User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2017/October

Both bots currently down

@Cobi, Crispy1989, and Rich Smith:

FYI— Both ClueBot NG and ClueBot III are currently down. 99.47.78.17 (talk) 04:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I bumped WP:Defcon up to Level 1 in response to this. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 03:54, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Turing test

@Cobi, Crispy1989, and Rich Smith: Do you guys think Clue can pass the exam? I think with few upgrades in definitions, and some similar minor tasks, Clue would be a good candidate for that test.

After a very long time, I got my vintage laptops and desktops working again (win XP, win 7, win 10, and then there is the bigshot family: a completely customised linux from the base from slackware linux, and a freebsd.)

you guys should think about running the test. If you offer, it will be my honour to contribute in that project. Let me know fellas. —usernamekiran(talk) 21:58, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

• @K6ka: do you think they would let bot tun the test? —usernamekiran(talk) 22:04, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

An idea.

I have an idea. How about a "Cluebot NP" (Cluebot New Pages). Some people might think that that's a bad idea because the bot might bite the newbies, but, instead of CSD-ing pages using it, make it put a hidden note in the source of the page that marks it for "Urgent review" in the new pages feed. This "Hidden Note" could also be used by new-page-patrollers who aren't sure if they should delete it or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terrariola (talk • contribs) 07:11, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikimedia already seem to have brought in an automated process, using ORES to identify new pages that may have certain types of problem: Noyster (talk), 10:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm impressed

Reverting this is a good catch. postdlf (talk) 15:31, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Archiving section too early

Dear ClueBot III,

You just archived a section of Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request way too early, just a few hours after IJReid has edited it. I had to look at the page history to see what he replied. I think this is a mistake, because the User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis template invocation on the page says "age=2160", which means sections shouldn't be archived until after 90 days of inactivity.

I tried to follow your bug reporting instructions, but it doesn't seem possible. They talk about a revert ID in the edit comment, which this edit doesn't have.

– b_jonas 08:57, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @B jonas: The archiving instructions at the top of Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request also say that a thread containing a {{resolved}} template should be archived immediately. IJReid's edit marked the thread as "resolved". -- John of Reading (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

I see, thank you. Is there some way to instruct the bot to archive sections with that template earlier than other sections, but not immediately? – b_jonas 09:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

@B jonas: I don't think there is. All the options are listed at User:ClueBot III#General template format. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:12, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

You archived an open RFC whose last comment was dated seven days before earlier (comment on October 1, archive on October 8). [1] That seems a bit quick! I reverted the change, but if there's an ongoing discussion less than two weeks old on a Talk page that is very short, archiving seems pretty drastic in my opinion. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 22:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@Lawrence King: (talk page stalker) The bot obeys its instructions. At the top of Talk:It (novel), the line age=168 told the bot to archive inactive threads after 168 hours, one week. I've increased this to 2160, ninety days. Feel free to choose a different value. -- John of Reading (talk) 06:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining this! And thanks for making the change. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 19:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Check the edits

read the edits then decide if I deleted content. I re-organised the article and added other sections which were only outlined into just two lines in section Roman Syria! Aemilius 04 (talk) 20:51, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@Aemilius 04: Read the messages at the top of this page then decide if you need to post here. ClueBot NG is a robot and is not a human. If the bot makes a mistake please report it at this page. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:38, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Cluebot NG creating duplicate subheadings for month

See: User talk:104.245.109.129, User talk:198.232.160.7, User talk:DerekJeter123, and others.

Cluebot NG doesn't seem to be checking if a section for the current month exists on a talkpage anymore, and instead just adds an extra section for the month. AdA&D 16:46, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) I've been told in the past that this behaviour is intentional. Dynamic IPs might be assigned to different users over a short time span, so ClueBot automatically creates a new section header if previous warnings are old enough (I don't know how old, it's arbitrary), even if a subheader already exists for the current month. I have no idea why it's programmed to do this with registered accounts, though. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 21:09, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

@Anne drew Andrew and Drew and Ivanvector: Actually, the bot doesn't have a mechanism for checking if there's a section for the current month on the page. The level two heading is added by the level one warning the bot gives, which you can see here. The bot just substitutes that page when told to leave a level one warning. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:17, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Poor quality but good faith edits

I came across Clubot's revert 3165327 at the Scuba diving article (diff). While the edit being reverted was of poor quality, I believe it was made in good faith, and am unsure why it scored high enough to draw the bot's attention.

The text being added was "not to be confused as goggles," and while the new text was poorly placed and had doubtful word choice, "goggles" is a widely enough used synonym for a "dive mask" that there is little question that the addition was in good faith. I'm concerned that the bot may be driving away potential new contributors in this topic area, one where I've been actively recruiting knowledgeable people to come and edit. How have the decisions been made over what edits the bot will revert? What is the best way to have an open discussion about the way this automation is being conducted and its effect on new contributors? The Uninvited Co., Inc. 19:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Dynamic IP Numbers

Please stop messaging and penalizing dymanic IPs. They change, sometimes infrequently. Mine just changed (it may not change again for months) and I was presented with a message from your bot to the effect that an edit of mine was being reverted and me penalized in some way despite the fact that I have never even visited the page in question. 72.160.224.122 (talk) 21:51, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi IP,

When vandalism happens, ClueBot does not differentiate whether or not you have a dynamic IP - it won't because it doesn't matter. If there is vandalism that is caught by the bot, you will always get a warning. In this case, it looks like you have received a warning meant for another user. The warning is now stale so there will not be any action taken.--5 albert square (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Berhampur

I just tried twice to edit the page, but u reverted it.. How to edit the page so that it can not revert... Whether it requires references to edit or what.? Dill.choudhury (talk) 13:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Dill.choudhury: Your edits were reverted because they did not cite a reliable source. If you're new to citing sources, please read this page, which explains what you need to do. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Was not vandalism.

The edits are to update old statistics for 2012 to 2017. Used National report. Pure Indian (talk) 03:25, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

@Pure Indian: Please read the messages in the boxes at the very top of this page. Problems or mistakes made by the bot should be reported here, not on this talk page. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 11:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Hi Pure Indian,

I believe that the edit that the bot warned you for was not vandalism, it looks to be a well intentioned edit. Please note that ClueBot NG is not human so it is unable to read the article, there must have been something in the context of the edit that you made that set off the bot. Anyway, because I am satisfied about your edit I am going to remove ClueBot NG's warning from your talk page and I have reported the edit to the bot operators for you. If you come across this again, please follow the link K6ka has provided to report this.

I have noticed though that a couple of your edits appeared to be test edits. In future please do not use live articles for these. If you wish to carry out tests, please use the sandbox. Thanks.--5 albert square (talk) 11:28, 27 October 2017 (UTC)