User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2012/December

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

An apparent piece of vandalism, manually caught: a query or two

You may be interested in this one. Main question, curiousity plus: Would ClueBotNG have "caught" the word "poon" as a "positive"? (It was up only an hour and a half or so.) It's the word that gave me considerable confidence the edit was, despite considerable sophistication, vandalism. I'm feeling my way here, am sort of stunned I came up with "ClueBot" out of my head, do think I'm in one right place to keep on this one a ways. Guess that'll do it for now. I'll check back here. Cheers. Thanks. Swliv (talk) 05:12, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe overdoing it but wanting to cover the bases -- and if you'd like/be willing to review a first effort on my part to respond to suspected vandalism -- I've now addressed this here (to the suspect), here (to the editor who removed the suspected vandalism but who didn't call it vandalism) and here (to another editor on the page and the section who left the section in). Any comments welcome. Thanks again. Swliv (talk) 06:13, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Why ..

.. this [1]? It was a long time ago and I've only just come across it, but it's puzzling. Philip Trueman (talk) 14:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


What the hell is the point of this?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:42, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

To keep your inappropriate edits out of our encyclopedia. DMacks (talk) 20:26, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
All of our encyclo., right, IP number editors of good faith included, right? :-) ... Well, having seen the edit in question, I have to add good faith was certainly apparently lacking. Any way a constructive relationship can be nurtured? I'll have to leave that as an open question in this drive-by pot shot. I'm open to discussion. Cheers. Swliv (talk) 04:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Bot flagged?

Some Cluebot edits have shown up on my watchlist, that don't appear to have a bot flag, so they show up when I hide bot edits (eg [2]. Is something not set correctly? Thanks --Tony Wills (talk) 08:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

As I understand it, this is intentional for all anti-vandal bots, not just ClueBot NG. There is a more detailed explanation here. – Wdchk (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. Yes, I thought (after having posted the question), that hiding the bot edits would be counter productive as then I'd just see the vandalism edits and have to check each one out as it wouldn't be immediately apparent that they'd been dealt to. (I don't normally use the hide bot edits option so was suprised to see it didn't hide them all). --Tony Wills (talk) 11:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Smashed Gladys Sally Cato

you just sent me a message about an edit and it didn't make any sense. Contact me right away. SallySallyCato 14:32, 1 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sallycato (talkcontribs)

I assume you are referring to this revert by ClueBot NG of an edit you made to the article Sally Cato. ClueBot NG is a bot that has been trained to recognize and undo unconstructive edits. In this case, a human might have determined that your edit was well intentioned, but the bot saw characteristics of an unconstructive edit. Often, when an editor inserts commentary into an article, it is not meant in a constructive way. To avoid misunderstandings, such comments should be made on the article's talk page. If you wish, you are welcome to report a false positive. – Wdchk (talk) 21:43, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for monitoring the best bots on Wikipedia! You have been a great help to everybody in the WikiCommunity! Make a bot to give WikiLove! Hug da panda. DPandaOPande (talk) 22:29, 5 December 2012 (UTC)DPandaOPande

A barnstar for you!


Clue Bot 3 placing a copy of a talk page section into an archive but not removing the original

Howdy. In the not so distant past, and more recently, Clue Bot 3 appears to be copying talk page sections into my archive but not removing the original posts. Also on a possibly related note, it appears to have duplicated posts in my archive. I've removed some of the duplicates in my archive. Do you know why either of these might be occurring?--Rockfang (talk) 17:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Engaging Cluebot to revert oft-reverted IP edits?

Proposed new behavior:

Start auto-reverting edits from a particular IP address after that IP has been reverted for vandalism manually three times in a row, with no intervening kept edits. This could, by normal manual reverting, stem attacks like: WT:WikiProject_Film#Our_Brazilian_sock_master_is_back_at_it.

Has this already been proposed? Is there already such a Cluebot training widget available? Would it (like Twinkle) revert, warn, and add the IP to a (new) CluebotNG rviplist? Or Category? --Lexein (talk) 19:20, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

No. ClueBot reverts what it believes to be vandalism based on the specific edit in question. It does not blindly revert all edits from tagged IP addresses. If an IP address is being disruptive enough for that, then it should be blocked, not auto-reverted in every case. Look at WP:AIV. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 18:36, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Section heading duplication

I've noticed that sometimes when ClueBot places warnings on the talk pages of users, it will insert a section heading (e.g., December 2012) even if it already exists, unless ClueBot put it there in the first place and is giving a second warning to the same user. I can give some examples if that would help. I suspect this is an error.PStrait (talk) 01:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Here is an example of this: PStrait (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
ClueBot just subst's the appropriately leveled template out of these at the bottom of the page:
  1. User:ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal1
  2. User:ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal2
  3. User:ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal3
  4. User:ClueBot NG/Warnings/Vandal4
Basically, if it detects that there has been a level 1 warning in the last two days, it will use a level 2, if it detects a level 2 in the last two days, it will use a level 3, etc. If it doesn't detect a warning at all in the last two days, it uses a level 1.
If it is adding the header incorrectly -- I believe someone added that to Vandal1 -- you can go in and fix it. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 18:42, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
No, it is adding the header incorrectly. It does it every time, without fail, whenever there is already a header, as long as it didn't put it there, it creates a new one. I've seen it do it dozens of times. I can remove them when I see them, but that doesn't seem like the optimal solution.PStrait (talk) 05:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
Wait, I see what you are saying now. I assumed ClueBot had an algorithm that was like "if no header, put header" that was not working properly...PStrait (talk) 05:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Bboisno

User talk:Bboisno, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Bboisno and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Bboisno during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. j⚛e deckertalk 04:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Changes marked "minor"?

This isn't in the FAQ, so I thought I'd bring it up here. I noticed that ClueBot is marking changes "minor" ("m") instead of "bot" ("b") in the version history. Is this the behavior you want? If so, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sangrolu (talkcontribs) 15:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

User:ClueBot NG/FAQ#Why don't ClueBot NG's edits show up as bot edits? explains why they are not marked with the bot flag. I'm assuming that the minor flag is being used just like any other vandalism revert done by a human. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs[Merry Christmas!] 16:11, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Makes sense. Thanks. - Sangrolu (talk) 13:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Help For Newbie Please

I am a panda, and naturally don't know much about bots and programing. I want to figure out how to make a bot, so I wanted to get advice from the best. I want to help Wikipedia by making bots, because I have sudden urges to vandalize if I go editing (yes, I admit it). I think I would be more productive if I do bots instead. --DPandaOPande (talk) 20:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)DPandaOPande

Hello Panda, and thank you for your interest. Normally we don't discuss bots in general here, just the ClueBots specifically. However, you will find a lot of information by reading the Overview of bots and all of the articles linked from it. Writing a new bot may require significant programming ability (WP:MAKEBOT). Prospective bot operators should be editors in good standing, with demonstrable experience in the kind of tasks the bot proposes to do (WP:BOTAPPROVAL). – Wdchk (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
If you're insterested in making programs (such as software or games) in general though, I recommend you learn C++. (If you want a beginner language first though, try Lua or BASIC. They're MUCH easier to learn, in my opinion, and even with just them you can make a lot of cool things.) :) Michaelm55 (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't believe this has already been brought up here - according to this VPT thread, the registration on has expired. I imagine that this might be the cause of some concern? (Though, as I noted there, I have full faith in CBNG to run flawlessly for months on its own, unless you guys have to update the heuristics or whatever they're called a lot more frequently than I think.) — Francophonie&Androphilie(Je vous invite à me parler) 18:33, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems it expired yesterday... looking into it... - Damian Zaremba (talkcontribs) 18:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Always level1 vandalism?

I haven't been able to understand why it keeps using the level 1 vandalism warning on IP talk pages such as User talk: Is this a bug, or is it intended? (or is it a feature? :P) Michaelm55 (talk) 14:44, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's definitely not a bug looking at the IP talk page. When warnings are issued they are normally only good for 24, maybe 48, hours. After that the warning process must start from scratch again. Looking at the IP talk page there was more than 24-48 hours between warnings each time ClueBot re-started the process. In this case the bot is completely correct.--5 albert square (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Yeah it's intentional. Cluebot resets to issuing level 1 warnings if there is no warning issued within the last 24 hours or something. I'm not sure of the exact rule. The rationale behind it is that IP's can quickly change from one user to another and we could be warning different individuals for each unconstructive edit. This has been brought up many times here and I have complained several times myself. Hopefully admins take all this into consideration when it comes time to block. In theory a vandal could use the following procedure to evade blocks:
They could happily vandalize pages in any way until they reach warning level 4. Wait a couple days and make an edit that is so blatant that it is sure to trip a Cluebot revert. This will reset their warning level at 1. Continue freely vandalizing until they reach level 4 again, wait a couple days and repeat.
Personally my feelings are: We are far too lenient on vandals in general. Cluebot's warnings should not reset until after 30 days at least. If the worst case scenario is we block a repeatedly disruptive IP after the individual happens to vandalize Wikipedia just one time, then GOOD! --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 22:20, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Not so false positive, but

[3] - first word I started wasn't in right place, thanks for message on user talk.--Хьюберт Фарнсворт (talk) 13:26, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot is a Wikipedia robot, not a person, therefore cannot respond to messages, cannot edit pages and cannot read citations that you put on pages.
I don't think that's why ClueBot reverted your edit, I think it's because you swore. Like I say ClueBot cannot check citations so ClueBot wouldn't see that the word you put has been verified. It would only see the word, and because you're a new editor and that word will be on its list of words to avoid, it has reverted you. I will have a look at the edit and see if I can put it back.--5 albert square (talk) 21:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
OK, I don't see any problems with the edit so I've put it back in the article for you. As the edits were not vandalism I've also removed the warnings from your talk page. Any questions, don't hesitate to ask.--5 albert square (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I understood, thank you for your time. --Хьюберт Фарнсворт (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


Could somebody take a look at my archive and tell me why it's filled with a bunch of garbage from articles I've never even worked on? It appears to be totally broken. Thanx.--Sue Rangell 04:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

  • It appears that an elf came by and fixed it. THANK YOU! :) --Sue Rangell 23:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

BWV 1083

This edit was not exactly vandalism. Someone added the text. That is not wanted, so the bot result is correct, but no vandalism, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:46, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I made a legitimate edit and ClueBot NG blocked me!!!

I wrote a legitimate edit on footballer "Joe Mason" and ClueBot NG blocked me which is a complete joke as my edit contained valuable information about "Joe Mason". This thing blocks legitimate edits and can Wikipedia please get rid of this automated piece of rubbish!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomage (talkcontribs) 19:56, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Please sign your posts, and your talk page is very interesting. --Sue Rangell 23:18, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
Sue, have a look at the rant on mine... Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 00:16, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Wow, that' I really don't know what to say. Cluebot is arguably the most useful bot on Wikipedia. If there is an issue, why not explain exactly what is going on, providing page diffs, etc.? I have never been one to relate this sort of behavior. I understand it, because it's my training, but I have never FELT it. I suppose I am simply not wired up that way. Merry Christmas (to you too Boomage!) :) --Sue Rangell 02:21, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
Also, the bot cannot block you -- it does not have the technical permission. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 12:26, 27 December 2012 (UTC)
Let's not get picky, people. The original poster (Boomage (talk · contribs)) was complaining about how this edit was reverted by ClueBot NG. Boomage, a bit of Wikipedia terminology: when a change to an article is undone (either automatically or by hand), that is called "reverting". To "block" someone is to shut down their account (sometimes temporarily, sometimes indefinitely, depending on the circumstances) so that they can't edit anything. You weren't blocked — your edit was reverted. In this case, I'm going to guess that ClueBot NG (a "bot" is a program) looked at your edit, saw "He is known for his hard ...", and mechanically assumed it was a rude comment that didn't belong. This is what we call a "false positive", and I'll report it to the maintainers of the bot. In the meantime, try doing your same edit again — or, to do even better, write it correctly by using a hyphen (i.e., "He is known for his hard-working attitude.") It would be even better still, BTW, to include a citation to a reliable source that substantiates this claim; see WP:CITE and WP:IC for more discussion about citing sources, and WP:RS for more about what sorts of sources are considered acceptable here. If this were a contentious statement, our policy on biographies of living people would demand that it must be backed up by a reliable source right from the start; that may not strictly apply here, but be aware that if anyone objects to this new material, it can be removed unless a good source is supplied without delay. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 19:02, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Aint No Other Man

Did not remove anything, just put short sentences together. --Froxxen (talk) 13:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Froxxen, I had a look, and part of your edit indeed fixed an inaccuracy in the quote, but I don't think you noticed that you repeated an entire sentence? That's probably what tripped ClueBot's wire. So I've gone ahead and fixed that. Remember, as it says in the message on your talkpage, you can always report a false positive; they do happen. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:51, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Fire alarm system

I added some information in this article. EN 54 is the European Standard for Fire detection and fire alarm systems and it should be in this article because it is a mandatory standard in the European Union.

this article has only wrote about NFPA standard and EN 54 must be named too.

I add some reference as and where you could find information about EN 54 standard.--Masanalv (talk) 23:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. This page is for comments on, or questions about, the ClueBots. Is there anything related to those bots that we can help you with? (It doesn't seem that any of your edits have been reverted by ClueBot NG.) – Wdchk (talk) 01:06, 30 December 2012 (UTC)