User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2011/July

Cluebot IRC feed down

At least the one that STiki uses. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 19:03, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi Andrew, the ClueNet IRC feed is working fine, if that's what it uses... - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 22:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

As of this instant, #cluebotng-spam is not being published. It is silent, and the bot which is normally voiced and publishing is not in the room. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 22:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Have some oil!

{{/censor}} Looks like everyone's having fun with TW's wikilove tab. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 03:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

do bots use a lot of oil? Monty₈₄₅ 03:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the message about the awards page when I gave it the oil. Wabbott9 Tell me about it.... 03:42, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

There was a barnstar here... but it was moved to the awards page :) - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 12:32, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Another award

{{/censor}} --The Σ ^talk_contribs 20:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{{/censor}} -- Moved to Awards, thank you Gilderien - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 21:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

{{/censor}} --Jcaraballo enwiki eswiki 19:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{{/censor}}

Warning

Sorry for the mistake you made, but the only edit I have made was to the discussion page of an image. The zhu zhu article or whatever wasn't edited by me. I get this message like once a month, which is usually when my ip changes. I am sorry for any confusion. --71.136.59.217 (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello IP. That warning was actually given by the old ClueBot. The warning was given about 18 months ago so in that case please accept ClueBot's apologies, it looks like you got a message that was destined for another person--5 albert square (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Bot error

Donald W. Loveland your change there is wrong. PumpkinSky (talk) 23:53, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, the changes are unreferenced. If you're making changes like that to a BLP you need to cite a reliable source.--5 albert square (talk) 00:02, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Help!

I've fogot to mark my vandalism-revision a minor edit! Can you do it for me? I don't know how...! GoodTornado (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware you can't mark edits as minor after the edit has been done. - DamianZaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:55, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Not to mention that ClueBot is not human, and therefore cannot understand anything on this page or answer questions. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 22:58, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Bells: Used by Paul Revere to warn the British that hey, you're not going to succeed in taking our guns. USA! USA!

Why am I not allowed to randomly write, "Bells: Used by Paul Revere to warn the British that hey, you're not going to succeed in taking our guns. USA! USA!" on Wikipedia pages? It's the truth! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.11.220.91 (talk) 04:31, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Because you'll get blocked for it, as has now happened. DMacks (talk) 04:35, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

Glory to the Soviet Union, by the way. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 05:11, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}}

forget it

I fixed 3 pages yet they keep getting changed back it makes no sence and I have to get them changed back — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.48.211 (talk • contribs) 02:31, 12 July 2011

By 'fixed' you must mean 'vandalised by inserting a point of view on the first edit, and then random nonsense on the second edit'. --The Σ ^talk_contribs 02:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

CAN U HELP? PLEASE

Can i make a page for the underground rapper Hustla Jones on Wikipedia. im asking you because im afrais they will delete it. theres some people that just hate. i just want to help Hustle Jones. i got his facebook Hus Jones if u need more info i already started his page on my wiki Hip-Hop Database the first link i sent you. thanks alot! reply me back Young Brault (talk) 02:33, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Um... why are you asking an automated editor, which cannot understand English? --The Σ ^talk_contribs 02:46, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello Young Brault

I suggest that you read the notability guidelines to see if this person is notable enough music-wise to be included in Wikipedia. If he meets the notability guidelines then there's no reason why you can't create a page, however if not the page will be deleted by one of us admins--5 albert square (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Cluebot III is borking the archiving of my talk page

As the title says, it seems to be making subpages and just borking overall on my talk page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, i'm sorry. I from Brazil, the Wikipedia Brazilian, sorry, and i not speak the english very good. 187.4.244.218 (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

What does that have to do with you placing English swear words in an article? --Σ ^talk_contribs 17:01, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Floydian, I'm not sure what you mean as from what I can see the page looks as if it's archiving ok. If you're meaning the archive index that ClueBot 3 displays on your page then it's displaying that because you've asked it to. If you don't wish it to do that then see here for the correct coding to use.--5 albert square (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

No its more where its placing them. It seems to be snagged on Archive 22 most of the time:

1. 20
2. 21
3. 22
4. 23
5. 22/Archives/2
6. 22/Archives/3
7. 24
8. 22/Archives/4
9. 22/Archives/5
10. 22/Archives/6
11. 25
12. 22/Archives/7
13. 22/Archives/8
14. 22/Archives/9
15. 22/Archives/10

Some weird little pattern developing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Zizzi

Well, this material was unsourced and may well have been made up. If you want to put it back in please find a source. The source quoted doesn't say what is attributed to it. Might I also suggest that it would be better if this page functioned as the false positive report page. Presumably it is, after all, in everyone's interest that the robot's mistakes can be readily identified. After seeing a constructive edit binned by this robot I am happy to give feedback here but really can't be arsed clicking though various pages and providing extra information as is requested above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.227.7 (talk) 00:48, 21 July 2011 (UTC) 109.155.227.7 (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, ClueBot isn't human and can't do anything about it. Instructions to report a false positive are at the top of the page. --Σ ^talk_contribs 00:59, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Yes, had you read my remarks a little more carefully you would have seen that I had observed them. Unfortunately they involved me jumping through a couple more hoops than I could be bothered having already been annoyed by getting an unwarranted warning from the robot. Hence my pointing it out on this page instead. It does say, after all, that 'This page is for comments or questions on the bot.' 109.155.227.7 (talk) 01:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

We tried to make reporting false positives easier than posting on this page. (Click the "Report it here" link in the warning, go to the bottom of the page, click "Report false positive" -- two clicks and you are done. No typing or explaining required.) -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 01:20, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Creating ClueBot III Code

OK, I'm going to switch to using ClueBot III from using MiszaBot III. Here's the code I need:

I need all posts with no responses in seven days archived to a numerical archive (i.e. User talk:Nathan2055/Archive 1) I need each archive headed with Template:Talk archive navigation The maximum archive size before moving to Archive 2 and so on is 70K

I was also wondering if I could set the bot to move all posts with Template:Done in one day instead of a week, and can awards be auto-moved to an awards page? Thanks! --Nathan2055^talk 01:37, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and my MiszaBot code is {{User:MiszaBot/config |archiveheader = {{talk archive navigation}} |maxarchivesize = 70K |counter = 1 |minthreadsleft = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1 |algo = old(7d) |archive = User talk:Nathan2055/Archive %(counter)d }}. --Nathan2055^talk 01:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

 Doing... --Σ ^talk_contribs 01:45, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

 Partly done You don't have an awards page for anything to be moved to, so for now awards will be moved to the normal archives. --Σ ^talk_contribs 01:57, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Why did ClueBot add a

• 1

link to my page? --Nathan2055^talk 15:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

It didn't. See here and here? But hopefully there should be no problems now. --Σ ^talk_contribs 18:26, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Not sure Hmm. It looks like it's still there. I checked some old revisions, and the thing was added when you set the code up, but I can't find any place that calls for that. Do you know what's going on? --Nathan2055^talk 18:55, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Hm, I don't know. You can try ignoring it if you want. --Σ ^talk_contribs 20:49, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Someone seems to have fixed it. It involves index apparently. --Nathan2055^talk 22:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

That would be User:Cobi, who invented all the ClueBots. --Σ ^talk_contribs 00:16, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar!

{{/censor}}

Why no follow up?

When ClueBot makes a clear false positive and leaves a false stated claim of vandalism on an editor talk page why doesn't the ClueBot go back and remove the false claim of vandalism. And why doesn't it or its creator apologize as it or its creator should?76.31.116.153 (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

ClueBot can't make edits because ClueBot isn't human. ClueBot is an anti-vandalism Wikipedia robot. Do you know how many edits ClueBot makes in a day? If you look at ClueBot's contributions you might see how many it makes per day and then understand why it's creator doesn't go through each one manually to check if it's a false positive or not.

Besides, just because something is blatantly a false positive to you doesn't mean to say that it will be blatantly obvious to everyone. If ClueBot has made a false positive then please click on the link above to report it so the bot can be trained, thanks.--5 albert square (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

I have already pointed out what the false positive was. Also, the revert that ClueBot did was and is blatantly obvious to anyone. There is no debate on that topic. The real issue is how can ClueBot be taught not to make such clearly over the top claim like vandalism, when it wasn't even close. ClueBot's automatically created comments should be toned down since it makes such blatant, over the top mistakes. That's the real issue.76.31.116.153 (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• If you would like to analyse all of ClueBot's edits, you can go here. ClueBot's false positives are well within the limit agreed upon by the community. --Σ ^talk_contribs 00:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• The bot did not claim it was vandalism. In the warning, it uses the term "did not appear to be constructive" and in the edit summary it uses the term "Reverting possible vandalism". It claims that it may have been vandalism, but not that it was vandalism, in the edit summary. In the warning itself, it claims that it thought it was unconstructive, that it reverted it, and that if it was constructive, you should make the edit again. Where exactly are you seeing the bot claiming that what you did was vandalism? -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 03:26, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You miss the point. The bot should not use the word "vandalism" in any context. If the bot had focused on the original wording, "did not appear to be constructive" then there might not be an issue. But the use of vandalism--even if it just claim that vandalism is possible--is highly inappropriate since the edit was not even close to being vandalism. The bot should tone down its verbiage, which is the claim that I correctly made above. I will re-state what I stated before ClueBot is obviously making false positives and it needs to tone down its language. It should not refer to "vandalism" but only to "possible unconstructive edits".76.31.116.153 (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Like humans, ClueBot will occasionally revert edits that shouldn't have been reverted, however ClueBot's false positives are well within the community limit. As for ClueBot's edit summary, OK your particular edit may not have been vandalism, but if you look at the Bot's reverts you will see that the majority of the edits it reverts are vandalism and they're blatant vandalism, some of it not nice! There is absolutely nothing wrong with ClueBot's language.--5 albert square (talk) 22:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I realize that ClueBot is going to make mistakes. I realize that the vast majority of what ClueBot reverts IS vandalism. I realize that ClueBot is a helpful tool to fight vandalism. However, there should be a mechanism in place that reverts the inappropriate references to vandalism on the talk pages of legitimate editor. As I stated before a reference to "possible unconstructive edits" is a much less over the top phrase and it will deal with situations like my own where the edit was not vandalism.76.31.116.153 (talk) 17:27, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Cluebot reverts when an edit triggers enough filters (I think, or was that the old one?). How would it know the difference between a legitimate editor and a vandal, if all it has to know is the edit that made Cluebot revert? --Σ ^talk_contribs 17:33, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• CluebotNG's "trigger" is based upon the score the ANN returns however there are a number of filters for logic such as "has this user been reverted before on this article and the article is not an angry option". As for the bots language it /is/ an anti-vandalism bot and should operate as such, while it may also revert un-constructive (but not vandalism) edits this is not really its primary function. - DamianZaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
• (edit conflict) Σ: That's not correct. Read the nice userpage of ClueBot NG to find out how it works.
• 76...153: Possible is defined to be "able but not certain to happen; not impossible." If some property could hold, but could also not hold, then it is possible that property holds. In the same sense, for any given edit to Wikipedia, it is possible vandalism. That doesn't mean that it is probably vandalism, just that there is the chance that it is vandalism. If you were to go to the list of edits and pick an edit randomly, without looking at the edit, it is not impossible that that edit is vandalism, in other words, it is possible that that edit is vandalism. It is not probably vandalism (p < 0.5), but it is possibly vandalism. In short, the edit summary has not actually claimed vandalism. All that the edit summary stated is that it is not impossible that that edit was vandalism. (Which is a true statement). -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 17:52, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Fascinating! Cobi, I remember 80.6.19.36's edits were on CBNG's IRC feed, although his possible vandalism was never reverted solely because of the edit count. Is there a way for CBNG to ignore the edit count when analysing an IP address's edits? In other news, this edit was possible vandalism, but may not be vandalism. --Σ ^talk_contribs 18:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

False Positive

Vatican City has 950 inhabitants (Boo-Ra) and the Islands have 100. Some people arent smart. 174.140.187.91 (talk) 11:22, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

If you believe that ClueBot NG has made a mistake, please follow the directions in the warning it gave or click here. Please do not report them here. It takes less time to report them to the correct location, and we can handle it more effectively if reported in the correct location. - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 11:28, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Over 9000 Edits Per Minute?

What does the scouter REALLY say about his power level, Vegeta?

How many edits can you truthfully do per minute? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shepard Commander (talk • contribs) 14:53, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Highly variable. It depends on how many edits it wants to revert. It can do many in parallel, and will do as many as it wants to revert. I had it doing a few hundred (when limited to a certain number of threads) here. I think it peaked around 351. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 15:41, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

please unblock Supermidget98

pleas unblock Supermidget98 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philichino (talk • contribs) 09:08, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

ClueBot did not block that user as it has no administrative rights to do so. Please read this page and go from there - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 11:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Although giving ClueBot the power to block would be interesting. --Σ ^talk_contribs 19:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It'll never get consensus at RFA, though. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 19:04, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Would the community approve of CBNG temporarily (6 hours for example) semiprotecting pages if there have been more than 5 reverts within 12 hours? It would help reduce the RfPP backlog and strain on the Hugglers. --Σ ^talk_contribs 03:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)