User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2014/September

False positive report page broken?

From Firefox 31.0 on Win8.1, I get an empty page at http://tools.wmflabs.org/cluebot/ and am never prompted for the revert ID—View Source shows neither any script nor HTML at that URL, and neither waiting nor reloading make any difference. I believe that I found a false positive (ID 1928544) at Thomas P. Griesa, which I am reverting manually. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 03:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I just tested it using Google Chrome and I am getting a 404 error message, so obviously down for some reason. @Rich Smith: @Cobi: just to make you guys aware 5 albert square (talk) 17:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Same (ID 1933449) ClueBot reverted an IP's edit, which had removed a dubious entry at Penrith High School#Notable alumni. I reverted ClueBot, but the false positive reporting link is still broken. (Firefox 32.0 on Win XP)--Auric talk 23:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I tested it again this morning and still down. I have emailed @DamianZaremba:, @Cobi: and @Rich Smith: 5 albert square (talk) 08:36, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Should be back - web service had stopped. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Working for me using Google Chrome so looks like it is fixed. Thanks @DamianZaremba: 5 albert square (talk) 17:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I have now added a proper report for the FP described in my initial report above (ID 1928544). --KGF0 ( T | C ) 21:47, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Mashwani

Hello, I read your message, i am not a vandal, I am fixing that page about Mishwanis as there is not one bit of real historical evidence that they are syeds, or descendants of the prophet Muhammad. They are generally considered to be allied to the Pashtuns, and as an historian and professor of history in this region I am in a position to comment on this. Im aremoving the irrelevant text again and also laving a note on the talk page. Thanks. 39.54.14.53 (talk)Prof Hilda Khan, Pakistan — Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi. You removed large chunks of text with no edit summary. I suspect that set off one of the bot's filters 5 albert square (talk) 20:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh ok! Im v sorry. Will be careful in future, thanks. 39.54.14.53 (talk) 20:34, 3 September 2014 (UTC)Hilda Khan

Dont you have knowledge?

Why did you undo my edits to Culture of Kathmandu .Malla (Nepal) ruled nepal for more than 600 yrs from late 11th to early 19th.What is your problem?I now request you to edit it.Shresthas (talk) 04:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi in response to your question no ClueBot NG does not have any knowledge as it is a robot not a human being. I have checked your edits and I can see why the bot intervened. You changed the information which you said was incorrect which is fine as long as you have a reliable source which you can quote to back up your claims. However you then proceeded to blank the majority of the articles and cut them off mid sentence. It's this that will have set off ClueBot's filters as ClueBot NG is an anti-vandal bot. You've said that you were correcting someone's reign however you haven't said why you then removed most of the article so even I don't understand your edit 5 albert square (talk) 05:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Dear ClueBot

Dear CLUEBOT STOP EDITING MY TEXT AND MY POST UPS YOUR causing more problems with ME rather than you stop editing or following my works around you ugly weird machine...and whats with you and vandalism only????? your causing more problems stop following me around. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yoon Aris (talk • contribs) 11:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot NG is a bot, so ranting at it won't help. It's not following you around, but it might seem like it if you continue to make edits that appear to be unconstructive. I will leave some useful information about Wikipedia on your talk page. – Wdchk (talk) 12:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

possible vandalism

hi

as you mentioned in the article Nabih Berri i also suspect that the user callsfortruth that you mentioned is vandalising the article and violating Wikipedia's BLP rules

if you can please assist me in this matter

thank you talal.talal1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 11:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible False Positive From Somebody Else

I should touch base with the guy, but #1940434 seemed to be a false positive. I reverted it and mentioned that it did not seem to be vandalism. Busy Moose (talk) 17:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

It looks like you bumped into a false positive. Did you know reporting these helps ClueBot to not make the same mistake again? So, why not report a false positive at the Report Interface – it's really easy to do! Thank you. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Possible Mistaken Archival by ClueBot III

A still active thread on User talk:Jimbo Wales was apparently archived by User:ClueBot III. The diff is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AJimbo_Wales&diff=624483670&oldid=624483200

Why was the thread archived? Thank you in advance for checking. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi

I have looked at ClueBot's instructions for the page and found this:

|age=24

When I looked at the diff above there both discussions hadn't been commented on since 5th September. From what I can understand ClueBot 3 has therefore acted per instruction of the page and archived the discussions as it's been longer than 24 hours. @Cobi: @DamianZaremba: @Rich Smith: please correct me if I am wrong! 5 albert square (talk) 09:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

@5 albert square: you are indeed correct, it is due to age=24 - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 16:11, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

A Type of Vandalism to Look For

This edit ([1]) is a type of vandalism I've seen several times on Wiktionary: either removing spaces or adding spaces/returns to make the text hard to read. I'm sure it's fairly common here, too.

I'm not sure how you would reliably distinguish it from someone legitimately adjusting the formatting, but it's definitely annoying enough to be worth the attempt. Thanks! Chuck Entz (talk) 02:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Cleanup needed for misconfiguration at Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard?

Hi, the archival template at Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard was misconfigured until now. ClueBot III archived things in the meantime and appears to have created inbound links to the wrong archive page. Do any of the links at User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard, User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard/Archive187 or User:ClueBot III/Indices/Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard need to be cleaned up? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Those do not specifically need to be cleaned up. Those pages are created by ClueBot III (CB3) to provide indexes for the archive(s). CB3 will completely overwrite these pages the next time it runs on Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard. Given your current configuration, CB3 will not run on the page for quite some time. You may end up desiring to set up using files for displaying an index of your archives. This is usually done from an Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard/Archive index page. For CB3, if you make that page contain {{User:ClueBot III/Master Detailed Indices/{{NAMESPACE}}:{{BASEPAGENAME}}}} then the appropriate index should be transcluded. If it was me, I would change all the instances of "Archive187" in User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard/Archive187 to "Archive 1" (see next paragraph).

While the configuration you have will function, it will probably be a good idea to make a change. Currently, you have "|format=%%i" you probably should change that to "|format= %%i" (note the space after the "="). Along with that, it would be a good idea to move Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard/Archive1 to Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard/Archive 1 (note space prior to the "1". The reason that these changes are a good idea to do at this point is that there are a bunch of templates that assume that the space exists in numbered archive page names. Making these changes now will prevent running up against an issue further down the road when you might want to use one of the other templates associated with archives.

You appear to be intending to use a "archive toc" page for a table of content/index. The "normal" name used for such a page is "Archive index". You will probably want to use "Archive index" for the same reason as having the space in the archive name (already existing templates assume that name.

You will probably want to also have something that links/lists the archive pages in your header. I would normally use: {{Archives |auto=yes |search=yes |title=[[Help:Archiving a talk page|Archives]] ([[Wikipedia:Extant Organizations/Noticeboard/Archive index|index]]) |bot=ClueBot III |age=30 |style=margin-top:2px; }}. However, this may, or may not be consistent witht he header you are desiring to use. — Makyen (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much! —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

fratricide edits

dear sir,

I have found that the edits marked by you as to be vandalism to be totally incorrect.

you don't have to agree with me.

Wherever you are just: Walk into any hindu temple and mention what mr.docmohneesh said!

Hope you rise above partisan beliefs!

I feel sad and bitter that an eminent scholar and venerable philanthropist like docmohneesh was treated this way! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.214.200 (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I hope you realize that this is the talk page of a robot. Please do not use language like such. The bot is not biased against your edit -- it was just trying to do its job. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 20:07, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Reverting to a vandalized version - Joan Miró

RE: revert ID 1952467, it appears that ClueBot detected vandalism to Joan Miró after two consecutive vandal edits, but only reverted back one version to the first vandalized version in the sequence. I've restored the article to its unmolested state, but I thought I should bring this issue to your attention. —Waldhorn (talk) 05:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been a few days and I'm not seeing a reply to my message above. Is there a way to confirm that this issue is being tracked as a bug? Is this the correct place to post a bug ClueBot report? —Waldhorn (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Waldhorn: That's not a bug, ClueBot NG can't revert edits by multiple users. It can only perform rollback, which reverts all consecutive edits made by one user. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 20:04, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Is this behavior documented somewhere or do you understand this from observation? Also, where can a feature request be placed or discussed? Thanks. —Waldhorn (talk) 06:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Waldhorn: Simple. ClueBot NG simply doesn't catch every edit that is vandalism, which is why human vandal fighters still exist to this day. Therefore, it probably missed the first vandalism edit. When the second edit came along, the bot correctly classified the edit as vandalism and performed rollback. There was nothing the bot was technically able to do about the missed edit. The bot does dump edits that it thinks are vandalism or are very close to that mark in an IRC channel - these edits can be retrieved with the use of a tool like STiki or Vada. If a human had caught that first edit first then I'm sure none of this would have happened ;) But things like these are very normal, and the bot has been designed to minimize false positives as much as possible, so a few missed edits here and there are to be expected. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:14, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. However, purpose of my questions is to discuss documented behavior of ClueBot and interact with the developers. I'll track this down elsewhere. —Waldhorn (talk) 17:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

question

how should i help protecting people from vandalism?

this question is for anyone if cluebot can answer that wold be great I'm new to wiki so if cluebot isn't a person don't make fun of me Grayson Bills (talk) 13:12, 15 September 2014 (UTC)Grayson Bills

@Grayson Bills: By the very name of this bot, it's pretty evident that none of the Cluebots are humans, and they are not designed to automatically respond to any comments left on this page. However, I am a human, and I can answer your question.

I am not sure what you mean by "Help protecting people from vandalism". What do you mean by that? --k6ka (talk | contribs) 19:49, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Julia_Volkova&diff=prev&oldid=625728011 It is not vandalism. Sorry, my English is not very good. Maybe it is possible add this fact about Volkova correctly? --Reprarina (talk) 22:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I checked the edit and I think what has set ClueBot NG off is the word "gay". I looked at the reference but because it's another language I can't understand it I can't verify it. I suggest finding a reliable source in English and then posting a request on the talk page for an auto confirmed user to add the edit 5 albert square (talk) 22:47, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

English source - http://instinctmagazine.com/post/tatu-singer-julia-volkova-condemns-gay-men-i-would-condemn-gay-son --Reprarina (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper to the nose of this bot!

Bad bot....bad...bad bot! Good faith edits are not vandalism. No treat for you!--Mark Miller (talk) 01:51, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mark Miller: Judging by how this bot catches almost 70% of the vandalism on Wikipedia, calling it a "bad bot" is like calling the Earth a "bad planet" for providing you a home in the cosmos. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 19:43, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Araguaia Guerrilla

The article on Araguaia guerrilla has been vandalized twice, with the suppression of an intended expansion backed by proper references. Please, take care of this in order that I may work further on the article. Cerme (talk) 15:50, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

@Cerme: I hope you are aware that ClueBot NG is a robot. Please use WP:RFPP if you want to request page protection to be applied to an article receiving heavy loads of vandalism. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Does Cluebot III update links to discussion sections when archiving talk pages?

The question above - does Cluebot III do this? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

@Oiyarbepsy: Yes, it does. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 03:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Awesome. Why don't all archiving bots do that? Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:39, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For protecting Wikipedia project space from broken links. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 21:44, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Some bubble tea for you!

i have an question i have an friends here pls help to have a chatmate in this website...... plssss..................... maawa na man kayo.... pllls po... Lavhenia (talk) 09:53, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Failure when reporting False positive

Hi. I tried to submit a report for false positive (ID 1966437 link [2]) but this failed with "BAD CAPTCHA! TRY AGAIN! ". I'm not seeing a CAPTCHA, but this error is on the page: Notice: Undefined index: recaptcha_challenge_field in /data/project/cluebot/public_html/pages/View.page.php on line 22 Notice: Undefined index: recaptcha_response_field in /data/project/cluebot/public_html/pages/View.page.php on line 22 . Tassedethe (talk) 04:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi I have just tried this, the CAPTCHA displayed without a problem on my phone using Google Chrome. If this keeps happening for you, I would suggest that you refresh the page, clear your Internet browser cache or try using a different Internet browser 5 albert square (talk) 05:07, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm running Firefox 32.0.2 on Windows 7 which is fairly up to date. It's unlikely I will be here again as I've never seen a Cluebot false positive in 5+ years. A testament to excellent programming!

I just clicked through again and I noticed this message: "Due to bot spam on the report interface, reporters without accounts (or those that do not log in) will be required to enter a CAPTCHA." I am logged in so the error is a bit puzzling. Tassedethe (talk) 07:30, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe it refers to being logged in on the Cluebot network: I've always had to do a captcha too. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:57, 25 September 2014 (UTC)