Jump to content

User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2009/January

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


ClueBot III and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content

ClueBot III is improperly archiving discussions from Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. It is creating new archives at pages such as Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/PMWed, 17 Dec 2008 18:14:30 +00002008-12-17T18:14:30+00:000614vUTC 39 and Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/PMWed, 17 Dec 2008 22:14:44 +00002008-12-17T22:14:44+00:001014vUTC 39 rather than following the naming convention of Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive #, and is not linking to the archives at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/archive toc. Furthermore, it archived a discussion with an unresolved tag and an active RFC to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/AMThu, 18 Dec 2008 06:15:11 +00002008-12-18T06:15:11+00:000615vUTC 39. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:23, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Notice of request for deletion of editor ClueBot :)

ClueBot, the editor you are, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that you satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space. Your opinions on yourself are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at User:GlassCobra/Editor for deletion#ClueBot and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit during the discussion but should not remove the nomination (unless you wish not to participate); such removal will not end the deletion discussion (actually it will). Thank you, and have a good sense of humor :). iMatthew // talk // 20:13, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

L M A d Bourbon

hello..i fail to see hhow the redirect was vandelism?! she was born as Bourbon, not with th ducal title of her father added at the end i will revert back having explained myself :) 86.144.72.187 (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Cluebot Problems

Your bot reverted an edit I did just now. Thinking it was an honest mistake, I clicked the link to report the error, but the bot's server is broken and I was not able to address the problem. Please fix this posthaste please. 71.199.182.102 (talk) 04:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

About number of edits

Hello, I'm Ali Said who wanted to change the user name To Ali Saeed. You have checked my number of edits in en wikipedia and you foun them 3, but I'm usually using ar wikipedia and commons. You can check this throw this link http://toolserver.org/~vvv/sulutil.php?user=Ali+Said

Thanks for you effort Ali Said (talk) 22:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

ClueBot is a bot. It's not much use telling the bot this. It's not really a bug since the bot is intended to check the En edit history only. Instead you should note it on your request which I now have Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cluebot VI problem with archiving Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations

The bot is archiving Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations to the wrong place, more specifically it's started adding stuff to Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations/Completed/1 again and has been since November [1]. The latest archive is Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations/Completed/12 but has had stuff added to it since early November (since it's all going to /1). I could move the archives to number 12 myself but I can't work out how to fix the bot, is the memory internal? Nil Einne (talk) 12:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC) P.S. I've looked through the other CU archives and they seem fine Nil Einne (talk) 12:20, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Papyrus

Article Papyrus was vandalised several times. Perhaps it needs semiprotection. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP would be the place to go. Icy // ♫ 00:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL

LOL is not an obscenity!!! LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.96.249 (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

How in any way would it be something beneficial to an image description? I'm sure this is very helpful, Mr./Ms. IP. Icy // ♫ 20:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the point of ClueBot IV?

I see numerous reports from ClueBot IV at Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies, all reporting a negative result for IP addresses that actually turn out to be open proxies anyway. What's the point of this? A negative result clearly means "I don't know" in this case. If the ClueBot doesn't know, then don't post a result. With so many false reports, I'd say disable this bot. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Update: it would be useful if ClueBot would perform a simple poll of toolserver.org's TOR node checker (example, http://toolserver.org/~krimpet/torcheck.php?ip=219.246.35.20). Then all these erroneous ClueBot reports may actually have some value. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
It already checks tor.dnsbl.sectoor.de and tor.ahbl.org, it just doesn't call it an open proxy if those return positive, as Tor != open proxy. Calvin 1998 (t·c) 02:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

usurpation

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} I'm attempting to merge two usernames I hold into only one (Charly3360) because I got a message saying that I can't have two usernames due to wiki rules. But its being rejected because both usernames have edits done. Also I prefer not to use my name but a generic one. How can this be done????

I got this today as answer:

Ccordoba → Charly3360 

   * Current username: Ccordoba (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
   * Target username: Charly3360 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
   * Datestamp: 17:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
   * For bureaucrat use: Email target username   (1)  (2)
     Charly60 17:43, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Reason: Have two usernames and need to merge into one only as per wiki rules to avoid blocks. 

   Note:

       * The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Users with GFDL significant edits may not be usurped.
       * This user was created less than 6 months ago, such usernames may not be usurped. You can file another request when the username is older than 6 months.
       * User has 15 undeleted edits, 0 deleted edits, and 15 total edits. Requesting user has 64 edits. ClueBot VI (talk) 17:45, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

==

{{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow}} Before this, today, I got this message:

"Hello

Just wanted to make you aware of Wikipedia's policy regarding having more than one editing account, since you use both this one and User:Ccordoba. Please review Wikipedia:Sock puppetry to ensure that you are in compliance so none of your accounts are blocked. If you simply don't like your username, you should change it. Best regards. --Eustress (talk) 15:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)"

How can this problem be fixed??????

Charly3360 (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)



CCordoba → Charly3360 

   * Current username: CCordoba (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
   * Target username: Charly3360 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
   * Datestamp: 17:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
   * For bureaucrat use: Email target username   (1)  (2)
     Charly60 17:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


REASONS: I own both usernames and wish to merge them into one only: Charly3360, the more generic name. I was warned that I can't have two usernames as per wiki, so I need to have this problem fix asap to avoid been blocked. 

   Note:

       * The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Users with GFDL significant edits may not be usurped.
       * This user was created less than 6 months ago, such usernames may not be usurped. You can file another request when the username is older than 6 months.
       * User has 17 undeleted edits, 0 deleted edits, and 17 total edits. Requesting user has edits. ClueBot VI (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
============

How can this be fixed then???? Since I own both usernames?????

============

Charly3360 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


CCordoba → Charly3360 

  * Current username: CCordoba (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
  * Target username: Charly3360 (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)
  * Datestamp: 17:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
  * For bureaucrat use: Email target username   (1)  (2)
    Charly60 17:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


REASONS: I own both usernames and wish to merge them into one only: Charly3360, the more generic name. I was warned that I can't have two usernames as per wiki, so I need to have this problem fix asap to avoid been blocked. 

  Note:

      * The target username has made edits to Wikipedia. Users with GFDL significant edits may not be usurped.
      * This user was created less than 6 months ago, such usernames may not be usurped. You can file another request when the username is older than 6 months.
      * User has 17 undeleted edits, 0 deleted edits, and 17 total edits. Requesting user has edits. ClueBot VI (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] ============

How can this be fixed then???? Since I own both usernames?????

[edit] ============

Charly60 18:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Charly60 18:10, 16 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccordoba (talk • contribs)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Ccordoba (talk • contribs) Actually I signed but logged into the other username but it came up as Charly60???

Charly60 18:15, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure hwo this has to do with ClueBot. It sounds like you're having trouble changing your username ...could you clarify on how ClueBot is involved with this? Icy // ♫ 20:52, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

WHY!

Why do you change my edits. I don't appericate what you do. It makes me angry. --Ho2 (talk) 00:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh? Are you reporting a bot mistake? Mistakes by ClueBot are to be reported at User:ClueBot/FalsePositives. Icy // ♫ 20:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot falsely claiming a revert

Here [2], the bot claims to have reverted a vandal's edit, yet the bot did no such thing, I reverted it. DuncanHill (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

There's been discussion about this before, as explained by Cobi. Both of us (and some others, too) think that it was an edit conflict; when ClueBot's rollback says that it was successful, it warns the user. SchfiftyThree (talk!) 16:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


I left this on the new usernames page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

User:Nondiscript22 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Request for Usurpation

Hello, Nondiscript22. A request has been made at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations to usurp, or "take over", your username because you have not used it to edit, and another user would like to use it to edit. Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations says that any unused username may be usurped if the user is given seven days notice to object and does not do so.

If you have an email set in your preferences, you should be getting an email from a bureaucrat or changing username clerk explaining how to consent or object to this process.

If you do not object to being renamed to a new username in order for another user to utilize the name you currently have, please log in and post a reply here saying so (you may also tell us what username you would like to be renamed to, or we will provide you with a generic one).

If you do nothing: the request will be filled after seven days, and your account will be moved to a generic username. You may request that it be moved to a new username of your choice at any time.

If you object to being renamed: please log in and make an edit to this page clearly stating that you object to usurpation.

Please note that even if your current username is usurped, you can still edit and your data will not be lost; your preferences, watchlist, and other user settings will be transferred to a new username.

Thank you for your time. Charly60 18:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


[edit] OK for Usurpation

do not object to being renamed

= In case you didn't see it yet!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! == you are far too pedantic!!!!!!!!!!!!!

User:Nondiscript22 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search

[edit] Request for Usurpation

Hello, Nondiscript22. A request has been made at Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations to usurp, or "take over", your username because you have not used it to edit, and another user would like to use it to edit. Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations says that any unused username may be usurped if the user is given seven days notice to object and does not do so.

If you have an email set in your preferences, you should be getting an email from a bureaucrat or changing username clerk explaining how to consent or object to this process.

If you do not object to being renamed to a new username in order for another user to utilize the name you currently have, please log in and post a reply here saying so (you may also tell us what username you would like to be renamed to, or we will provide you with a generic one).

If you do nothing: the request will be filled after seven days, and your account will be moved to a generic username. You may request that it be moved to a new username of your choice at any time.

If you object to being renamed: please log in and make an edit to this page clearly stating that you object to usurpation.

Please note that even if your current username is usurped, you can still edit and your data will not be lost; your preferences, watchlist, and other user settings will be transferred to a new username.

Thank you for your time. Charly60 18:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


[edit] OK for Usurpation

do not object to being renamed

Use for resolved a day ago

Is it possible to use you (sounds funny, but how else to address a bot on its talk page?) for archiving only sections that are marked "{{resolved|timestamp}}", with timestamp < now - 24h? (A much minor question is if it can look only at active resolved templates, and disregard <nowiki>{{resolved|20:05, 17 January 2009 (UTC)}}</nowiki>). — Sebastian 20:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

FYI

Just in case you haven't seen this. - Hordaland (talk) 20:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Rustom Padilla

Reliable sourcing

A reliable source is one that is skeptical. Hence, I am removing all proponent sources to make the wikipedia article on parapsychology truly balanced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skeptic24 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about the page balnk but i don't know how to delete a page and if you read it it is all nonsense a fan boy/girl write about their being a comeback. 86.132.10.73 (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiousity

What does ClueBot consider to be "profanity"? (For the record, I intended to promptly revert that edit for giant beaver, which I consider to be a funny name for an animal due to the double entendre with slang for, well, a woman's private parts.) 204.52.215.107 (talk) 07:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Stop the madness!

You need to shut off your bot until, at a minimum, you fix the "false positives" feature which apparently has not been working for at least ten days, and is still not working today. I tried to report a false positive for ClueBot edit 537489, and find I can neither use the false positive reporting function, nor even edit the the text on that page to submit the report manually (which quite a few others have done since it has been broken.)

Frankly, I am skeptical of the whole idea of ClueBot. It is simply too difficult to program a bot to make intelligent decisions in cases like these, and too easy for real vandals to probe its rule set and then come up with techniques that either avoid it, or worse, cause ClueBot to actually protect the vandalism! That is what has happened in this case; I reverted vandalism that consisted of repeatedly copy-and-pasting the same chunk of text into the article. When I reverted it, ClueBot interpreted this as a large text deletion, and restored the vandalism! To a human it would have been instantly obvious that I was doing the right thing, but not to a bot, apparently, which is now helping the vandals. So I strongly suspect that an anti-vandal bot should first show a diff to human eyes, and ask if it can revert.

Frankly, crude vandalism like page blanking is not dangerous because it is trivial to detect and restore. For serious vandalism -- subtly corrupting the accuracy of articles over a period of time, inserting nonsense facts and so on -- a bot is totally useless. -- 203.20.101.203 (talk) 00:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unable to report false positive

Hi,

I'm pretty new to editing, but I recently tried to edit Conficker by giving a real translation for ficker (German verb meaning fuck) in place of the phrase "obscenity." Even with the "Other ways to reference strong language in an encyclopedic manner" section in Wikipedia:Profanity, I felt that the previous inclusion by another user of a name origin section on the Conficker page warranted a full explanation of the name. I checked the discussion page, saw that others agreed with me, and made the change per Wikipedia:Bold. ClueBot reverted the change immediately, leaving a comment on my user page. I tried to report what I think is a false positive (you may disagree and, as I have no stake in the article, I will not debate this further if you decide the word "ficker" should not be translated), but the link didn't work, and this is the only relevant discussion page to which I could add a section.

The report ID is 537747. Thank you in advance for your help, and my sincerest apologies if I have posted this in the wrong place (like I said, it's the only place I could find that I was able to edit).

68.181.234.4 (talk) 01:51, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate section headers

I notice that ClueBot frequently inserts duplicate section headers on users' talk pages, e.g. January 2009 where there is already a section January 2009. This makes it less obvious how many vandalism warnings have been given to the user during the current month. Would it be possible to update the bot to avoid inserting such duplicate headers? David Biddulph (talk) 09:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It is wrong in everything it does and should be shut down!

SHUT IT DOWN!----Dereck head...you know that guy who say's he's going hell? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.21.105.72 (talk) 21:38, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

=I have a problem

Cluebot, I have noticed that you have been seeing the same problem, but somebody in the "List of United States inventions and doscoveries page" is vandalizing the entire article. This person is a big troublemaker. Luckily I have reverted the page back to it's former look. But is there anything we can do to get their ISP address blocked? Here is their number.... 78.144.227.243

Let me know. --Yoganate79 (talk) 17:52, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello

Your programming does not follow WP:BRRR and you must update it to meet that programing or you will be shut off! AndyBot (talk) 22:37, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot problem - not doing what it says it's doing...

This edit is not "removing redlinks", but re-adding back old problems that have since been fixed (and in fact, adding back some redlinks). Somno (talk) 13:31, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:ClueBot III blocked

The bot keeps apparently malfunctioning at WP:AN. See here and here. Please fix. Thanks! --MZMcBride (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

How can ClueBot keep an eye on specific pages?

I watch (but rarely add content to) the pages point of sale and hospitality point of sale systems. These two are both subject to vandalism. Primarily, ip vandals will add hyperlinks to some POS startup or other non-notable company. While it's fine that I see these errors and revert them, I know that ClueBot will probably do a better (and faster!) job of maintaining those articles. How can I get ClueBot or another bot to keep an eye on those types of changes for those articles?? Thank you. Timneu22 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

ClueBot watches every page in the 'ped by monitoring recent changes. It will revert vandalism on those pages you mentioned if and only if the vandalism matches one of its filters. As you can see it reverted some vandalism from point of sale back in March '08. –xeno (talk) 20:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I see it made that revert, but I guess I was wondering specifically about hyperlinks being added to those pages. Usually the edit is under 50 characters -- does ClueBot (or another bot) check for these things? Timneu22 (talk) 20:55, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Unless it matches one of ClueBot's filters, it won't be reverted. if it's a spam link that is consistently being added you could try User:XLinkBot. –xeno (talk) 02:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about sports in Latvia

it was a big mistake, I prepare that article that you thinked vandalizes to merge it into Sports on the Latvia article, but you anticipate Im Latvian. AlJoseph (talk) 13:38, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Running the bot in the Hebrew Wikipedia

Hi, I'm Barak, an Administrator at the Hebrew Wikipedia. Is it possible to import the bot to our Wikipedia? What exactly is required? I would appreciate any kind of help. Thanks, Barak Sh (talk) 17:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Changed the typing in Jazz and Jackie

Sorry, the purpose of the change to the text, and I specifically indicated to change the text back, was to instruct students that a website that may be altered cannot be used as a reference in a research paper. I will make sure the website will not be altered further by the students. Appologies again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.198.217.85 (talk) 19:27, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Shutoff Button

Is the button real? And if it is, is it wise to keep it in the open?--Iner22 (talk) 22:54, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

It requires you to be an admin (it is a shortcut to the "Block User" page). -- Cobi(t|c|b) 21:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

images in vandalism warnings

I've been noticing lately, when somebody gets a vandalism warning from ClueBot for an image description page (something under "File:...") the image ends up being inlined within their user talk page. Which can be kind of disruptive. For an example of this, see [3]. It looks like the message refers to the page twice; once as ":File:..." (which prevents the inlining) and once as "File:..." (which doesn't). -- Why Not A Duck 21:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Problematic edits to User:ClueBot III/Indices/User talk:Download

(related to the archive bot, not the anti-vandalism one) Something went arwy here—do you know what the sequence of articles is and why ClueBot is generating it? User:Download was recently renamed, which might have something to do with it; it's quite a fluke, anyway. GracenotesT § 01:49, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Citing

On all the asteroid stubs which have been created recently, there have been "cite errors" as the bot does not add a "reflist" under a references section. is there any chance you could change this as manually editing it takes time? Beefstu (talk) 10:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2009/January&oldid=1142936450"