User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2015/May

Music of Serbia

Why have you undone my edits? Someone added things written in already existing pages, such as huge biography of one singer, or placed turbo folk in folk music when it has nothing to do with it --95.85.150.29 (talk) 17:00, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi. Please remember that ClueBot NG is a robot, not a human. If the bot has made a mistake, please report it here. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 18:35, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

ClueBot NG has a bug while reverting edits

ClueBot NG did not successfully revert a blanking edit a long time ago (August 2014). See this revision of the Sponge page and its previous revision. The section is still blanked. I don't know the reason why. It was supposed to add in the missing stuff. but it couldn't for some reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fazbear7891 (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The section "By humans" has been correctly reverted to include one image (the other image having been hidden by another editor) and a link to the main article. The section "Skeleton" has been correctly reverted to include a brief synopsis and a link to the main article. The section "Antibiotic Compounds" has been correctly reverted to include it's one line and it is currently showing. The section "Other Biologically Active Compounds" has been correctly reverted and is currently showing. "See Also" and "References" have also been correctly reverted and are showing in ClueBot NG's edit. What section are you meaning is blanked?--5 albert square (talk) 10:39, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

(Deleted reply)

What the heck?

Why am I blocked for reverting a fact? Eqqy (talk) 14:37, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

@Eqqy: You were not blocked at the time that you posted here: the mere fact that you were able to post here proved it. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

why did you delete kermit the frog!

why did you delete it was a good edit information Neynaro (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see how edits like this could be classed as constructive to an article about a character from The Muppets. It is completely unsourced and does not appear to be anything to do with The Muppets. Maybe you meant to post it on this page instead?--5 albert square (talk) 16:08, 4 May 2015 (UTC)

Birdman

Hi, I'm tlwendt2 and I made an edit to the Birdman(film) page. The edit I recently made about the plot was no attempt of vandalism, but I was wondering if you could tell me why Cluebot NG removed it immediately? Is there any reason why no specific person made an edit to it? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.126.255.191 (talk) 17:50, 4 May 2015

Hi. The bot reverted your edit because it thought the edit was unconstructive. The bot is fully automated and is not a human, and because of its complex programming even the developers aren't 100% sure why the bot may have reverted an edit sometimes. However, while your additions were not vandalism, they still did not seem to fit in with the article because none of the material added was properly sourced, which was probably why your second edit was later undone by a human editor. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 03:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

American Idol (series 6)

Hello,

I was just asking you why it says you metioned me in something. So, I viewed the changes, and I am new to wikipedia, so I didn't really know what it meant, but I saw American Idol (series 6). Yesterday, I did edit something on the page but I can't quite remember. Please let me know if I was vandalising or doing something wrong.

Thank You,

Nothard Nothard (talk) 23:23, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Nothard, welcome to Wikipedia!

Please note that ClueBot is a robot so therefore cannot respond to your query. ClueBot NG's function on Wikipedia is to revert what could be perceived as vandalism.

I can see that your edit was reverted by ClueBot, I'm guessing because part of it was in CAPS so would have come across as shouting to an anti-vandalism robot like ClueBot. However, not to worry as an administrator has realised that your edits were well-intentioned and has over-ruled ClueBot.--5 albert square (talk) 23:33, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Odd archiving error (?) from ClueBot III

Working on an unrelated matter, I stumbled across four talk pages that link to a deleted redirect. The links come from archive boxes which, as you'll see, are displaying a long list of redirects beginning with punctuation instead of actual archived talk pages. I don't see anything all four of these pages have in common besides ClueBot III archiving, though clearly this isn't happening with all of the pages it archives. A quick rundown of the four affected pages:

1. Talk:14th Army involvement in Transnistria – has one archive, /Archive 1. This archive was created 19 December 2013‎. It was initially named /Archives/ 1. Supposing the space was causing issues, I moved it to /Archives/1. This didn't seem to make a difference, so I moved it again to the more standard /Archive 1. I tried purging, viewing in another browser, and waiting a while, but the archive box on the main talk page is still corrupted. Since my attempts to fix the problem were unsuccessful, and may have made things worse, I haven't touched the following three pages.
2. Talk:Mark Shuttleworth – archives /Archives/2011 and /Archives/2012 were created 5 July 2014 and 10 March 2015, respectively.
3. Talk:Run Run Shaw – one archive, /Archives/2011, created 5 July 2014.
4. Talk:Russell Simmons – one archive, /Archives/2011, created 5 July 2014.

So, what to make of all this? Three of the five relevant archives were created on the same day and have the same (problematic?) syntax. The second Shuttleworth archive makes sense since it's probably just following the first. But the 14th Army page seems completely different, even before I may have mucked it up. --BDD (talk) 15:33, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Lil Rob

Hey, why did you delete my edit? it's a fact that lil rob was shot when he was 16, it said so in his debut album "crazy life." Ima fan of lil rob — Preceding unsigned comment added by M.P. (MasterPiece) (talk • contribs) 06:39, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

@M.P. (MasterPiece): Hello. Before we begin it is important to note that ClueBot NG is a robot and not a human. Secondly, your addition to the Lil Rob page was completely unsourced, and as a rule everything must be sourced reliably. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 11:49, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Plagiarism

Excuse me, but I noticed that Seraph of the End's contents in regards to its characters' descriptions is in violation of copyright. Pretty much all of them have word-for-word descriptions written by the series' main staff on their official anime website. Please see for yourself. This shouldn't be allowed, considering that the user(s) who copied and pasted those descriptions didn't so much as cite where they got it.--70.171.87.215 (talk) 03:31, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

I have tagged the page.--5 albert square (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this has anything to do with any of the ClueBots... --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 03:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Operate

Can I operate the bot just like you three are? Regards TeaLover1996 (talk) 21:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Do you have any sort of history/knowledge of bots? --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 03:40, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

No, but I am able to learn TeaLover1996 (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Since these two bots are some of the most important ones on Wikipedia, I would probably suggest you get experience elsewhere before you try maintaining the two ClueBots. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 16:59, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Can you give me help on how to do it please? Regards TeaLover1996 (talk) 18:17, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not have much bot operating experience and thus I cannot help you. I would suggest that, if you want to help operate the ClueBots, to invest your own time and energy into bot programming and maintenance elsewhere before making a request here. (Just like I'd frankly doubt people will want to seriously request adminship on Wikipedia if they don't know a thing about wikitext) --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 18:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Jumbo Jet

Hi there,

I just want to state that I, as a person interested in planes, wanted to change the redirect as a "Jumbo Jet" is a nickname that is referred only to the Boeing 747. Not all wide-body aircraft, such as the Boeing 787 or 777 or the Airbus A340 or A350 XWB would be referred to as "Jumbo", as they are single-deckers and most only have two jet engines. In addition, a "Superjumbo" would only refer to the Airbus A380. Please do not accuse me of vandalizing Wikipedia, as I have no intention of doing so and I never will.

Thanks 151.225.86.212 (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

As you've only made half a dozen edits under that IP address, you don't have much of a track record that would allow us to confirm your intentions. Please note the extended discussions at Talk:Jumbo jet. Contrary to what you say here, Jumbo Jet (the Proper Name) already redirects to the Boeing 747, and has since 7 September 2013 – though some editors think wide-body aircraft would be a better target. The time for being bold with jumbo jet (the generic term) has past. You should get a consensus for that first. – Wbm1058 (talk) 16:46, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Also... ClueBot NG is not a human -- it is a robot. On a similar note, wasn't the bot programmed not to revert page redirects? --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 22:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving not working on Jimbo's talk page

See User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Auto-archiving_seems_to_be_shut_down_on_this_page. Please can someone look into this?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 05:41, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

This issue is appearing on my talk page as well. Oddly though the bot seems to be able to archive other pages but for some reason it is ignoring us. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 11:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

@Rich Smith: @Cobi: @DamianZaremba: making you guys aware.--5 albert square (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think ClueBot III is even archiving this page now. Last archive I can find is the end of April.--5 albert square (talk) 22:57, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Heard from Rich and this is down to the WP:API changing again, generating a lot of PHP errors. Rich is looking into it, hopefully be resolved soon.--5 albert square (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks.

I feel sad that I can't use the "thank" button to thank ClueBot for reverting vandalism every day, as seen on my watchlist. bd2412 T 16:35, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

@BD2412: You can send your thanks to the bot by giving it some robot oil! --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 19:51, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Archiving not working on WP:BLPN

See WP:BLPN. --82.113.99.250 (talk) 07:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not seeing anything there regarding ClueBot III, however I do know that the WP:API has changed recently which I think has thrown up some PHP errors for ClueBot III. I presume that the two may be related. Rich has already been notified by me and I believe that Cobi is working on it.--5 albert square (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

False positive

Adding context and alternative theories by accomplished authors I wouldn't consider "vandalism" but, as you wish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnneAnneAnne1485 (talk • contribs) 21:59, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like you bumped into a false positive. Did you know reporting these helps ClueBot to not make the same mistake again? So, why not report a false positive at the Report Interface – it's really easy to do! Thank you. --5 albert square (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Whitespace...

Question: Why does Cluebot NG make two line breaks at the top of a talk page when creating it? See this and this, lifted from CB's recent contributions. Eman235/talk 15:12, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The bot probably isn't using &action=edit&section=new because when that is used on a non-existent page, there are no blank lines above the heading. So, I'm guessing that it uses &action=edit and adds two newlines below the bottom of the page before placing the section heading. If the page already has content, this is OK, since that is what &section=new does; but if the page is empty, there isn't any prior content, so apparently the bot doesn't notice that the page is empty, but still adds the two newlines. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:41, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

The bot uses the api. It fetches the existing content, appends two newlines, and substs the warning template with the appropriate arguments, then uses the api to commit a new revision to the page. 2607:FB90:2707:3AAD:799D:5507:9D9C:A5DA (talk) 16:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Is there a way to prevent this from happening? Eman235/talk 16:59, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it really a bother? --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 22:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

It is, for me. I guess I have chronic whitespace-itis, but it would be nice anyway. Eman235/talk 14:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

User:ClueBot III archiving again

Good to hear that ClueBot III is now working correctly -- it just archived my talk page for the first time in weeks. --I am k6ka ^{Talk to me!} _{See what I have done} 22:27, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

@K6ka: Yes, I thought that might please you :)--5 albert square (talk) 19:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

sorry

sorry. nowone was editing that and i wanted more info. 2601:C:8B00:A42C:C155:45C8:16A0:D51C (talk) 23:02, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Greetz!

Err- sorry to bother you- would it be possible for someone to take a look at my TP and check the archiving? The box looks (massively!) weird, and I can't seem to find any of the actual archives... dunno wot I dun cheers, all the best! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 09:13, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi: If you mean "why did every thread get archived", the answer is that none of the threads on your talk page had changed in over 24 hours. The 24-hour limit was set by yourself in this edit. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:11, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks @Redrose64:, but not really; I know they're set to archive- but where to, I wondered. Also the box itself is phenomenally long and full of odd links. Thanks for answer anyway. _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

The edit summary of the last archiving edit includes a link to User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi/Archives/2015/May, so that's where they went to. The box is phenomonally long because those are the pages matching whatever regex is used by the part of {{User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} that generates the box. These are obviously not subpages of your talk page, since there are only four of those - they're apparently articles in mainspace. My guess is that the error is in that |archiveprefix= parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks very much @Redrose64:, didn't notice the link! Any idea how to sort that parameter, by any chance...? _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 10:40, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I see what you mean- as the bot page says, "not setting this parameter correctly can have some strange results"!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi (talk • contribs) 10:49, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

OK. I removed the

|archiveprefix={{subst:User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi
Jump to: navigation, search }}/Archives/

and in its place I put

|archiveprefix={{subst:FULLPAGENAME}}/Archives/

which was copied verbatim from User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis. Upon saving this has become

|archiveprefix=User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi/Archives/

After also carrying out this revert, it now appears to work. Keep an eye on User:ClueBot III/Indices/User talk:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi and if it gets bigger by more than one row each month, revert the bot and notify its operators. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Great stuff! Many thanks for your assistance. Take care! _Fortuna ^{Imperatrix Mundi} 14:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

strange archiving problems

The problem:

I just noticed ClueBot has been archiving the Wikipedia:Education noticeboard to a redirected archive page. I recently moved the archives from ArchiveX to Archive_X amid fixing other problems with the noticeboard headers and archiving, but perhaps it was a mistake not to CSD the redirects. I'd rather not do that unless I'm sure it'll fix it, and there's a really weird variable that makes me particularly hesitant to take further action without guidance: I have no idea why it's archiving to Archive6, the redirect to Archive_6. There are redirects for Archive1 through Archive9 as well as the live archives at Archive_1 through Archive_9. So why this one in the middle?

Help/advice would be appreciated. I've commented out the Cluebot code for now. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It is archiving to the redirect page because it is configured to do so. It's configured to archive to /Archive%%i where %%i starts at 6 and only goes up when the previous page is >150,000 bytes. The page /Archive6 was only 71 bytes (now after ClueBot III has archived a bit there, it is about 60,000 bytes, but still not >150,000 bytes), so it continues to archive there. Solution: Add a space so it is |format= %%i instead of |format=%%i. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 14:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

@Cobi: While it's embarrassing that I overlooked the numberstart parameter that was there (or, more likely, thought it was something like "minimum number of threads to archive"), my mind is a little bit blown by the idea that the space after the equals sign matters for some parameters. Thanks very much for your help! --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:24, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Suggestions for improving ClueBot NG

I have a few suggestions that I think would be nice for ClueBot NG: detecting blatant advertising interrupting the flow of a paragraph more often, adding Level 4 warnings if more than 4 ClueBot NG warnings per month or more than 10 ClueBot NG warnings in total. ClueBot NG is a great robot, although I could do with some suggestions that you might think is a good idea. Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

I like that Cluebot does the 4 warning sequence reliably; it makes the decision to block a lot more simple once the report is made to AIV. While there are some circumstances that justify skipping warning levels, for routine vandalism, even if its from the same IP as previous vandalism, going through the full warning process helps make sure we don't accidentally block good faith editors. Monty₈₄₅ 04:14, 31 May 2015 (UTC)