Jump to content

User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2014/November

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Logged out?

Any reason Cluebot III appears to be operating as 10.68.16.32 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), or am I just misreading something? Abecedare (talk) 04:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Apparently it got logged out and isn't using assert=bot or the like. (I came here to report the same thing) Anomie⚔ 13:04, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
@Cobi: @Rich Smith: @DamianZaremba: to make you guys aware 5 albert square (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

Not escalating warnings

I notice ClueBot has sometimes opened a new month heading on user talk pages with a Level 1 warning, when previous warnings exist for the same month.

Cases are:

The last of these is especially odd, as CB correctly escalated its warning on the saeme page just hours later: Noyster (talk), 19:00, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

That's because ClueBot is starting the warning process again as the previous warnings became stale 5 albert square (talk) 22:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
The first warning template includes the level 2 heading with the current month and year in it by default. The bot is blind to the month and year when it adds the user warning template and doesn't know how to add the level 2 heading itself, so the template it uses does the heading for the bot instead. The first user warning template can be found here. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 23:52, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for replies but should humans, too, be regarding prior warnings as "stale" after a certain number of days? One of my examples was after an interval of just 4 days. Is there a policy somewhere about this? - don't see it under WP:Vandalism: Noyster (talk), 09:02, 29 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure about any written policy, it's mainly common sense. Especially with IPs, we can never assume it is the same person using the IP. One person could abuse Wikipedia say up to level 3 warning then log off. A few days later the IP number may be allocated to someone else making different edits but if you carry on from the previous level 3 warning then you would in effect be punishing them for someone else's mistakes 5 albert square (talk) 11:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello ClueBot Commons:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
    – IPadPerson (talk) 21:26, 28 October 2014 (UTC)



Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Archive failures

My user talk has had three archive failures over the past four days. Can this be looked into? Thanks. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 15:26, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly related to the fact ClueBot III is editing logged out. I have not succeeded in getting attention to this. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir: I think Rich is unable to reset ClueBot 3. I did ping Cobi and Damian but no response. I've emailed them both now 5 albert square (talk) 22:47, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

False Positive on Monster Hunter

The bot messed up and accidentally reverted a good faith edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monster_Hunter&diff=prev&oldid=631484237 71.92.79.250 (talk) 18:09, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Report on the false positives page at User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives. Also, it may have been good faith, but it was unsourced, full of grammatical mistakes, and fell slightly under WP:GAMEGUIDE so its reversion was a net positive in my opinion. Origamiteⓣⓒ 19:35, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Mishap/Oopsie Picture

This isn't serious, but I was wondering why cluebot is represented as a plane, because the picture on the page seemed out of place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:C402:D400:E56F:1B71:41D0:5CCF (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

It's a metaphor / running gag; the anti-vandal bots are represented as military planes. See User:ClueBot for a very clear example, possibly the original. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:54, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

MGM Holdings

I saw that you've reverted my revert of Spshu's edit on MGM Holdings. I'm NOT vandalizing the page. It's Spshu who's been destroying several entertainment company articles by removing accurate information, erasing owner/parent company lists in infoboxes, butchering the formatting, and renaming sections to used company names, so HE'S the one who's a vandal! Can you please block him before it's too late? 68.98.224.182 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot is a bot. It saw that you removed 15,823 characters and acted accordingly. Section blanking is a common form of vandalism, and it had no way of considering the merit of your removal. Origamiteⓣⓒ 23:58, 6 November 2014 (UTC)
Secondly you might want to read up on what Wikipedia considers as vandalism before you label other users as such. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 11:40, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Help with deletion of articles

Hi ClueBot! I'm an administrator on the Faroese Wikipedia. We currently have almost 600 articles in our "Articles for deletion"-category. Are there any easy way of mass deleting all 600, or will I have to enter each article individually and click delete? iceley 04:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

User posted substantially the same q at User talk:Cyde#Help with deletion of articles and User talk:Cyberpower678/Archive 22#Help with deletion of articles (where it was answered); see WP:MULTI. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:40, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
None of the ClueBots are admin bots, and the ClueBots only run on the English Wikipedia, so this question is misplaced. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 12:10, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Missed

You seem to have pmissed this...its obvioiusly a silly editLihaas (talk) 21:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lihaas: The bot doesn't catch every vandalistic edit. Human recent changes patrollers will probably never go away, at least not for a long time. The bot does see almost every edit on Wikipedia, it just doesn't classify all vandalism as such. You can, however, catch up on the edits it missed with a tool like STiki. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 22:14, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Warning - Block forthcoming

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Cobi the internal IP 10.68.16.32 will be temporary blocked due to being used by non-logged in bots, we suspect this is your process. Please rectify this immediately if so. — xaosflux Talk 13:24, 1 November 2014 (UTC)

10.61.16.32 has been soft blocked for one week, please attempt to regain control of your bot process and log on. — xaosflux Talk 22:46, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
 Done Please unblock - RichT|C|E-Mail 22:48, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 Done Unblocked! — xaosflux Talk 22:52, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Impersonation of you

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So, ClueBot98 is an imposter of you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaris Monteon (talk • contribs) 22:45, 8 November 2014 (UTC)

That's correct so it's now blocked 5 albert square (talk) 23:23, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

19384 Winton

Hi, The article that ClueBotII created for 19384 Winton in 2008 has the units missing in the info box. I assume that the distances are in AU, orbital period in days, and the inclination in degrees. Did ClueBotII do a mass import around this time, if so, do the other articles have missing units?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Csmiller (talk • contribs) 12:51, November 10, 2014‎ (UTC)

My edits to Captain Smith

I have added in the words of Daniel Allen Butler from his website saying that the shutters on the wheelhouse window would be closed at night for help with the bridge officers' night vision, and so that could explains why Hemming did not see Smith when he went in the bridge. Source: http://www.rmstitanicremembered.com/?page_id=300

I have also corrected the name of the book which makes the claim that Bride may have mistaken Smith for Lightoller. I added in the claims that Captain Smith was the officer who allegedly committed suicide.

Also, I removed the Captain Smith biography because it comes from a old unfinished website that make make 'official' the cinematographic image of Smith locking himself in the bridge and going down to the ship.

If you think my edits are wrong or if you have a problem with them, you could at least tell me what the problem is and I do it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.45.45 (talk) 22:49, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You do need to cite your source for the Daniel Allen Butler quote, but clearly the automatic process was mistaken in regarding your edit as "vandalism". I've made a report and reverted the article back to your version. If anyone else changes it, it will be a human editor. By the way if you wish to continue editing, as I hope you will, you may do well to open an account: anonymous edits are regarded as more likely to be malicious - this is not always fair but it's the result of long experience: Noyster (talk), 09:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
I think we've made it clear that ClueBot NG is a robot, not a human, so it can't really talk to you. Please report errors made by the bot at WP:CBNGFP. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 14:15, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Recursive archiving issue

On Template talk:.NET Framework version history, someone added a blank {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} template inside three talk page sections.[1][2][3] ClueBot III then proceeded to archive the whole page to Template talk:.NET Framework version history/Archives/, including the ArchiveThis templates. Then, the following day, ClueBot archived Template talk:.NET Framework version history/Archives/ to Template talk:.NET Framework version history/Archives//Archives/. I assume that it would have kept on going indefinitely, but I deleted the archive pages and reverted the original talk page to a revision before the ArchiveThis templates were added. How about adding a check for this kind of recursive archiving? I'm thinking that the bot could ignore such pages, or perhaps send a message to the person who added the archive template in the wrong place. But that's just a suggestion - I shouldn't think that this situation would crop up that often. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:46, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) This has happened before, see User talk:Misza13#Archiving (which was posted to the wrong bot owner), which was also a recursive series of ClueBot III edits. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:07, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

BOOTY vs booty

This edit (BOOTY) to the lead lasted for nearly 24 hours before deletion. I suspect your bot might work with this word.

This edit (booty) was removed by your bot within five seconds. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:40, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect link changes to archive content

Hello, in this edit to User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive D and this edit to User talk:Jamesday, ClueBot III modified a 2005 discussion to link to a 2014 archive (probably because the two discussions had the same section titles). This is not ideal. Graham87 05:24, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

That link was a valid link to the discussion being archived, so the bot updated it. Now, whether the link was intended to link to the discussion section is debatable, but if you had clicked the link before the bot archived it, it would have taken you to the discussion section that the bot archived, so the bot updated it to point to the new location of that discussion section. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 05:36, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Help to keep the better photograph

Hello,

I have added a better photograph with good composition to the article of Kiran Mazumdar-Shaw and the edit was undid by you. Please help me to remove the existing photograph and add the better composition photograph.

Blacknclick (talk) 18:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Blacknclick: I'm going to post on your user talk page about your photos. But since I cannot determine why this should have been taken for vandalism, I've reverted ClueBot's edit and tried to report it as a false positive; however, I got a wall of error-message gobbledigook when I clicked the button to submit the report after filling it out. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Why are you reverting my edits

You are reverting my edits and not explaining? Chasbo123 (talk) 13:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I assume it is because you were very clearly edit-warring. --AussieLegend (✉) 14:19, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Why wasn't this user warned?

OK so I just came across this edit earlier and it has got me confused. CBNG it appears has reverted the vandalism but not warned the user?

I've had a look at CBNG's contributions and it seems that it reverted this edit, didn't warn the user and then just went on to revert another editor? @Rich Smith: @Cobi: anyone any ideas?--5 albert square (talk) 22:57, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Yep, I can see the problem. I am not one of the ClueBot devs but it might be concurrency issues, where two edits are reverted at the same time and one user warned twice... @Methecooldude: @Crispy1989: is this right? DSCrowned(talk) 11:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
Could be... where did you observe this? - RichT|C|E-Mail 19:50, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@Rich Smith: @DSCrowned:, I've checked ClueBot's edits again for the time period I reported and I don't think that the issue is with the Bot warning a user twice in error instead of once. Before ClueBot reverted the EastEnders page it did issue a second warning to a user, however I've checked and that warning was correctly issued. When I've checked the edits more thoroughly the Bot's instructions seem to be that it can edit more than one page at once, and if the user is an IP then it can issue two IP warnings at once to the separate IP addresses. However, if it's a registered user, the Bot can only warn one of them at once. On this occasion, CBNG reverted List of EastEnders characters (2011) at the same time as it reverted Matisia exalata, however both these pages were vandalised by registered editors and it's here that CBNG appears to have encountered the problem. It's not been able to warn two registered editors at the same time, so only the editor vandalising the Matisia page got warned. I've had a brief check of CBNG's edits since then and I can't find this happening again. Very strange though!--5 albert square (talk) 23:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the edits to the Faygo page on my account

It was not me who vandalized the Faygo page in the past. My sister got onto my account and edited the page. It was automatically reverted to the previous edit. So no harm was done. (50.121.20.171) 13:18, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:LITTLESISTER. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

I have noticed an edit by this bot on the page Talk:National Highway 1D (India)(old numbering) (Date/Time: 17:46, 27 November 2014). A similar edit is required on some pages of national highways in India. Could you please help us?

The nature of the work is like this: to change the link National Highway XX (India) from all the existing article to National Highway XX (India)(old numbering), where XX are numbers.

Aim: to use the existing titles of the form National Highway XX (India) for new article in new numbering system.

To see related discussion please check Talk:National Highway 1D (India)(old numbering). Marlisco (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Marlisco: Please use Wikipedia:Bot requests instead, as the bot you mentioned in question (ClueBot III, and this talk page is not specific to this bot - it is shared by ClueBot NG and ClueBot III) is a talk page archive bot, and that's its sole task. The edit you saw was it fixing links to talk page sections that have been archived by the bot. The other ClueBot that is running, ClueBot NG, is an anti-vandalism bot. --I am k6ka Talk to me! See what I have done 12:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

False positive reporting page b0rked?

Hi: I may have mentioned this here before, I forget ... but I just attempted to report this false positive and for the second time in a row, got a screen full of gobbledygook after submitting the report. I hope this doesn't mean reports are not getting through. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

@Yngvadottir: I just had a look and found [this], so it looks as if it's getting through. @Cobi: @Rich Smith: any ideas?--5 albert square (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
@Yngvadottir:@5 albert square: - Was able to replicate, nice catch. Will take a look around and see what is happening, for now, ignore the error, as they are being submitted - RichT|C|E-Mail 18:47, 29 November 2014 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2014/November&oldid=1076864060"