User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2013/July

This is an archive of past discussions with User:ClueBot Commons. 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.

When a user vandalizes a file instead of an article, this happens. Now I'm wondering, since it happened in 2009 it might be already well known, but I found it interesting so I posted anyway. Also, what happens with categories? — Ginsuloft (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 12934 Bisque is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/12934 Bisque until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 16:51, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw this "Currently writing a dedicated wiki markup parser for more accurate markup-context-specific metrics. (No existing alternative parsers are complete or fast enough" here and thought you might find Parsoid potentially useful. We also hang out on IRC at #mediawiki-parsoid if you have questions. Parsoid is being used for supporting VisualEditor. Ssastry (talk) 19:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw the template about the vandal-1 tempate. and I wanted to propose a modification which will look like this when completed, thanks.

Hello, I'm ClueBot NG, I wanted you let you know I had automatically undid one of your recent edits to [[:{{{1}}}]] because it did not appear constructive.

• 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.
• For help, take a look at the introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: {{{2}}}.
• The recent edit you made to [[:{{{1}}}]] was deemed as unconstructive and has been automatically reverted. Thank you.

DDreth ask me questions! 19:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

"Had...undid" is not proper grammar, and the last bullet is a dup of the first sentence, among other things. I'd suggest the following instead:

Hello. This message is from an automated "bot" named ClueBot NG. This is to inform you that one of your recent edits to [[:{{{1}}}]] was reverted because it did not appear constructive.

• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it can happen occasionally. 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.
• For help, please see introduction.
• The following is the log entry regarding this message: {{{2}}}.

—[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:52, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

My post streptococcus pneumoniae got reverted immediately after I edited it. This is obviously a false positive as the initial article is so difficult to read that a big revamp needed to be done

I haven't used wikipedia in a while, but if there are bots like this that reverts everything I write, then there are no incentives for me to use my spare time to improve articles

Princeton wu (talk) 04:44, 5 July 2013 (UTC)

for the boys was for info and it hardly even mentioned danny and he did obviously adore him as a father and it wasnt vandalism it seems that people mess with my contribs Grayson plotline was because i read the script and for the boys was for a lil bit of info.--RileyFreemanCripMember (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I tried to report a false positive today, and gave up after getting my Captcha code rejected four times. Edit ID was 1683391. —Kww(talk) 19:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I have never been on that particular article. Nor have I edited it. 124.168.234.245 (talk) 06:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC) Sutter Cane

Somebody using your current IP address made an edit on 21 September 2010 that ClueBot detected as being unconstructive. A particular IP address can be used by many different customers of an Internet service provider over time, because individual customers are allocated an available address from a pool when they connect. Since you did not make the unconstructive edit, the message is not intended for you and you can ignore it. To avoid seeing messages intended for other users of your IP address, you might consider creating an account for yourself. – Wdchk (talk) 11:59, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marion_Bartoli&diff=next&oldid=564287530 shows DumbBot reverting ClueBot's semi-protection. I'll also mention it on DumbBot's page.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Where? I don't see any conflict.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 02:29, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

ClueBot added the semi-protection template, DumbBot removed it shortly after (applied at 19:26, removed at 21:40). Unless this is by mutual design to interrupt vandalism on a page and quickly remove the semi-protect after the vandal is discouraged.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:40, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

ClueBot did not add the semi-protection template. It was added by the protecting administrator [1]. DumbBot removed the template after the semi-protection expired, and all that ClueBot did was revert some vandalism [2] Just adding the semi-protection template is not enough to semi-protect a page; only an administrator has the technical ability to do so. The Anonymouse (talk) 03:58, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I misread what was going on by thinking that ClueBot applied a semi-protection, especially as DumbBot removed the semi-protection.Wzrd1 (talk) 11:34, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

In this edit, ClueBot started a new July 2013 section with a level one warning when a July 2013 section already existed with a level 1 warning in it. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 13:10, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Please take a look at difference generated by ClueBot NG: [3]. Seems like vandalism was reverted, doesn't it? Now let's take a look at the resulting revision: [4]. Find "jijijijiihihixnf biovcx jvixbv jjkcxnhvkldsmbvnjszkdb vuikzaxsbjk" to see that vandalism is still there. I don't know if it is a bug in ClueBot NG or in MediaWiki, but still some bug is definitely there.

Dosinovsky (talk) 09:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the vandalism still there--5 albert square (talk) 12:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Now I also don't see it. But it was there. Strange. Dosinovsky (talk) 20:01, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks like it was just a temporary glitch then with Wikipedia and not ClueBot :)--5 albert square (talk) 23:43, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be a need to archive user contributions to Talk:Turner Classic Movies. As of this writing, this talk page is empty and even the most recent single brief posting (not a thread) from three months ago (April 24) has been archived to Talk:Turner Classic Movies/Archive 1. The entire talk page [again, as of this writing] has only 4,787 bytes and should be visible for all to see rather than be hidden under the barely-detectable archive link "1". I cannot recall seeing another talk page which is so brief and in which the archiving is done so persistently. It would seem more useful and practical for Talk:Turner Classic Movies/Archive 1 to be moved back to Talk:Turner Classic Movies so that all users would be able to see its contents instantly, without having to go through a burdensome procedure to reach the archive just to be able to read any comments at all. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 14:46, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I suggest you post this discussion at Talk:Turner Classic Movies to see whether anyone there has an opinion. The discussion is not about ClueBot III per se; it is about how that Talk page is configured to use ClueBot III. – Wdchk (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

From a novice: the clueBot find in defamatory matter on the concerned page was correctly found as inappropraite in tone and unbalanced in matter; your intervention was correct but still short of achieving balance. Need guidance and consideration of expert editors around this page to balance the article.

" == June 2010 ==

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Pratap Singh Gaekwad of Baroda, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Pratap Singh Gaekwad of Baroda was changed by 122.168.165.233 (u) (t) deleting 8165 characters on 2010-06-29T12:41:19+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 12:41, 29 June 2010 (UTC) "

Patelurology2 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Patelurology2 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your interest in improving that article. If you have specific concerns you would like to discuss with other editors, you could post them at Talk:Pratap Singh Gaekwad. To enlist the help of other editors, you could also consider participating at WikiProject India. Discussion on this page is limited to comments and questions about the operation of the bots in the ClueBot family. In this case, it seems that ClueBot did its job as designed when it detected and reverted the vandalism. – Wdchk (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Do you care to explain how the addition of innocent, highly humorous details constitutes VANDALISM? Did you detect any "irrelevant obscenities ... crude humor ... illegitimately blanking pages [or] ... inserting obvious nonsense" on my part? I should categorically declare not. Livening up a brief—and rather incorrect—synopsis by describing the key joke seems like an improvement to me. You people really should think first and act second. No wonder the quality of Wikipedia steadily degenerates from questionable to worse: who can put up with your interminable nonsense? One can scarcely correct a scientific or mathematical fact in an article without being accused of miscreant antics. What: is every "authority" on Wikipedia your personal friend?

24.127.218.5 (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It's a bot. I reported it as a false positive. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)