![]() | 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. |
Stop your ClueBot NG. The article solved is with reference now. Greets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.59.24.188 ( talk • contribs)
So the archiving at Talk:List of multi-level marketing companies got screwed up because a template wasn't being subst'd properly. This, and a little cluetardiness on my part, led to a bunch of stuff being archived into unhelpful places. So I created archives for years from 2007 to 2014, and moved the Archive/2015/August to Archive/2015. My question is: will I need to edit the Master Detailed Indices by hand, or will ClueBot find my revised archive pages and redo them by itself? I'm willing to do the handwork if I have to, but I don't want to do something which will get done in time without me. Argyriou (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
{{ atop}} I see you have reverted my changes. I had made an honest mistake with the year of release of "Valentine's Day is a Lie" but my addition to the table was NOT vandalism and I even included a reference. Seelamviraj ( talk) 00:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
{{ atop}} Cluebot III archived Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request less than two hours after marked as resolved. For other users references, It should be removed at least 24 hours ago.―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 11:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
{{ atop}} Couldn't find this in the documentation or FAQ list; apologies if I missed it. Does Cluebot NG operate on all pages, or just article space? If there's a page it doesn't watch (such as one in the Wikipedia space), is there a category to add the page to or some other way to request the bot's attention? (My curiousity is specifically about the possibility of having Cluebot attend to the Wikipedia:Reference desks.) — Steve Summit ( talk) 10:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
"--
-- This is the ClueBot Angry Optin list."
(...) "-- For main namespace articles:
-- * [ [Pagename]] - reason. -- -- For pages in other namespaces: -- * [ [Namespace:Pagename]] - reason. -- -- Please note that pages outside of the main namespace will *also* need to be listed at User:ClueBot/Optin."
So even if I do that, it still will not work for pages outside Article space? Silly thing here is, the text refers to [ [User:Cluebot/Optin]], not to [ [User:Cluebot NG/Optin]] what might make a difference? I'm confused now, as both Cluebot and Cluebot NG have this Optin page? Poepkop ( talk) 14:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A club posts comments on wikipedia yet an individual cannot how is that remaining neutral? only allow factual comments so how does one go about providing evidence that posts made are factual. By not allowing me to prove this how is that remaining neutral Sallybegood ( talk) 21:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I notice that ClueBot III calculates the key for archiving to something other than a subpage using MD5. Lowercase sigmabot III also did this until recently. However, MD5 has known security flaws. Earlier this month, Σ, as part of another change, updated Lowercase sigmabot III to use the much stronger SHA256 instead of MD5. Can the same be done here when the maintainers get a chance? jcgoble3 ( talk) 01:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The current available data shows that the number of sectarian deaths of Shias is approximately 250 a year in a country of 180 million people as compared to most other developed nations such as the UK which have approximately 52,528 hate crimes a year shows that it is not a rampant problem. Most of the hate-crimes in the UK, however are not homicide and most crimes are race related and not religious or anti-semitic hate crimes, in the UK there were over 600 incidents of violence related hate crimes and relativised to Pakistan's populous it would be 1800 incidents. However, most of these incidents did not include homicide. [1] Recently there has been a major decrease in attacks on Shias, it has decreased in Baluchistan and over the whole country as a result of National Action Plan and Zarb e Azb. http://tribune.com.pk/story/986698/good-performance-balochistan-witnesses-50-decline-in-sectarian-violence/ Also there has been a major decrease of sectarian violence all over Pakistan by approximately 50% since 2010 to 2015 http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/database/sect-killing.htm the marked increase in 2015 was due to the blowback of targeting militants. Most major or high profile sectarian incidents are condemned directly by the Government itself such as the violence against a Christian couple was directly condemned by the Prime Minister, the attacks on Agha Khani Shias was also directly condemned by the Prime Minister. [well known, citations can be found easily] Furthermore the perpetrators who attacked the Christian couple were arrested and put on trial. [citations can be found easily] Developments to curb sectarian violence has been taken actively by the current Government and empirical data shows a marked decrease in sectarian violence in Pakistan as well. [citations are available online] Politically Pakistan has tried to remain neutral and pacify both Saudi Arabia and Iran [citations are available online] which is also what the public opinion of the country holds [Dawn Poll] as over 80% of Pakistanis in an online poll want to remain neutral. [the poll is available at Dawn.com and then view results, I also have a screenshot] Another issue is that during the reign of the Zardari regime who was Shia, there was in fact a marked increase in sectarian violence towards Shias by approximately 60% from 2008 to 2013 http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/database/sect-killing.htm, whilst during the reign of the Nawaz regime who is Sunni, there has been a marked decrease of 49.5% http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/database/sect-killing.htm
Pakistan is also the only Sunni-majority country that has elected a Shia for Prime Minister or had a Shia Head of State. Not only that it has had over three different Shia Heads of Governments or Head of State and elected a Shia-led party to power over 4 times and that too included a Shia woman, coincidently the first muslim female Prime Minister in the whole world. [Fact, you can find citations anywhere] No other Sunni-majority country in the world has done this so far.
Whatever ID is required, go check it, seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.240.10 ( talk • contribs)
When I first started on Wiki I did a lot of counter vandalism, and was very familiar with the tiered notice system. However, now that I do a lot of work over at the Account Creation team and the helpdesk, I see people who are well intentioned, but sometimes misguided new users join the project. Sometimes their first encounter with wikipedia is ClueBot. Sometimes its a false positive, but more often than not, when ClueBot does hit them, it is technically correct, however the automated Level-1 warnings can be harsh for well-intention first time users - scaring them off from contributing. They were effectively bitten. My proposal would be for ClueBot to be adjusted to determine if this editor just started editing within the last 24 hours and has no current warnings, use a softer welcome/warning, and then hold notices for perhaps 30-60 minutes before starting in with the standard warning escalations. Sometimes all it takes is that first template to kick start a 'CV' race against a well intention editor by well intentioned CV user. Sometimes it takes new users some time to notice and understand talk page warnings. But end up in an edit war with a CV or BOT and end up scared off. However if the editor has made prior contributions (more than 24 hours ago) or has exiting warnings, then operate as normal. I think by adding this bit of 'new user' buffer will help keep some new contributors around. Let real people handle some of the CV work for these new users, and let the bot handle more egregious and persistant vandals. Tiggerjay ( talk) 18:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
sofixit|
Special:Prefixindex/User:ClueBot NG/Warnings/V}}
--
Cobi(
t|
c|
b)
00:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 201#Auto-archiving on this page broken? – Wbm1058 ( talk) 21:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Developer of WP:STiki here and consumer of your IRC feed. Looks like you are ingesting edits but not scoring them, as that field is now an empty string, whereas it is normally a number. The bot is not reverting as a result. My users are also encountering in a bug in a portion of our interface that is historically reliable. I wonder if the issues are related. Let me know if you folks discover an underlying root cause or anything further. Thanks, West.andrew.g ( talk) 01:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My edit to [1] was a comment static the text is almost word-for-word the same as [2]. One of them is essentially a copy, though I can't tell which one. In any event, I am a human, not a vandal, and hope you haven't listed me as one. Thanks, Mark White (mark@markewhite.com) Hovenweep ( talk) 13:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)hovenweep Hovenweep ( talk) 13:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.At this stage it's probably best just to remove the message from your talk page and forget about it. By the way, the "comment" facility you used would only be seen by anyone coming to edit the article themselves; it may have been better to add such a remark on the article's talk page, where anyone watching the article would see it : Noyster (talk), 15:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This
edit request to
User:ClueBot III has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following warning to the top of the User:ClueBot III page:
![]() | Cluebot III is currently (11:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)) underperforming when confronted with large collections of archive pages for the same talk page (around 200 archive pages for the same talk page seems to be a maximum that should not be exceeded). The issue is discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Conspiracy Unveiled. Please don't remove this warning before all related issues are resolved. |
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Well as it may be, that it is a coincidence? I clicked on the article, and clicked cancel because it was vandalism, and already wrote that the change has been canceled. Then shook post warning, just turned away, already written :D. This is not the issue here observation.-- Lukaslt13 --Talk 17:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13
Is it just me or is review.cluebot.org/ actually being redirected to this? Seems like someone hijacked the domain for promotional purposes. -- ChamithN (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Error, mr. Bot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Frazer ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Just a question. Why is ClueBot III down and when will it be running again? I was wondering why some of my talk page posts weren't being archived. Class455fan1 ( talk) 19:23, 31 January 2016 (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. |
Stop your ClueBot NG. The article solved is with reference now. Greets — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.59.24.188 ( talk • contribs)
So the archiving at Talk:List of multi-level marketing companies got screwed up because a template wasn't being subst'd properly. This, and a little cluetardiness on my part, led to a bunch of stuff being archived into unhelpful places. So I created archives for years from 2007 to 2014, and moved the Archive/2015/August to Archive/2015. My question is: will I need to edit the Master Detailed Indices by hand, or will ClueBot find my revised archive pages and redo them by itself? I'm willing to do the handwork if I have to, but I don't want to do something which will get done in time without me. Argyriou (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
{{ atop}} I see you have reverted my changes. I had made an honest mistake with the year of release of "Valentine's Day is a Lie" but my addition to the table was NOT vandalism and I even included a reference. Seelamviraj ( talk) 00:10, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
{{ atop}} Cluebot III archived Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request less than two hours after marked as resolved. For other users references, It should be removed at least 24 hours ago.―― Phoenix7777 ( talk) 11:18, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
{{ atop}} Couldn't find this in the documentation or FAQ list; apologies if I missed it. Does Cluebot NG operate on all pages, or just article space? If there's a page it doesn't watch (such as one in the Wikipedia space), is there a category to add the page to or some other way to request the bot's attention? (My curiousity is specifically about the possibility of having Cluebot attend to the Wikipedia:Reference desks.) — Steve Summit ( talk) 10:31, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
"--
-- This is the ClueBot Angry Optin list."
(...) "-- For main namespace articles:
-- * [ [Pagename]] - reason. -- -- For pages in other namespaces: -- * [ [Namespace:Pagename]] - reason. -- -- Please note that pages outside of the main namespace will *also* need to be listed at User:ClueBot/Optin."
So even if I do that, it still will not work for pages outside Article space? Silly thing here is, the text refers to [ [User:Cluebot/Optin]], not to [ [User:Cluebot NG/Optin]] what might make a difference? I'm confused now, as both Cluebot and Cluebot NG have this Optin page? Poepkop ( talk) 14:04, 6 January 2016 (UTC).
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A club posts comments on wikipedia yet an individual cannot how is that remaining neutral? only allow factual comments so how does one go about providing evidence that posts made are factual. By not allowing me to prove this how is that remaining neutral Sallybegood ( talk) 21:37, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
I notice that ClueBot III calculates the key for archiving to something other than a subpage using MD5. Lowercase sigmabot III also did this until recently. However, MD5 has known security flaws. Earlier this month, Σ, as part of another change, updated Lowercase sigmabot III to use the much stronger SHA256 instead of MD5. Can the same be done here when the maintainers get a chance? jcgoble3 ( talk) 01:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The current available data shows that the number of sectarian deaths of Shias is approximately 250 a year in a country of 180 million people as compared to most other developed nations such as the UK which have approximately 52,528 hate crimes a year shows that it is not a rampant problem. Most of the hate-crimes in the UK, however are not homicide and most crimes are race related and not religious or anti-semitic hate crimes, in the UK there were over 600 incidents of violence related hate crimes and relativised to Pakistan's populous it would be 1800 incidents. However, most of these incidents did not include homicide. [1] Recently there has been a major decrease in attacks on Shias, it has decreased in Baluchistan and over the whole country as a result of National Action Plan and Zarb e Azb. http://tribune.com.pk/story/986698/good-performance-balochistan-witnesses-50-decline-in-sectarian-violence/ Also there has been a major decrease of sectarian violence all over Pakistan by approximately 50% since 2010 to 2015 http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/database/sect-killing.htm the marked increase in 2015 was due to the blowback of targeting militants. Most major or high profile sectarian incidents are condemned directly by the Government itself such as the violence against a Christian couple was directly condemned by the Prime Minister, the attacks on Agha Khani Shias was also directly condemned by the Prime Minister. [well known, citations can be found easily] Furthermore the perpetrators who attacked the Christian couple were arrested and put on trial. [citations can be found easily] Developments to curb sectarian violence has been taken actively by the current Government and empirical data shows a marked decrease in sectarian violence in Pakistan as well. [citations are available online] Politically Pakistan has tried to remain neutral and pacify both Saudi Arabia and Iran [citations are available online] which is also what the public opinion of the country holds [Dawn Poll] as over 80% of Pakistanis in an online poll want to remain neutral. [the poll is available at Dawn.com and then view results, I also have a screenshot] Another issue is that during the reign of the Zardari regime who was Shia, there was in fact a marked increase in sectarian violence towards Shias by approximately 60% from 2008 to 2013 http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/database/sect-killing.htm, whilst during the reign of the Nawaz regime who is Sunni, there has been a marked decrease of 49.5% http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/pakistan/database/sect-killing.htm
Pakistan is also the only Sunni-majority country that has elected a Shia for Prime Minister or had a Shia Head of State. Not only that it has had over three different Shia Heads of Governments or Head of State and elected a Shia-led party to power over 4 times and that too included a Shia woman, coincidently the first muslim female Prime Minister in the whole world. [Fact, you can find citations anywhere] No other Sunni-majority country in the world has done this so far.
Whatever ID is required, go check it, seriously. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.32.240.10 ( talk • contribs)
When I first started on Wiki I did a lot of counter vandalism, and was very familiar with the tiered notice system. However, now that I do a lot of work over at the Account Creation team and the helpdesk, I see people who are well intentioned, but sometimes misguided new users join the project. Sometimes their first encounter with wikipedia is ClueBot. Sometimes its a false positive, but more often than not, when ClueBot does hit them, it is technically correct, however the automated Level-1 warnings can be harsh for well-intention first time users - scaring them off from contributing. They were effectively bitten. My proposal would be for ClueBot to be adjusted to determine if this editor just started editing within the last 24 hours and has no current warnings, use a softer welcome/warning, and then hold notices for perhaps 30-60 minutes before starting in with the standard warning escalations. Sometimes all it takes is that first template to kick start a 'CV' race against a well intention editor by well intentioned CV user. Sometimes it takes new users some time to notice and understand talk page warnings. But end up in an edit war with a CV or BOT and end up scared off. However if the editor has made prior contributions (more than 24 hours ago) or has exiting warnings, then operate as normal. I think by adding this bit of 'new user' buffer will help keep some new contributors around. Let real people handle some of the CV work for these new users, and let the bot handle more egregious and persistant vandals. Tiggerjay ( talk) 18:52, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
sofixit|
Special:Prefixindex/User:ClueBot NG/Warnings/V}}
--
Cobi(
t|
c|
b)
00:26, 20 January 2016 (UTC)
See User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 201#Auto-archiving on this page broken? – Wbm1058 ( talk) 21:12, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Developer of WP:STiki here and consumer of your IRC feed. Looks like you are ingesting edits but not scoring them, as that field is now an empty string, whereas it is normally a number. The bot is not reverting as a result. My users are also encountering in a bug in a portion of our interface that is historically reliable. I wonder if the issues are related. Let me know if you folks discover an underlying root cause or anything further. Thanks, West.andrew.g ( talk) 01:46, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
My edit to [1] was a comment static the text is almost word-for-word the same as [2]. One of them is essentially a copy, though I can't tell which one. In any event, I am a human, not a vandal, and hope you haven't listed me as one. Thanks, Mark White (mark@markewhite.com) Hovenweep ( talk) 13:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)hovenweep Hovenweep ( talk) 13:03, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.At this stage it's probably best just to remove the message from your talk page and forget about it. By the way, the "comment" facility you used would only be seen by anyone coming to edit the article themselves; it may have been better to add such a remark on the article's talk page, where anyone watching the article would see it : Noyster (talk), 15:08, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This
edit request to
User:ClueBot III has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add the following warning to the top of the User:ClueBot III page:
![]() | Cluebot III is currently (11:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)) underperforming when confronted with large collections of archive pages for the same talk page (around 200 archive pages for the same talk page seems to be a maximum that should not be exceeded). The issue is discussed at User talk:Jimbo Wales#Conspiracy Unveiled. Please don't remove this warning before all related issues are resolved. |
-- Francis Schonken ( talk) 11:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Well as it may be, that it is a coincidence? I clicked on the article, and clicked cancel because it was vandalism, and already wrote that the change has been canceled. Then shook post warning, just turned away, already written :D. This is not the issue here observation.-- Lukaslt13 --Talk 17:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)Lukaslt13
Is it just me or is review.cluebot.org/ actually being redirected to this? Seems like someone hijacked the domain for promotional purposes. -- ChamithN (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Error, mr. Bot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Frazer ( talk • contribs) 02:38, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
Just a question. Why is ClueBot III down and when will it be running again? I was wondering why some of my talk page posts weren't being archived. Class455fan1 ( talk) 19:23, 31 January 2016 (UTC)