![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
let me join Kairan tumaquin ( talk) 13:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC) |
(When someone logs into the ClueBot Commons account, they are gonna have a CRAPLOAD of messages to read :P )
After this message was added here (which was added twice, but the second edit with that was not tagged with "repeating characters") I'm thinking that someone should edit every one of the ClueBots' code to also put a giant warning that is clearly visible saying "THIS IS A MESSAGE FROM A AUTOMATED BOT. THIS BOT IS NOT A HUMAN." with much, much, MUCH emphasis on the word "NOT".
(P.s. As if this isn't very obvious, I am really just posting this here as a joke. Though I would kind of be surprised if it actually was done) LikeLakers2 ( talk) 21:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Let me edit man-- Furymaster ( talk) 04:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Could you add to the bot the pattern vandalism that has occurred on Peter Cetera, Lillian Too, Jack Colvin, Philip Oakey, and Tharman Shanmugaratnam, all from IPs begining with 60 or 175? I have some filters in place, but they don't seem to be working consistently. Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 13:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
IP range | Article | Ignore 3RR |
---|---|---|
205.189.25.0/24 | George W Bush | yes |
207.189.25.0/24 | no | |
Barack Obama | no |
False Positive: 569432
(And your report page sucks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.53.181 ( talk) 23:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious - why did ClueBot revert my warning at IP194.80.20.151 (talk) at 10:34 today? Denisarona ( talk) 12:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The report page gives me a 403 error, so I'll just dump a report ID here: 578293 ∫eb²+1( talk) 09:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
On this page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories&action=history) today the bot made a false positive. What happened is I had clicked the Edit button for one section of the article, but the html that was included on the edit page also included the code for the section which followed that one. It looked odd, and when I saved my edits the result was that that second section appeared twice in the article, in succession. I then did a second edit by removing the duplicate (the one that had appeared on my edit page). That is what triggered the bot into thinking there had been vandalism. There was none. Coastwise ( talk) 17:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I gotta compliment your Bots work, I have yet to see it cause a problem. I want to suggest an additional, more than occasional clue. In order to mask their dirty work, vandals frequently place an edit note. "References removed" is the favorite one. Maybe it is not an automatic clue, but the vast majority of edits that claim to or actually remove references, in wikispeak, sources, have no business being removed and the remains of the article after such vandalism will be a poorly or improperly formatted article. Add those two together, (before, properly formatted article; after, formatting errors) and the edit note "references removed" and you've probably got a vandal. Just a thought. Trackinfo ( talk) 17:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone can please answer a question I have about ClueBot in regards to it making a mistake. Yesterday while I was on Wikipedia looking at the page for the upcoming Superman Movie The Man of Steel Directed by Zach Snyder I all of sudden get a message saying I visited and edited a page called Videos and audio recordings of Osama bin Laden and I was then sent a warning message by ClueBot not to do that type of editing again. But here is the thing Yesterday and any time before that I have never done any editing type work on Wikipedia from my personal computer I own I just visit the site thats all. But all of sudden this ClueBot says I visted this certain page and did editing work on and even my history page says I visted the page. But the actual real this that happened is I never visted that page noir did I edit the page so can someone please explain to me why ClueBot says I did something that I actually never did and never visted on Wikipedia. An yesterday just to make sure I didn't read it wrong I did one small editing work on the TV Show Supernatutal Season 7 page to make sure I read the right User Name that was given for my computer. Now I followed the process of how to report a problem if ClueBot made a mistake and I know the editers who watch this page perfer no one to leave messages here if there about ClueBot making a mistake and causing a problem. But the User Name I was given was User:76.252.200.144 because I'm not a registored user and it only has two contributions list the page title Videos and audio recordings of Osama bin Laden which says I visted and edited which is absoultly not true at all because I've never visted that page ever and the page for Season 7 of The TV Show Supernatural. An my talk page has similar type information. If someone could please answer me back or at least fix this problem I would be very thankful and if it means getting getting rit of all of my information contributions, talk page and even blocking me please do that if means it will fix the problem. The reason I'm asking this question and leaving this message is I don't like being warning and accused for editing a page I didn't even vist or edit by ClueBot. I understand why ClueBot exist but could someone please answer my question and fix this problem.
From User:76.252.200.144 —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC).
instead of removing my post, or atleast just correcting it because i was drunk, why dont you watch the movie and post it yourself that barton aka hawkeye makes a cameo. sheeeit. not looking for fame, its just wiki, christ. could atleast update that article to include his appearance in thor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.26.200.123 ( talk) 19:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Cluebot hasn't archived User_talk:Citation_bot for some months. The automatic archiving helps me to keep on top of bugs with my bot — I miss it! Any update on when the bot might be working again? Can I run the script myself from my toolserver account? Thanks, Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 20:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Not the end of the world, but I'm just wondering why CBNG didn't recognise this warning, and issued a (second) l2 warning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not stupid. And I want to report a false positive. But I cannot get the ID right (now what would an unexperienced editor meet).
All I can do is a diff: [1] (and do not start telling me how to do it next time. Just create a good backoffice , I'd say). - DePiep ( talk) 21:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Might as well not have users. :O -- Spidey 665 00:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Further to User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2011/September#Not_archiving, the bot still doesn't seem to have visited User talk:Citation bot. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 02:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
At the moment, this page is semiprotected, but there's a request for full protection at WP:RFPP, and the requesting editor has noted that the "Documentation" section of the userpage refers to those who edit the page to stop the bot exclusively as admins, rather than as editors. Against this I would support the current format: the page's history shows that it's never gotten significant vandalism (except for one editor that was warring over it), and we've only had two incidents of vandalism all year. To me (I'm saying this as an admin), it seems reasonable that average registered users should be able to stop the bot temporarily. Moreover, I don't see the point of an admin-only page to stop the bot: we admins can already stop the bot by blocking it, so the only real use of a page like this is if it can be edited by non-admins. Nyttend ( talk) 04:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The article Overblood has been getting persistent vandalism since last January — almost always including the same bit of garbage (albeit with a few variant spellings). You can check the article's history to see what I'm talking about. Is there any way to get ClueBot NG's cluefulness level raised so it will detect this? Richwales ( talk) 02:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Is the point of this page just to complain about the bot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffClarkis ( talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I've seen a few times lately where an IP vandalizes a few times and gets one or more cluebot reverts with talk-page warnings. Then a few days later, it happens again. Lather, rinse, repeat, with cluebot restarting at level-1 each time (example: [2]) I know we need a cutoff because it's likely that an IP would be reassigned after a while or be a public machine. But seems like the current cutoff is too conservative. DMacks ( talk) 17:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
This text does not carry any meaning, perhaps just an inexperienced user. Sorry for bad English Blind GM ( talk) 21:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, ClueBot added a warning, but also removed all the other warnings that were on the page. Is this a known issue? I've never seen ClueBot do that before. Thanks, BMRR ( talk) 04:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
My experience is all the ClueBot NG's. reverts are false positive.-- 101.51.234.205 ( talk) 13:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
![]() |
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar |
let me join Kairan tumaquin ( talk) 13:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC) |
(When someone logs into the ClueBot Commons account, they are gonna have a CRAPLOAD of messages to read :P )
After this message was added here (which was added twice, but the second edit with that was not tagged with "repeating characters") I'm thinking that someone should edit every one of the ClueBots' code to also put a giant warning that is clearly visible saying "THIS IS A MESSAGE FROM A AUTOMATED BOT. THIS BOT IS NOT A HUMAN." with much, much, MUCH emphasis on the word "NOT".
(P.s. As if this isn't very obvious, I am really just posting this here as a joke. Though I would kind of be surprised if it actually was done) LikeLakers2 ( talk) 21:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
Let me edit man-- Furymaster ( talk) 04:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
Could you add to the bot the pattern vandalism that has occurred on Peter Cetera, Lillian Too, Jack Colvin, Philip Oakey, and Tharman Shanmugaratnam, all from IPs begining with 60 or 175? I have some filters in place, but they don't seem to be working consistently. Thanks, NawlinWiki ( talk) 13:16, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
IP range | Article | Ignore 3RR |
---|---|---|
205.189.25.0/24 | George W Bush | yes |
207.189.25.0/24 | no | |
Barack Obama | no |
False Positive: 569432
(And your report page sucks.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.10.53.181 ( talk) 23:46, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm curious - why did ClueBot revert my warning at IP194.80.20.151 (talk) at 10:34 today? Denisarona ( talk) 12:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
The report page gives me a 403 error, so I'll just dump a report ID here: 578293 ∫eb²+1( talk) 09:07, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
On this page ( http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories&action=history) today the bot made a false positive. What happened is I had clicked the Edit button for one section of the article, but the html that was included on the edit page also included the code for the section which followed that one. It looked odd, and when I saved my edits the result was that that second section appeared twice in the article, in succession. I then did a second edit by removing the duplicate (the one that had appeared on my edit page). That is what triggered the bot into thinking there had been vandalism. There was none. Coastwise ( talk) 17:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
I gotta compliment your Bots work, I have yet to see it cause a problem. I want to suggest an additional, more than occasional clue. In order to mask their dirty work, vandals frequently place an edit note. "References removed" is the favorite one. Maybe it is not an automatic clue, but the vast majority of edits that claim to or actually remove references, in wikispeak, sources, have no business being removed and the remains of the article after such vandalism will be a poorly or improperly formatted article. Add those two together, (before, properly formatted article; after, formatting errors) and the edit note "references removed" and you've probably got a vandal. Just a thought. Trackinfo ( talk) 17:44, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
I was wondering if someone can please answer a question I have about ClueBot in regards to it making a mistake. Yesterday while I was on Wikipedia looking at the page for the upcoming Superman Movie The Man of Steel Directed by Zach Snyder I all of sudden get a message saying I visited and edited a page called Videos and audio recordings of Osama bin Laden and I was then sent a warning message by ClueBot not to do that type of editing again. But here is the thing Yesterday and any time before that I have never done any editing type work on Wikipedia from my personal computer I own I just visit the site thats all. But all of sudden this ClueBot says I visted this certain page and did editing work on and even my history page says I visted the page. But the actual real this that happened is I never visted that page noir did I edit the page so can someone please explain to me why ClueBot says I did something that I actually never did and never visted on Wikipedia. An yesterday just to make sure I didn't read it wrong I did one small editing work on the TV Show Supernatutal Season 7 page to make sure I read the right User Name that was given for my computer. Now I followed the process of how to report a problem if ClueBot made a mistake and I know the editers who watch this page perfer no one to leave messages here if there about ClueBot making a mistake and causing a problem. But the User Name I was given was User:76.252.200.144 because I'm not a registored user and it only has two contributions list the page title Videos and audio recordings of Osama bin Laden which says I visted and edited which is absoultly not true at all because I've never visted that page ever and the page for Season 7 of The TV Show Supernatural. An my talk page has similar type information. If someone could please answer me back or at least fix this problem I would be very thankful and if it means getting getting rit of all of my information contributions, talk page and even blocking me please do that if means it will fix the problem. The reason I'm asking this question and leaving this message is I don't like being warning and accused for editing a page I didn't even vist or edit by ClueBot. I understand why ClueBot exist but could someone please answer my question and fix this problem.
From User:76.252.200.144 —Preceding undated comment added 22:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC).
instead of removing my post, or atleast just correcting it because i was drunk, why dont you watch the movie and post it yourself that barton aka hawkeye makes a cameo. sheeeit. not looking for fame, its just wiki, christ. could atleast update that article to include his appearance in thor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.26.200.123 ( talk) 19:25, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
Cluebot hasn't archived User_talk:Citation_bot for some months. The automatic archiving helps me to keep on top of bugs with my bot — I miss it! Any update on when the bot might be working again? Can I run the script myself from my toolserver account? Thanks, Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 20:00, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Not the end of the world, but I'm just wondering why CBNG didn't recognise this warning, and issued a (second) l2 warning. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:13, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
I am not stupid. And I want to report a false positive. But I cannot get the ID right (now what would an unexperienced editor meet).
All I can do is a diff: [1] (and do not start telling me how to do it next time. Just create a good backoffice , I'd say). - DePiep ( talk) 21:54, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Might as well not have users. :O -- Spidey 665 00:38, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
Further to User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2011/September#Not_archiving, the bot still doesn't seem to have visited User talk:Citation bot. Martin ( Smith609 – Talk) 02:30, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
At the moment, this page is semiprotected, but there's a request for full protection at WP:RFPP, and the requesting editor has noted that the "Documentation" section of the userpage refers to those who edit the page to stop the bot exclusively as admins, rather than as editors. Against this I would support the current format: the page's history shows that it's never gotten significant vandalism (except for one editor that was warring over it), and we've only had two incidents of vandalism all year. To me (I'm saying this as an admin), it seems reasonable that average registered users should be able to stop the bot temporarily. Moreover, I don't see the point of an admin-only page to stop the bot: we admins can already stop the bot by blocking it, so the only real use of a page like this is if it can be edited by non-admins. Nyttend ( talk) 04:07, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
The article Overblood has been getting persistent vandalism since last January — almost always including the same bit of garbage (albeit with a few variant spellings). You can check the article's history to see what I'm talking about. Is there any way to get ClueBot NG's cluefulness level raised so it will detect this? Richwales ( talk) 02:55, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Is the point of this page just to complain about the bot? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JeffClarkis ( talk • contribs) 02:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
I've seen a few times lately where an IP vandalizes a few times and gets one or more cluebot reverts with talk-page warnings. Then a few days later, it happens again. Lather, rinse, repeat, with cluebot restarting at level-1 each time (example: [2]) I know we need a cutoff because it's likely that an IP would be reassigned after a while or be a public machine. But seems like the current cutoff is too conservative. DMacks ( talk) 17:07, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
This text does not carry any meaning, perhaps just an inexperienced user. Sorry for bad English Blind GM ( talk) 21:54, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
In this edit, ClueBot added a warning, but also removed all the other warnings that were on the page. Is this a known issue? I've never seen ClueBot do that before. Thanks, BMRR ( talk) 04:38, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
My experience is all the ClueBot NG's. reverts are false positive.-- 101.51.234.205 ( talk) 13:17, 30 September 2011 (UTC)