User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2010/July

Talk: Midnight Cowboy

Why must ClueBotIII archive the posts at the talk page of Midnight Cowboy every week? With posts whisked away after just 7 days, it makes the MC Talk page totally valueless. Six months between scrubbings would be often enough; the page is never exactly clogged with traffic. Thank you. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 14:03, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Does this page ever answer? — HarringtonSmith (talk) 00:47, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Change the configuration options on that page. Ale_Jrb^talk 10:16, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to do that! I'm a film writer, for heaven's sake! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 17:41, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, go to the talk page and go to edit it. On your page you need to look for the line that says "|age=168". 168 is the number of days between each archiving so change 168 to however long you want to leave between each archive and then save the page. Any questions feel free to ask :) --5 albert square (talk) 20:39, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, 5 albert square! Hope it does the trick! — HarringtonSmith (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Minor Spelling Error

The commented message that ClueBot VI leaves at WP:CHUU currently reads

“ If removing the CUU/Clerk note template, keep this comment so ClueBot VI won't readd the template. ”

when I believe it should read

“ If removing the CUU/Clerk note template, keep this comment so ClueBot VI won't read the template. ”

on second thoughts it's probably best it read

“ If removing the CUU/Clerk note template, keep this comment so ClueBot VI won't restore the template. ”

Thanks. Set Sail For The Seven Seas 241° 2' 0" NET 16:04, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I presume it means add it back, and would suggest that as the wording. Si Trew (talk) 18:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You have a point. Either way, it shouldn't say, "readd". Set Sail For The Seven Seas 197° 41' 15" NET 13:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

"Re-add" possibly? Note: I have nothing to do with the ClueBots, I just happen to be watching this page (see #Warned over warning). –dffgd 13:27, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

I can't read any of that shit. Don't you know how to use normal colors? Special:Contributions/98.208.29.70 (talk) 00:10,6 July 2010 (UTC)

Hawaii Five-O

You reverted an edit citing "possible vandalism". It wasn't vandalism. The bot actually picked up a singular word defining a legitimate actor's character. It wasn't vandalism. The word came from IMDb. 209.77.246.183 (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't this be under False Positives? Note: I have nothing to do with the ClueBots, I just happen to be watching this page (see #Warned over warning). –dffgd 01:02, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

What good is this false positives page for, if it does nothing but archive messages without at least a comment if the so called vandalism either was ok or was not. That site is just a waste of time. --82.83.102.249 (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I must admit I have some sympathy with this. I suggested, for example, how hyphenated terms could be less likely to trigger false positives, and got no response at all, just archived without comment. I do think it is incumbent on bot owners to respond to reasonable requests. ClueBot on the whole does good work, but the various statements that "false positives are very rare" and so on makes it even more important that the few that are raised are dealt with appropriately rather than ignored, as seems to be the case from my brief look here over the last couple of months. I note also there are ample opportunities to see the Praise and Barnstar pages but fewer to see the Criticism pages. It is very easy for bot owners to give an impression that they don't care about the edits their bots trample, and I would hope very much that would be dispelled by them responding to reasonable queries on their bots' pages, which is not to say they have to agree with them. Si Trew (talk) 00:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Warned over warning

An IP address recently blanked part of Petroleum, I reverted it in Huggle, and Huggle automatically warned the IP with a level 4 warning (the IP had already been vandalizing Petroleum and had 3 warnings). However, ClueBot put a level 4 warning over mine, referring to the same edit I had reverted. What caused this? –dffgd 13:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone please reply?! –dffgd 00:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

That happens when ClueBot loads the rollback page, and it says "Action Complete", instead of an error. As far as ClueBot could tell, it reverted the user, because the server said that the revert completed successfully. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 01:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

So I get to put this on my userpage? :) –dffgd 12:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes. :) -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 15:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:USURP

Hasn't been clerked in a few days? –xeno^talk 13:30, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Is back now, thanks. –xeno^talk 15:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just about to respond here and say that I gave it a poke. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 15:21, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocking power.

Since ClueBot usually reports to AIV after 5 edits, it may save administrators a little bit of time if ClueBot became an admin, blocked the IP address or user and posted {{unblock-bot}} on their talk page. The chances of ClueBot reporting a false positive to AIV is slim to none. mechamind90 19:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested something similar before, but the consensus was (and I think still is) a resounding no. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 22:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Probably more reasonable than that for AntiAbuseBot (Mr.Z-bot is more ideal since it only needs to detect one edit to report to AIV/TB2). ClueBot on the other hand normally waits until a 5th incident to report (XLinkBot until a 6th). And in the rare occurrence that WP:RBI might be necessary, I assume all that would be required for a log action would be redacting the action itself. mechamind90 15:55, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

WHY DO YOU KEEP BLOCKING ME FROM EDITING PAGES THAT I CREATED?!

Title says all —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.148.84.123 (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, please don't type in CAPS as that is deemed shouting.

Secondly, ClueBot hasn't blocked you from editing pages? What ClueBot has done is revert your edits because edits like this aren't constructive. ClueBot has then automatically and correctly warned you for your edits --5 albert square (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

After a false positive on "!!!" on Nonnie (Singer)

Keep the source as making a minor change adding "!!!", but I suggest changing the criteria to 4 exclamation marks instead of 3. Most of concern probably go higher than 8 (!!!!!!!!), but this part is just a guess. mechamind90 05:15, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

false positive

I just wanted to give you a heads up about a false positive clue bot did. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:5-cell.gif&action=history ZStoler (talk) 20:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Archiving on Files for upload

Hello. Wikipedia:Files for upload is being archived by ClueBot III. On its last run, it moved two requests to the July 2009 archive instead of the July 2010 archive. I would imagine that this is caused by a bad |format= parameter, so what is the proper way to have the bot archive to (current month) (current year) subpages? Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 19:07, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

We've fixed the issue by simply formatting as "2010" instead of o or Y, but advice on how to properly call the current year would still be helpful. Thanks, Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 03:37, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

The age parameter is almost a year. Fix that and you will fix the date issues. The bot was not designed to work with periods that long, but the bot calculates the date based on now-age. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 03:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. The age parameter is intentionally huge, in order to prevent unanswered requests from being archived. I'll post the reason on the AFC project page for us to mull over. Thanks a lot for clarifying that. (P.S. Our signatures are errily similar, no? Totally coincidental, I swear!) Robert Skyhawk ^{(T C B)} 04:00, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Consider changing signature?

I've noticed several times the signature: "Reverting possible vandalism by blah to version by blah blah. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot" and every time I read it, the punctuation in the last part throws me off. It reads like, "Thanks, Cluebot, we are so grateful to you" rather than "Thanks from Cluebot," which I think was the original intention. Or not? Just curious. Emika22 (talk) 14:06, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Use of Bot triggering abuse filter

Hi guys. It seems my attempt to use this bot to automatically archive my Talk Page has been upsetting Edit filter 314. I'm no 'techie' and have recently been archiving manually, which I'm quite happy to do. How do I 'switch off' the bot so that the issue doesn't continue? RashersTierney (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, ClueBot Commons, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Hyacinth (talk) 20:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Happy Birthday & First Edit Day

	HAPPY FIRST EDIT DAY!	from the BIRTHDAYCOMMITTEE
	Wishing ClueBot Commons/Archives/2010/July a very Happy First Edit Day! Have a fantastic day! From the Wikipedia Birthday Committee

Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 16:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:RSN

Hi. Cluebot hasn't archived the WP:RSN since July 8th. The last time it archived, here, the archive box looked like this:

{{ User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |archiveprefix=Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_ |format=%%i |age=120 |index=no |archivenow={{done}},{{resolved}},{{Resolved}},{{Done}},{{discussion top}},{{tlu|User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} |maxarchsize=250000 |numberstart=58 |archivebox=no |box-advert=no }}

This doesn't seem to have changed. :/ Can anybody help me figure out what's wrong with it? It would be nice to get it working there again, as that page gets monstrous. Please? :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Abdullah Ocalan

Hi can you Please stop reverting this page. Can you Please make it a semi article after i edit it. This is the right informaion given based on the "Kurdistan Regional Government". Please Don't revert it. Leave the edit i made and put it Semi article. If anyonee has question, they can talk to Kurdistan Regional Government. Thank you (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC).

Feel free to disregard the above complaint. It is obviously from yet another of BarzanPDK18's pointless sockpuppets. I am not sure what element of the bad edit triggered ClueBot to automatically revert it but it was entirely right to do so. Hooray for ClueBot and hooray for everybody who works on it! --DanielRigal (talk) 18:43, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how ClueBot works, but it definitely does something right. I am watching the same page and I sometimes beat ClueBot to the revert. Maybe it counts references, this case replaces a well cited article with over 50 references with one with zero references. --Muhandes (talk) 19:48, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Cluebot III (talk page archiver) problem

Cluebot III template isn't working on my talk page. What have I done wrong? I think I followed the instructions. TIA. --W☯W ^t/c 03:57, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing, Cobi. I edited http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClueBot_III/Documentation#Complete_Example so others don't hit the same problem. I think I did it right. But please take a look, and then maybe protect it and the other remaining unprotected pages listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:ClueBot_III&action=edit. --W☯W ^t/c 15:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Warning by Cluebot?

I'm sort new here and I received a warning, but I dont know why and I dont know how to get rid of the warning. Intouchwithbertj (talk) 09:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe the reason why you were warned is because OMGKPop is a gossip site and might not hold up to Wikipedia's reilable sources standard. If you wish to remove the warning(s) off your talk page, feel free to due so. Good luck! :) --Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 09:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

OMGKpop is like many others such as Allkpop a news and gossip site. Either way the information in the article is about the alleged plagiarism, plagiarism that was admitted by the acused artist herself the day after. The information in that article is legit, it is based of public statements from the real artists, that's verifiable information. This is news, not gossip. Intouchwithbertj (talk) 09:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

If it's verifiable and "based of public statements", could you provide another source that is reliable? Thanks! --Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 09:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/art/2010/06/201_67985.html this is an article that speaks of the acknowledgement of the plagiarism, an English translation confession(in Korean) can be found here: http://www.hyoleesubs.com/index.php?/News/Hyori-s-message-on-her-Fan-Cafe-about-Plagiarism-Issue.html

Statements by the original artists can for example be found here: http://myspace.com/secondperson and here http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=301737624&blogId=533240328

If I linked every single bit of verifiable information this would get messy. Intouchwithbertj (talk) 10:06, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The Korea Times would be a good enough source, I think. Thanks! :-) --Mithrandir^∞ (Talk!) (Opus Operis) 23:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

RSN

ClueBot archived my note about RSN. Oops. :D Didn't foresee what the markup would do there. I just wanted to stop by and note that it seems to be working again. Don't know if you did something or if it helped that somebody else changes the archive time, but I'm glad to see it! That page had crept up to 880 kb. :O --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

False Positive Site Not Working

I received a warning I believe may be a false positive but the report site is not working. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.179.165.213 (talk) 15:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised

Although I added Talk:Justin Bieber to the AngryOptin, I'm surprised I've haven't seen one revert by ClueBot yet. Clearly this edit as well as others fall under "making a minor change with obscenities", and there were many others that deleted 7501 or more characters. On the other hand, the one for Justin Bieber did work after ClueBot gave a user Warning #1 and then later reported the same user to AIV/TB2 after editing the same article.

Also is there a problem with having both the article and talk page in the AngryOptin? mechamind90 23:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)