03:58, 5 September 2015 (UTC) - It would appear that the answer to my above question is yes, since the archiving is now happening to the correct page. As for the month issue, is there a way to have the bot ignore the age of the post all together and archive posts only once they've been tagged with the ArchiveNow template? Once a FFU request is accepted or declined, it is tagged with the ArchiveNow template, so if we could just go off that and ignore age of the post, that might resolve the previous month issue. --Nick—Contact/Contribs 16:36, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Cobi: Thanks for the prompt reply! I've changed the template to
Waterpolo
{{atop}} Why did you Change my definition Hershey1234562 (talk) 05:29, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Hershey1234562: please read the red box at the top of this page. ClueBot NG is an automated computer designed to identify vandalism. It occasionally makes false positives, but in this case, your edit was not an improvement to the article. Phrases like "The most dedicated sport" are solely your opinion; Wikipedia needs to contain only objective facts. — Bilorv(talk)(c)(e) 07:04, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
More disruptive editing
{{atop}} Hi there, I just reverted some disruptive edits on page Paddington Bear and see from the IP user's talk page that you warned them about similar edits to the same page earlier today. Best wishes, JezGrove (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- My apologies, there seems to be a discrepancy between WP's timing of posts and the actual timing here in the UK. As a result, I hadn't realized how short a time had elapsed between your warning posted on the IP talk page and their subsequent edits. Sorry for unnecessarily alerting you to them. Best wishes, JezGrove (talk) 19:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @JezGrove: please see the red box at the top of this page. ClueBot NG is not a human editor , it is an automated computer program designed to revert vandalism. If the user has edited past a final warning, please report it to WP:AIV. Thanks.--5 albert square (talk) 19:16, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Eduqua
{{atop}} Hi I do not know how to change the web, but I know the information: http://www.eduqua.ch/002alc_0204_en.htm EduQua is issued by ISO 9000 company, to most of them are training companies, if you search you can not find University of Geneva and Lunzern University on web said they are EduQua certification!
The Swiss law only accept AAQ use the word Accrediation! And only AAQ swiss agency for accreditation and quality assurance could accredited higher education and schools! please check: www.aaq.ch https://www.admin.ch/opc/en/classified-compilation/20070429/201501010000/414.20.pdf This the law! Swiss Gov., can not accept ISO 9000 company Accrediation and issued eduqua
Please check it, many thanks, I do not like people know the wrong information, eduqua just a ISO 9000 Compnay label they do something on education, that is all!
Lehman010 (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- Please read the red box at the top of this page. ClueBot NG is a robot and not a human. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 04:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Does ClueBot NG revert page-move vandalism?
{{atop}} I have seen some history of the original ClueBot reverting page-move vandalism, but I wonder if ClueBot NG does revert page-move vandalism. Qwertyxp2000 (talk | contribs) 23:38, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Eh...
{{atop}} This was foolish. Drmies (talk) 02:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- From a bot's point of view? Large removal of content probably did it. We can't really label things like this as "foolish", considering 1. The bot has reverted tons of vandalism, and to disregard all of it for one false positive is, in itself, foolish, and 2. The bot has no concept of what "foolishness" is. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 03:03, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
- It was surreal because other editors were defending the bot's reinsertion of vandalism, without ever reading the content! As for the bot, it seems to have violated its own 1RR rule, but perhaps its interpretation (i.e. programming) for that rule differs from my interpretation of 1RR. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 09:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- This is how ClueBot NG decides if it should revert an edit or not. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 10:56, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Etamni: There was no 1RR violation for the bot. The bot's 1RR rule is this: Do not revert if 1) User has been reverted on the same page by the bot within 24 hours, or 2) The bot would revert to an edit that it made itself. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 11:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Thank you for the information; it was enlightening. As I've indicated previously, I very much appreciate the work ClueBot does -- even if these kinds of issues occur from time to time. Hopefully, it will be a learning experience for all, especially those (other than the bot) who reverted those who were fixing vandalism without reviewing the content of the changes! Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 16:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Etamni: There was no 1RR violation for the bot. The bot's 1RR rule is this: Do not revert if 1) User has been reverted on the same page by the bot within 24 hours, or 2) The bot would revert to an edit that it made itself. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 11:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- It was surreal because other editors were defending the bot's reinsertion of vandalism, without ever reading the content! As for the bot, it seems to have violated its own 1RR rule, but perhaps its interpretation (i.e. programming) for that rule differs from my interpretation of 1RR. Etamni | ✉ | ✓ 09:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Dataset review interface link on ClueBot NG talk page broken
{{atop}} Just a heads-up, the link to the dataset review interface at User:ClueBot_NG#Dataset_Review_Interface currently 404's.-- Elmidae (talk) 19:21, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @Elmidae:
- Yes @Rich Smith: already knows, he says Google killed it :(. Last I heard Rich was trying to find out from @Cobi: how to restart it. Rich did score out the link on the talk page but because he's not an admin he can't edit ClueBot NG's user page and I forgot the link was also on there! I'll put a note on the user page as well :)--5 albert square (talk) 11:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
Disruption/Vandalism on List of WWE Divas Champions
{{atop}} Hi, any possible way of protecting the page so only registered users can edit it?
regards
80.192.130.85 (talk) 04:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi, please see the red box at the top of this page. ClueBot NG is unable to protect pages because it is not human and also not an administrator. In future, requests such as this should be filed at WP:RFPP and an administrator will review the request. However, on this occasion, as I'm an administrator I looked at the page to see if I could help. The page is already protected.--5 albert square (talk) 11:56, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Blank lines before first warning
It's something minor, but it bugs me. When ClueBot NG creates a new talk page to warn a user (example) it adds two blank lines at the top of the page, which are visible in the rendered output. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
Persistent sockpuppet recognition
{{atop}} I'm not sure whether this is possible, but could (or does) ClueBot help with persistent sockpuppet vandals? I'm thinking, in particular, of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Migosyrn, whose posting style could possibly be recognised through ClueBot, and therefore it could perhaps help to spot and revert this person's changes and report the user to AIAV while someone reports him as a sock... (I've come across him twice in as many days) Would you need specific suggestions for the posting style (e.g. the use of 'm.i.g.o.s.y.r.n')? Stephenb (Talk) 13:49, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- ClueBot NG doesn't function with a set of rules, but rather with machine learning systems. Seems like maybe the Abuse Filter would be a better candidate for blocking this kind of abuse. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 16:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, thanks. I'm not an admin, and although I understand (indeed use often) regular expressions, I think this sounds a little dangerous for me to use as an only occasional editor. Maybe we need a new tool? Cheers, Stephenb (Talk) 18:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- There is a Edit Filter Requests board where it can be discussed and refined. 208.66.31.146 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ah, OK, thanks. I'm not an admin, and although I understand (indeed use often) regular expressions, I think this sounds a little dangerous for me to use as an only occasional editor. Maybe we need a new tool? Cheers, Stephenb (Talk) 18:03, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Jeff Harry's wiki page
{{atop}} How can you call adding something completely relevant and vital to a Wikipedia page "vandalism". To start with, it is ridiculous that there is no mention of one of the most iconic moves in WWE history (the Swanton bomb) on Jeff Harry's wiki page, and even more ridiculous that you reverted the edit! Nathaniel Swoosh (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @Nathaniel Swoosh:
- Please read the red box at the top of this talk page. ClueBot is not human therefore it cannot read your edit and cannot research anything online. It works on probability, I would imagine you mentioning the word "bomb" has probably led it to believe that your edit is possible vandalism.--5 albert square (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Jeff Harry's wiki page
{{atop}} How can you call adding something completely relevant and vital to a Wikipedia page "vandalism". To start with, it is ridiculous that there is no mention of one of the most iconic moves in WWE history (the Swanton bomb) on Jeff Harry's wiki page, and even more ridiculous that you reverted the edit! Nathaniel Swoosh (talk) 20:36, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @Nathaniel Swoosh:
- Please read the red box at the top of this talk page. ClueBot is not human therefore it cannot read your edit and cannot research anything online. It works on probability, I would imagine you mentioning the word "bomb" has probably led it to believe that your edit is possible vandalism.--5 albert square (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Reverting my editing in Orange and Lemons , The Camerawalls , Mcoy Fundales
{{atop}} Reverting my editing in Orange and Lemons , The Camerawalls , Mcoy Fundales
Reverting my editing in Orange and Lemons , The Camerawalls , Mcoy Fundales please help me to back my article ! McoyFundales1977 (talk) 00:13, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- Hi @McoyFundales1977:
- Please see the red box at the top of this page. ClueBot NG is a Wikipedia robot and not a human. It has also not had any interaction with you. If you want to know why your edit was reverted, you would probably be best to contact the editor that reverted it.--5 albert square (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Cluebot III didn't archive a discussion as expected
{{atop}} At User talk:Stevietheman, I archive discussions over 14 days old, no matter what, but the "2014–15 Louisville Cardinals men's basketball team" discussion is 17 days old, and it hasn't been archived yet. I just wanted to let you know, in case there is an issue with the bot or its programming. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 13:46, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Stevietheman: There has been several issues with CBIII recently, which the developers say they are working on. I initially switched to CBIII earlier this year but had to go back to lowercase sigmabot III because CBIII was archiving my talk page sporadically, and I found myself having to manually archive it again. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 18:36, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
- @K6ka: Thanks for letting me know about this. The issue I reported cleared up shortly after the report, but I'll monitor this for further issues. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 19:15, 23 September 2015 (UTC)