User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2012/February

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

Royal Rumble archives

The Royal Rumble talk page on Wikipedia is displaying a list to all archives of this page (instead of archives of the actual Wikipedia page). No matter what I do (or what anyone else has done so far), the problem seems to remain. Do we have to nudge Cluebot to update that or something? Banaticus (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

hm

very frustrating to find edits reverted without any sort of rationale given beyond a number.125.92.221.238 (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, 125. Cluebot NG can't give a simple reason for any given revert, because it is not following a predefined list of rules. Information about how Cluebot NG classifies vandalism is at User:ClueBot NG#Vandalism Detection Algorithm and User:ClueBot NG#Information About False Positives. If you believe the bot has incorrectly identified an edit as vandalism, you can help by reporting the false positive. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

4231 Fireman : Harvard or Cambridge ?

Good morning

Question what I me pose: how is the "Observatory of Harvard" what you speak in your article over the little planet 4231 Fireman

Yes, I question me because in the fish of IAU Minor Planet Center to purpose of (4231) Fireman it is marcked what the asteroid is discovered at Harvard on 1976-11-20 by Harvard Observatory; but in the case of discovered 1976 11 20.36187, it is marcked "801 – Oak Ridge Observatory".

Be that what you not confuze "Oak Ridge Observatory" and "Harvard College Observatory" ?

Apophyze mi for mi evil english.

--Jean-François Clet (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Jean-François, and thank you for your question. This is the talk page for comments on or questions about the Cluebots, a set of bots that carry out repetitive tasks on Wikipedia. I see you have also posted this question at Talk:4231 Fireman – which is the best place for a question about that particular article. Hopefully someone will respond there. – Wdchk (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving Error bug?

Several article's I've archived have been duplicated. To see what I mean see the following talkpages:

What has happened or have I done anything wrong with it to cause this duplication? Adamdaley (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism on Article about Methodism in the Philippines

Hi. I'm quite concerned about a lot of revisions happening in Methodism particularly that part of History of methodism in the Philippines. Edits contained vandalism and inappropriate language and citing some insults, in the other group. If my opinion counts, that would be a kind of discrimination. Isn't it? Are allowing it in Wikipedia? Thanks. Christian Eilers (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Unwanted archiving

Something called ClueBot III ‎is repeatedly archiving the talk page of Talk:Battle_of_Ayta_ash-Shab. I don't mind archiving older stuff but what has been added since November 2011 is still part of the ongoing discussion and I would like to keep it for a while. Is this procedure activated automatically or by an editor? Can I turn it off? Can I archive efterthing written before November 2011? How?

Regards, Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

It is done automatically, with the parameters set on the talkpage. The archiving time was 120 hours, I've changed it to 14 days which is normally enough. Sections with no replies since 14 days will be archived automatically now. You can still change the date of your last comment to delay that though. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You can further change archiving time (by changing the number of hours), but usually consensus on that talk page is needed for that. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
The talk page has not been archived ever since 2006. Now it has been archived twice. Has somebody changed the parameters? How does one do that?
Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
When a page grows a bit long to work on easily, usually archiving is set up on it. This was set up by Adamdaley recently. You can leave a note on the talk page and if no one objects, change the "age=336" (where 336 is the number of hours) to a larger number as required. --lTopGunl (talk) 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Drinking Water?

You have reported that I made some sort of unconstructive contribution to the Drinking water page. Where as the funny thing is, for the past 3 weeks, I haven't made any edits on wikipedia at all, so please stop creating the unnecessary ruckus and don't go on blaming people for something they haven't even done. And please don't threaten to block me and all, I joined the wikipedia to be a cheerful contributor and not to get blocked, and if you do have to block me, then you may do, it wont be of any harm to me. Singhaldipanshu (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

The bot did not give any warning to your account. You saw the message at User talk:75.85.137.101 before you logged in. That message was intended for someone who was editing from that IP address almost 2 weeks ago. — AlexSm 19:32, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Reporting vandalism on The Blind Leading the Blind

I believe th above page is again a target of vandalism. I happened there in the course of writing new articles on Bruegel's paintings and found the page, which contains libelous statements about certain public figures. Checking its history, I noticed other attempts at vandalising it recently. I will now proceed and re-write the article as appropriate, but I thought the Wiki Admin should know, just in case...--Smintheus Fellin (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, firstly ClueBot is not human and is therefore unable to protect pages. It is a Wikipedia robot with a script to revert vandalism, it does not have admin access and is therefore unable to lock pages etc.
However, I am one of the admins of Wikipedia. If you are looking to request protection of a page you can do so by filing a request at WP:RFPP. Looking at the history of that page though you would be unlikely to get it because there is not enough recent vandalism from what I can see. By recent, I mean within the last day or two. I hope this helps.--5 albert square (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Many thanks, 5 albert square. Being new to these "technical" issues, I didn't know whom to advise, so I just came to this page in order to signal the problem. No, I don't think there's any need of protecting that particular page — at any rate, I edited it and expanded the content as appropriate. Ciao--Smintheus Fellin (talk) 09:35, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

False positive

Lovely though the ideal of machine-moderated wikipedia might be, in this case at least it was total c-r-a-p so, basically, it's not rocket science. Richard Evans IS the current President of Wolfson College, Cambridge, and Gordon Johnson, is no longer the President, What exactly the problem with this? Fact. Get over it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.105.230 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Please report a false positive at the Report Interface. It is easy and helps us track and correct false positives quicker! Thank you.  – Wdchk (talk) 22:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

thank U!

OK. I read your message. thanks for your information! :)  nanopico97  —Preceding undated comment added 05:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC).

Bot down?

Bot down? Not archiving since a day or two... --lTopGunl (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting vandalism

(Reverting possible vandalism by 203.45.177.185 to version by RoslynSKP. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (852910) --Rskp (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Joaquin Phoenix

You've just used the term "vandalism" in connection to my inclusion of a paragraph. Was your comment really directed to my paragraph or was I just victim of a confusion? 85.179.143.106 (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot NG's edit has been reported as a false positive. See post by Jim1138 at User talk:85.179.143.106. – Wdchk (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

M&M's pics

I need help, I found 3 M&M spokescandies on Google, posted them on M&M's and some guy named Eeekster is telling me what I don't know and I don't know what do to... --MegGriffin55 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello Meg. Thanks for your question, but this page is for comments on or questions about the ClueBots. I see that Eeekster has left some detailed information on your talk page about your uploads. This includes an invitation to ask further questions at the Media copyright questions page, or on Eeekster's talk page. Regards, – Wdchk (talk) 04:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

The Woman in Black (2012 film)

I DID remove the link, there's no need to threaten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.46.7 (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot NG may have reverted a good faith edit. If this is the case, please report a false positive at the Report Interface. It is easy and helps us track and correct false positives quicker! Thank you.  – Wdchk (talk) 16:08, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Question

What happened to the first Cluebot? ☻Cafeolay2☻ (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Taking an indefinite wikibreak. See User:ClueBot. – Wdchk (talk) 03:35, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Cluebot III is down too? --lTopGunl (talk) 08:45, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Question re: Nancy Mercado Page

I am relatively new here. Someone keeps editing this page and only signs in using their IP address: 99.12.242.7. In the first edit they took the article completely apart, including photo. I had to restore the entire thing. Also, this person is making threats by stating that they "reported" the page, making assumptions stating that I am closely related to the pages' namesake solely on the fact that I happen to have the same surname, etc. In short, their criticism and edits are not constructive to say the least. I believe it is vandalism. Please help. Solomonmercado (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

They appear to have reasonable questions concerning your edits and their provenance: please do not characterize these concerns as "vandalism": much better to constructively engage the issues raised. Acroterion (talk) 18:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot not classified as a bot?

On my watchlist it lists all of Cluebot's edits even though I've selected to "hide bots". Could this account be classified as a bot for the purposes of watchlists? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Not quite sure what is happening here as ClueBot NG is classified as a bot - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 20:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Apparently, anti-vandal bot edits usually aren't tagged with the bot flag. This is intentional, and is not specific to ClueBot NG. For more information, see Why don't ClueBot NG's edits show up as bot edits? – Wdchk (talk) 03:28, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Interesting. I think this should be the default, but I would like to have the option of hiding both cluebot edits, and the edits that they just reverted. It would reduce the size of my watchlist. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 21:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot III too aggressive?

Please see my comment at Talk:Gropecunt Lane/Archive2#This Talk page is archived too aggressively (your browser may not locate this section correctly). Is this a widespread problem? (There seem to be three Talk pages relevant to this Bot--here, the Bot's Talk page, and the owner's Talk page. Please forgive me if I chose the wrong one.) There seem to be two problems: whether the Bot parameters are set incorrectly for that particular article, and informing the editors about how to set the parameters. (If they cannot be set, then that is another problem.) I apologize for my ignorance of how Bots, or this particular Bot, work. I just want to report these problems and have those who are knowledgeable fix whatever needs fixing, if that's okay. David Spector (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. When editors want to have Cluebot III archive threads from a talk page, they add a template to the page. This is the part that starts with User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis. The parameters listed in that template control the bot's actions for that specific page. In the case of the page you referenced, there is a parameter |age=744. This defines the number of hours a thread can go without a reply before it should be archived (744 hours, or 31 days). If you believe this value needs to be changed, you can discuss it with other editors at Talk:Gropecunt Lane. For more information on the archive template, see User:ClueBot III. – Wdchk (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC) (Updated) 01:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

WHAT! (February 2012)

You beat me to reverting on List of Big Time Rush characters, thus this is your first and final warning'. Do this again, and you will be awarded a barnstar without further notice. Kiko4564 (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry

Just like to say that I'm sorry for vandalising a page. Won't do it again. We're all tempted to do stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.225.252 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

There's no point apologizing here, this is a bot (automated computer program). Kiko4564 (talk) 11:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I know, just wanted to say I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.233.50 (talk)

Speaking as an editor here, I'd like to thank you for your apology. We all make mistakes. David Spector (user/talk) 02:39, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving exceeds maxarchsize

Talk:Santorum (disambiguation) was a 100K page; I added the appropriate template including the parameter 

|maxarchsize=30000

Expecting to return the next day to find three archive pages. I found one, 83K in size. That's either a bug, or the doco need clarifying. Josh Parris 01:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

It will respect the settings at the beginning of each archive run. It does not split archive runs. This means that in the future, when the archive fills up, it will start a new one, but if you are archiving a large amount of stuff initially, it will put it all in one archive. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 10:56, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Archiving error by ClueBot III

In this edit, ClueBot III changed a link from Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 48#WikiProject tagging for Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania to Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 45#WikiProject tagging for Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania, presumably because it had just archived Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 45#WikiProject tagging. Anomie⚔ 16:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Captcha troubles

I attempted to report a false positive (904259), but couldn't get past the captcha. I made at least a half dozen attempts, and made use of the button to give me a different one until it gave me one that looked obvious enough; in spite of this it never gave a positive response, not even on a couple that looked hard to misread. --mwalimu59 (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Yea, sometimes the Captcha works, but sends a fail..., we recieved your report
[18:28:48] <CBNGRelay> report:904259 new http://report.cluebot.cluenet.org/index.php?page=View&id=904259 * Mwalimu59 * New Report
[18:28:48] <CBNGRelay> report:904259 comment http://report.cluebot.cluenet.org/index.php?page=View&id=904259 * Mwalimu59 * This edit seems well within the realm of good faith
- Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 23:04, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Decossackization

The recent revert to Decossackization looks like a false positive, the change which the bot reverted may be controversial but I don't think it was vandalism. If this had been done manually I would have regarded it as an abuse of the minor change flag. PatGallacher (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please report a false positive at the Report Interface. It is easy and helps us track and correct false positives quicker! Thank you. – Wdchk (talk) 00:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Well it doesn't look that easy to me, but maybe it's getting quite late, I'll look at it later. PatGallacher (talk) 01:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Full protection

User:ClueBot III says "Administrators may turn the bot off by changing this page to 'False'." However, it is actually semi-protected. Ankit Maity requested to full protect it, but this was denied on the grounds that Cobi could do it himself. I just wanted to make sure Cobi knew. The same protection applies to other pages like User:ClueBot NG/Run. Superm401 - Talk 00:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected is fine. It may simply be that the wording on the main page implies that it is full-protected, but there hasn't been much vandalism at all to it recently since it was semi-protected. If it starts being abused (and I do keep an eye on it), I will protect it. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:17, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A lot of Reported and Sending to Review Interface

Hello.

Just to let you know I have posted a new false positive http://report.cluebot.cluenet.org/?page=View&id=911136 (when I was not logged in to Wikipedia, so, my edits used a temporary IP address) and, in the list http://report.cluebot.cluenet.org/?page=List there are a lot of Reported false positives.

And what's up with Sending to Review Interface? I checked some of the false positives with this status, and they all have the same 2 entries every day:

  • Review Interface has marked this report as "Queued to be reviewed".
  • Review Interface has marked this report as "Sending to Review Interface".

Is this a bug of some sort in the report site? Why bother do the same 2 entries every day, when the result of those entries is the same of the day before? I just think this is unnecessary overhead in each page of a false positive.

Thanks, in advance. Mrmagoo2006 (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hey,
Yes, the backlog of reported FPs are quite high and we are trying to get more people to go though them
The two interfaces only send data between each other now and again, so Sending to Review Interface hasn't been sent yet and Queued to be Reviewed is where the report interface is waiting to hear about that report from the review interface as to what to mark it as. - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 20:10, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot NG fails to undo series vandalism

If a series of different vandals edit in succession the bot only reverts the most recent vandalism and locks in the rest into the article:example. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, ClueBot follows 1RR for bots and therefore will only revert once on any article in any 24 hours - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 20:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I see. Thank you. But I find this to be a vulnerability, especially for savvy vandals. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 21:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
There's always human editors to sort out the next reverts :) - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 22:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Yes, we haven't been replaced yet. At least not completely. :) Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 23:50, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Southern Lehigh High School edit

While searching wiki for vandalism using known "shock site" URLs as my search parameters I noticed that The Southern Lehigh High School edit your bot performed reverted to a vandalized version of the article, I manually reverted the page to a previous (and hopefully accurate) version. Other than this minor glitch I like your bot and it makes my job so much easier when I do an anti-vandalism patrol. Keep up the good work. Washuchan (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion

I think NAMBLA should be on the list of words that gets edits automatically reverted by ClueBot, since it's almost always going to be vandalism rather than a constructive edit. That would catch edits like this one: [1] Robofish (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot doesn't have a 'list of words' in a simple form. Unlike the old bot which used regexp ClueBot NG uses an ANN to detect vandalism. We train this ANN with example datasets to change the vandalism it detects. The old ClueBot may come back to live if there is a specific subset of vandalism which regex based detection is more effective at. 89.242.221.26 (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
^ Someone didn't log in :) - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 23:54, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Someone turn cluebot off for banned user vandalism removal

Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, a user banned by ARBCOM and Jimbo for off wiki threats to users (among other things), has come back as an extensive IP sock farm using the 69.171.160.* range. I'm trying to clean up his mess and ClueBot is being unhelpful. Revertorium (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

You only appear to have been reverted three times. Stopping ClueBot would cause more damage. If you just use your normal autoconfirmed account instead, you will not be reverted by ClueBot. Reach Out to the Truth 17:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Nobody with any sense will ever use an identifiable account when editing anything to do with Jeff Merkey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Revertorium (talk • contribs) 18:38, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
I can't see that you've taken this to WP:SPI. If this user is banned and they're still editing whilst banned, I would suggest that you file a report there so it can be looked at. At the minute I can find no reason to stop ClueBot as it's functioning normally. As Reach Out To The Truth says, stopping ClueBot would be more harmful as it would then leave the whole encyclopedia open to vandalism.--5 albert square (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

An idea?

Hi, just a few minutes ago I undid an edit on the AC Cobra page. I then thought an action that Cluebot NG could look for: all-caps. Though in this case "SIT DOWN" would probably be very hard to remove automatically, and may create a great deal more false positives. But I thought I'd put it out there. :) Starfleet Academy "Live long and prosper." 01:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

report.cluebot.org not working

Hi… I wanted to report a false positive but the site report.cluebot.org, where I have to put the revert ID is not working. What to do now?

Thanks. --Aghetrichter (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

It's report.cluebot.cluenet.org not report.cluebot.org :) - Damian Zaremba (talk • contribs) 00:42, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, now it works. Somehow it redirected me to "report.cluebot.org" when clicking on "Now, CLICK HERE and put the revert ID in the box when prompted." --Aghetrichter (talk) 01:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Something funny

Sorry if this isn't the page I should put this on, but I think it's kind of funny that it always says "Reverted possible vandalism". I think it should know that "she likes mc donalds" on the Molly Pitcher page is actually vandalism. Toaoftechnology (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's about to become a sort of science, called Applied Paranoia. Cluebot NG would have a great job in police, military or security business as being paranoid and thinking everyone is evil is one of the prerequisites you must have to do this job. ;) Just look: Tim Wright (musician) That's simply RIDICULOUS. Just because I didn't like the thought of having the full birth name in photo caption, I put the birth name in the infobox at the line where it belonged and got awarded a kind "Possible BLP vandalism". But as we know, machines are dumb. And as far as I know, bots ARE machines. :P -andy 217.50.63.184 (talk) 16:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
The bot is actually rather intelligent as it is based on a ANN rather than simple heuristics, as far as I cant tell on the Tim Wright article CBNG actually reverted vandalism, you where caught by a filter. The bot isn't capable of being paranoid but it is very capable at detecting edits that look like vandalism. - Damian Zaremba (talk • contribs) 16:58, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification re ClueBot NG FAQ: training and threshold-setting subsets, or cross-validation?

Hi. I'm wondering which of the following best describes ClueBot NG's use of the dataset:

  • As per the FAQ, the dataset is divided into edits used for training the Bayesian classifiers and neural network and edits used for setting the threshold
  • The threshold is determined using cross-validation, then the classifiers and network are trained on the entire dataset

If it's the former, why not do the latter? Thanks for all your good work! 13:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2012/February&oldid=1145814929"