User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2008/October

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

More ClueBot III mess-ups?

[1] Calvin 1998 (t·c) 02:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguate Flagstaff astronomical sightings?

Gday. I am about to disambiguate Flagstaff Special:WhatLinksHere/Flagstaff, and I notice that many of the pages are created by this bot ... so one request and one question. Question: Is the bot able to disambiguate those pages to something like Lowell Observatory, Flagstaff, Arizona? If not, okay, I will do them using available tools. Request: Would you please reprogram the bot to use that text for any further respective pages. Thx -- billinghurst (talk) 14:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot III undoing previous edits

While archiving WP:BOTREQ, ClueBot III seems to have accidentally undone the three previous edits (spanning almost half an hour). The only likely explanation I can think of is that the bot, for whatever reason, took an unusually long time to save the page, got edit conflicted and ended up overriding the previous edits. Is there any chance you could add some form of edit conflict detection to your bot? (If I'm reading your source code right, it should be enough to pass a valid $rv parameter to $wpi->post().) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Is ClueBot I working?

Please see the relavent AN thread. Thanks! NuclearWarfare contact meMy work 15:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

There's already a notification on Cobi's talk page. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 15:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Cluebots arguing?

On WP:OP one can sometimes see what looks much like Cluebot And Cluebot IV arguing, since Cluebot comes along and claims a page has an open proxy, but Cluebot IV then posts that no proxy was found. Sometimes this is the case several lines in a row. Is Cluebot IV's Open proxy detection more limited than Cluebot's or just not working at all? Or what? It looks really odd, whatever is going on. I would have assumed multiple Cluebots would be in agreement about an IP address being an open proxy. (talk) 03:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Warning following not reverting

ClueBot issued this warning [2] when the edit in question was actually reverted by someone else. The vandal was therefore warned twice, once in error. Philip Trueman (talk) 17:33, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Missed vandalism.

I thought I'd let you know that ClueBot reverted a blanked page (KHZS) to a previous edit which was also vandalism (disguised false links). Just thought I'd let you know so maybe ClueBot can be programmed to check for vandalism on consecutive edits. Thanks. RobDe68 (talk) 23:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Getting responses to notifications

At User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2008/October#Disambiguate Flagstaff astronomical sightings? you will see a post that has not been answered, yet has been archived. Courtesy of a response would be nice before posts are archived. Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Missed vandalism

Cluebot missed [3] MBisanz talk 19:58, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot VI

ClueBot VI hasn't edited since October 9, could you take a look? Thanks. WJBscribe (talk) 21:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

The ClueBot servers must have been broken again. Did you check out the ANI thread from 5 October? I'm sure that Cobi would have a very detailed reasoning in response to the question. SchfiftyThree (talk!) 21:50, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the server has been down since then. It was in a semi-broken state since that ANI thread, but has been totally broken for the last few days. I am in the process of moving everything to a new server. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 06:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Any idea when this might be completed by? :-) ╟─Treasury§Tagcontribs─╢ 10:39, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Archiving Oddity

ClueBot III did something odd with archiving in this edit. At first, I thought it misread the times on the last section, but the edit summary says "Archiving 2 discussions to Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 22" where as it removed 3 sections. Also, that last section wasn't copied to the archive either. The bot seems to have just dropped it. Doesn't seem like it would be an edit conflict either as the previous edit to the page was seven minutes prior. -- JLaTondre (talk) 02:22, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It archived this section again despite it being less than the specified 7 days for archiving (the original post is only 3 days old and the latest response is from today). At least this time it correctly moved it to the archive, but it would be nice to have this bug fixed. -- JLaTondre (talk) 13:21, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
I figured out the above. The bot was set to automatically archive sections with "done" templates. I've disabled that. So that part wasn't a bot error. However, the original problem above (failure to copy the section to the archive) and Colonies Chris' below still seem to be valid problems. -- JLaTondre (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

A similar thing happened here. It seems to have removed the most recent parts of the discussion (my responses) but left the rest. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:38, 23 October 2008 (UTC)


Thanks Cluebot for reverting vandalism! Reliableforever (talk) 13:04, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Problem reporting false positive on Pharmacy

Cluebot reverted a good faith edit on Pharmacy. I was replacing the History of Pharmacy section, and somehow the entire article got replaced by my edit. Cluebot reverted, but I've now recovered the article and my edit.

The problem is, I tried to report a false positive using the id number 493213, and the database failed with the following error:

Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Lost connection to MySQL server during query in /home/apache2/domains/default/htdocs/cluebot.php on line 5

I think something is not quite right. (talk) 14:50, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you stop Dido's name being changed to Dildo?

Hello. A form of vandalism that happens quite often is for one or all instances of the word Dido to be changed to Dildo on the Dido (singer) article. The word Dildo is not on ClueBot's list of naughty words and I am sure that there are articles in which Dildo may appear perfectly innocently. However, Dido's article is not likely to be one of them. Would it be possible for ClueBot to look out for this specific form of vandalism? If not then please could you recommend any other bot that may be able to help. Thank you for all of your good work. It is always a pleasure to see some idiot's idea of a joke being reverted before they have time to giggle at it. Best wishes, Labalius (talk) 22:48, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Unable to report false positive

My good faith deletion of an inappropriate Reference Desk thread was reverted by ClueBot with ID = 494420. After figuring out the somewhat confusing instructions for reporting a false positive ("Report it here!" "This is not the place to report it!"), I tried to do so, but got back the following:

  Warning: mysql_connect() [function.mysql-connect]: Lost connection to
  MySQL server during query in
  /home/apache2/domains/default/htdocs/cluebot.php on line 5

Since the false positives page is semi-protected, I cannot enter a report there directly, so I'm putting it here. There is no need to reply to me on the talk page for this IP address, which is shared. -- (talk) 07:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


your bot is broken. either turn it off or fix it please. - A Flying Heart (talk) 11:18, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
It's not, it just made a mistake :) CWii(Talk|Contribs) 19:35, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Existing warnings on talk page

As you can see by this dif [4] Cluebot removed existing warnings before applying it's own. It's possible that this could have an effect on dealing with vandals. Is this a feature or a bug? :) --Deadly∀ssassin 07:15, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Most likely a random bad return by the API. However, if it happens consistently, let me know. Thanks. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 01:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Odd things with usertalk indices

See this. ClueBot III moving around entries in User talk archive indices. IceUnshattered [ t ] 22:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Occasionally, the api call will fail and the bot will think the date on the article is 0000-00-00 00:00:00, which is obviously impossible and causes problems. Because the bot simply sorts the list by date, it reorders them. It usually fixes itself when it next tries to set it. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 01:51, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

A little annoyed

You just ruined a very complicated piece of a paragraph I was working on by "Clearing the Sandbox". Now I have to do it over again. Just to let you know. Toonami Reactor (talk) 23:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If the bot removed it, then it will still be in the sandbox history. If it was an edit conflict, it will still be in the box at the bottom. Nothing is ever lost on Wikipedia. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 01:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bot I in the template sandboxes

There has been vandalism reverting in the sandboxes. I don't see these are opted in nor do I think ClueBot is supposed to be reverting edits in the sandboxes as vandalism. Clark89 (talk) 05:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Update announcement

The announcement on User:ClueBot needs to be updated, it still links to the old method, and it looks like some people may be contributing to the old method without knowing the preferred new method exists. Clark89 (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2008 (UTC)