User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2013/June

Bot flag?

NG's UP states that it has a bot flag, but its edits are still appearing in RC. I just noticed this; I don't know whether they always have or if this is a mistake.  — TORTOISEWRATH 02:32, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

It has a bot flag so it can edit quickly (the API limits otherwise are very low); however, the BAG do not want the bot's edits flagged, so it chooses to not flag them. If you want more information, feel free to search the archives. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 02:59, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't see that ClueBot has made a mistake so I must have made one

I think that your other reoprt page is way to complicated and needs a simple interface!

I set up an bot archive on Wikipedia talk:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannicausing similar parameters I have used for several other talk pages

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis |archiveprefix=Talk:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica/Archive |format= %%i |header={{Talkarchivenav}} |age=2196 |index=no |minkeepthreads=3 |maxarchsize=75000 |numberstart=2 }} My intention is:

• Age three months
• no index
• Keep a minimum of three section
• archive size up to 75k.
• Start with archive 2

But instead of placing the archive in Talk:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica/Archive 2 ClueBot's edit comment was

• 02:29, 4 June 2013‎ ClueBot III (talk | contribs | block)‎ m . . (17,603 bytes) (-14,258)‎ . . (Archiving 8 discussions to Wikipedia talk:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica/Archives/ 2.

I have since reverted ClueBot's edit to the talk page and deleted the new archive page.I am not sure why ClueBot placed the archive wehere it did where it did. I notice that I have made one error it should have been

archiveprefix=Wikipedia talk:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica/Archive

Which I will correct. But I would appreciate it if you would fix my errors and explain to me what else I have done wrong. Preferably before it runs again. -- PBS (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{{/censor}}

ClueBot false positive reporting page seems to be down

I can't access the false positive reporting page (page won't load), so I'm letting you know here. This is the diff, and the code is 1664035. As you'll see, the edit was not entirely ideal - no reliable source, etc - but it was not vandalism. -- Scray (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Yep, reporting is down

I can't get it to work either. This diff [1] was a false positive, and the ID is 1662991. Howicus (talk) 17:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Looks like cluenet.org and cluebot.org are down entirely. I'd be interested in helping review the dataset when they come back up. Swsail (talk) 20:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Multiple headers for May

Hi. I just saw User talk:71.63.51.1, and was wondering if this was a bug, or a known problem, or whatnot. (And if there's a preferred method for fixing this, and preventing it at other pages). Thanks. –Quiddity (talk) 00:24, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Welcome messages?

Oftentimes I see ClueBot as the first editor to mark a new user's talk page. Have you considered having the ClueBot message altered to a welcome type anti-vandal message when it detects no existing talk page? —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 20:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

This is a fantastic suggestion, should be easy to implement. -- Scray (talk) 23:51, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I had to have at least one worthwhile notion this week.  :-) —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 03:34, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Message from Conar555

I have made an edit on the Gravity falls page with you warned me for "Possible Vandalism" (1669449) I think you may have made a mistake with my edit that was possible vandalism so that is why I am here posting this, Explain a reason or two to back your reason for warning me. -Conar555 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conar555 (talk • contribs) 17:02, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 3648 Raffinetti for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 3648 Raffinetti is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/3648 Raffinetti until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of 21554 Leechaohsi for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 21554 Leechaohsi is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/21554 Leechaohsi until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jguy _Talk^Done 00:42, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

ClueBot III Question

Exactly what code would I use to get ClueBot III to archive my talk page into pages like user talk:Numbermaniac/Archive 1, User talk:Numbermaniac/Archive 2, etc? Is that what the %%i is for? Thanks! -- ^(T) Numbermaniac _(C) 08:41, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Instructions here. —    Bill W.    (Talk)  (Contrib)  — 11:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk Page

Hi, my talk page is archived by Cluebot III. However, it has put a list of seemingly random articles down the side (see here). Have I made a mistake?

Thanks, Matty.007 16:04, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Recursive archives?

I had a look at Cluebot III's recent contributions, and noticed it writing to User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/User talk:Thepoodlechef/Archives/12/Archives/1/Archives/1/Archives/1/Archives/1/Archives/1/Archives/1/Archives/1/Archives/1/Archives/1/Archives/1/Archives/1/Archives/1/Archives/1/Archives/1/Archives/1 and User:ClueBot III/Detailed Indices/User talk:Hassocks5489/Archives/2013/April/Archives/2013/May/Archives/2013/May/Archives/2013/May/Archives/2013/May/Archives/2013/June/Archives/2013/June. Bug? -- John of Reading (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of colors

Hi. At here, Cluebot III archived a section of Talk:List of colors(Split required) to which I last posted about 4 hours ago. The article, however, has other sections that haven't been touched in years. What's up? The section should probably be moved back once the situation is resolved, as it contains some useful info. Thanks. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 21:56, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I found part of the problem, which was that it's configured so sections containing {{Done}} will be archived immediately. What's the correct way to un-archive this section, as I'd like it to remain for a while for the benefit of other users? Also, why are there threads that are years old still on the page? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:00, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: I undo'd the edit at Talk:List of colors, but the link to the archive page remains on it (Talk:List of colors/Archive 2) and I didn't do anything to that page. I also removed the {{Done}} template from the section I want to keep. Still open questions: How to finish cleanup of un-archive? Why years-old threads not archived? —[AlanM1(talk)]— 22:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Covered vandalism

[2] -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:26, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

THAMK YOU FOR FIXING IT. I IT ACCIDENTALY WHEN READING WIKIPEDIA. DID NOT REALIZE THAT

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:6D8:1000:4:3D19:75BE:60FE:CAE6 (talk) 09:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Defiance - Question

Hello. I just saw that you reverted a possible vandalism on the page and I saw my name on it "...to version by TeamGale". I wanted to ask why my name is involved there? I don't remember ever making an edit in that section of the article. Thanks TeamGale (talk) 23:54, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

@TeamGale: Errr, are you sure? The history lists you as editing it numerous time in the last week. –Quiddity (talk) 00:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I am editing in the page. What I am saying is that the vandalish happened to a section I never edited before...I am just asking what does the mention of my name means? Is it because the last edit (in the whole article as a whole) before the vandalish was mine? TeamGale (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what the edit summary means. The other editor returned the article to the state it had been in after your last edit there. Yngvadottir (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I am just new here and sometimes I am a little lost :) TeamGale (talk) 00:42, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

By default, rollbacks from humans or bots will have an edit summary of "Reverted edits by <vandal> to last revision by <user who edited the article before the vandalism>". -- ^(T) Numbermaniac _(C) 09:01, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

@Numbermaniac: Thanks. I know that now :) TeamGale (talk) 11:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

False positive

Sorry I can't report this on the cluenet page; I've never figured out how to use it. The bot reverted this as vandalism, even though I just changed the target of a redirect and gave a helpful edit summary. 2001:18E8:2:1020:8D3C:E2DB:DA4D:C92B (talk) 19:46, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Message left by ClueBot

I was reviewing the WP:Flow project, which plans on no longer allowing transcluding templates within comments, so I've been looking at bots' messages (which often transclude templates). I have a few questions. I see that ClueBot's messages can be edited at the appropriate pages. However, it seems that ClueBot does not leave this page as hidden comment in its signature (as does Huggle for example), but instead one that doesn't exist, is this intended ? In addition, I am under the impression that the next hidden comment, which is also left by all other user warning messages, is used so that bots and scripts can detect the last level of warnings, but then why would the general user warning templates leave the signature template of ClueBot as well ?

Now regarding Flow, it seems to me that introducing it without the possibility to transclude or subst in comments would pose some serious problems, to bots in particular but not only. I hope this can be averted. I brought up some concerns at mw:talk:Flow, you may wish to participate. Cenarium (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2013 (UTC)