User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2014/June

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.

I recently used Cluebot to archive Talk:Progressive House and that worked well. Shortly after I copied the template code to do the same for Talk:Electronic dance music but it didn't work. The archived link isn't displaying in the archive box possibly because of a naming error on my part. - Shiftchange (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

@Shiftchange: ClueBot III's archive template can produce its own archive box. I removed the other one and used the CBIII one instead, and it appears to be working now. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 12:56, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done (talk page stalker)

@Shiftchange:, @K6ka: The root issue was that the archiving page name in |archiveprefix= was not changed when the configuration was copied from one page to the next. The archiving configuration templates require hard coded archive prefix names. For ClueBot III (CB3), if the name is wrong CB3 will use its default prefix name. Unfortunately, the default is wrong for numbered archive pages. When pasting the CB3 archive template into a new page which is going to use numbered archive pages I recommend using:

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

That will result in the current page name being substituted in the correct location.

I have done the following to correct the various issues and complete installation:

• Moved the erroneously named archive page to Talk:Electronic dance music/Archive 1
• Corrected the page name in |archiveprefix=
• Returned the archive box to the one previously used.
• Created the archive index page with contents to transclude the index generated by CB3.
• Changed the archive box to include a link to the index page.
• Changed the CB3 generated index pages (2x) to point to the moved archive page. These will be regenerated by CB3 the next time it runs, but I wanted no links to the erroneous page so that:
• Tagged the erroneously created page for deletion via {{db-g6}}.

I have also

• Reorganized the order of talk page headers so that the archive box and TOC line up (also added a style to the archive box so that it is actually lined up vertically with the TOC instead of being off by a few pixels).
• Moved the bare text acting as a notice on the page into a {{Notice}} template. I retained the spacing that was being used, but I recommend removing the extra spaces in the header. Retain them if you are really having a significant problem with people putting new sections at the top of the page.

On Talk:Progressive house I made the following changes:

• Created Talk:Progressive house/Archive index with archive index content transcluded from the CB3 generated index
• Added a link in the archive box to the created archive index
• Lined up TOC and archive box vertically: Forced a TOC, adjusted vertical spacing of archive box, and forced the TOC and archive box to complete prior to beginning page sections.

This should be done at this point with the exception that the erroneous page still needs to complete the deletion process. — Makyen (talk) 15:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm meaning in terms of the vandal score. I've seen a couple .97's, but has there ever been a 1.0 or a .999 or something like that? Kind of curious. Tutelary (talk) 23:32, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I remember seeing a score of "1" in the early days of ClueBot NG. Think the links were at the bot's RFBA. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 10:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not too slick with ClueBot knowledge. I have an archive template on my talk page, which was set for 720 hours (30 days), however Clue hasn't archived in a couple of months. I've changed the number to 721 with the hope that ClueBot will notice it. Anybody have any suggestions? Sorry if it's a n00b style question. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:00, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Mitch Ryder, rock and roll singer "Mitch Ryder & the Detroit Wheels". Michigan Rock & Roll Legends Hall of Fame. Retrieved June 2, 2014. No vandalism. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You don't need to report the false positive on the talk page. I see you reported it at the correct location, so that's good. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 17:17, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This edit request to User:ClueBot NG/Run has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

User:ClueBot NG/Run

True was False. LaCenCt (talk) 02:31, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

*confused look on face* No, it hasn't been edited for months. It's at True. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 17:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi. im austinwwe. I just got up to use the washroom and my brother went and spammed the page the fox (what does the fox say.) I almost got banned but luckily i got a warning. thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Austinwwe (talk • contribs) 14:14, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:BRO --k6ka (talk | contribs) 21:08, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	:-) ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 06:49, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I have a hypothetical question for those whom it may concern. If I move a talk page which is archived by ClueBot III, (along with existing archives, to an appropriate location):

• Will the bot continue to archive the page?
• Will the index page be updated to refer to the new page and archive subpages, or will a "copy" be generated?
• Will the bot pick up on existing archives or try to generate new ones?

Thank you, BethNaught (talk) 20:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The following is from memory of a variety of clean-ups and extrapolating, off-the-cuff, from observed behavior. Thus, it may be inaccurate.

The archive page location is hard-coded in the configuration template. Except under specially configured circumstances, the archive location must be a subpage of the current page. The bot does not take into account redirects when testing for this. Without editing the archive configuration template the archive location will point to the old page location. The archive location will thus be considered invalid and the default archive location will be used. While it is possible that the default location is the desired location (more likely if archives are organized by date, not numbered), it is probable that the default location will not be desired. This may result in the need for considerable cleanup/reorganization if the issue is not noticed for a considerable time. So, yes the bot will continue to archive the page, but it is likely to be erroneous.

The indexes appear to be completely re-generated each time. Given that the newly generated index is identical if the source pages have not changed and how the MediaWiki software works, it appears, from a viewer's point of view, that CB3 only makes changes. However, erroneously using the default location can lead to a variety of undesired issues (one example of an erroneous detailed index). The old index will be orphaned and no longer linked. I have not checked on its eventual disposition.

Assuming that the default location is not the desired/correct location, new archive pages will be generated for any content newly archived from the talk page.

If the existing archive pages are moved to the same relative locations along with the main talk page and the ClueBot III configuration template |archiveprefix= is edited to reflect the new page location instead of the old page location, then archiving will be performed normally with all existing archives being recognized properly.— Makyen (talk) 22:19, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks Makyen for your detailed and considered reply :) BethNaught (talk) 06:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

BrandonKF here: Appended Chick culling to your previous edit after I attempted to undo previous problems. Thank you, God bless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrandonKF (talk • contribs) 23:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

@BrandonKF:, you have reverted some vandalism to the last version by ClueBot NG. What you did was good. Thank you for catching and taking care of that vandalism. Another time, it is not necessary to inform the user responsible for the version to which you are reverting. In general, the user will have the page on their watchlist if they desire to know about changes to the page.

In addition, the user ClueBot NG is a robot (bot) which does not pay attention to any particular page being reverted to versions which it made. This bot watches the changes to all pages and reverts those which it finds to very likely be vandalism. For more information about the bot you can look at User:ClueBot NG and User:ClueBot NG/FAQ. (talk page stalker) — Makyen (talk) 01:24, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

The article 2198 Ceplecha has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

not notable astronomical object

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. 180.155.69.97 (talk) 10:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

I never knew CB wrote articles... :P --Mdann52talk to me! 07:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot II has been used in the past to create articles. – Wdchk (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Current community consensus currently stands that bots will no longer be allowed to create articles. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:31, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

	Smile!
	Thanks for being the coolest bot around :) BinarySquareRoot (talk) 13:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 16874 Kurtwahl 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/16874 Kurtwahl 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. Launchballer 22:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This bot recently reverted my change on the Anna Paquin article, where I reverted some vandalism. Somehow, this bot was too stupid to realize that an edit adding thousands of nonsense characters was vandalism, but my edit reverting it wasn't. Bots like this are the reason I don't contribute to Wikipedia anymore. The last few times I've tried to make an edit (mostly to revert vandalism or fix grammar), it's been automatically reverted by bots. It seems that Wikipedia is biased against new contributors, especially those of us who don't want to bother making an account. You guys should try to reduce the false positive rate. By the way, I'm probably never going to bother making edits ever again. What's the point, when most of them get (falsely) reverted anyway? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.211.217.252 (talk) 05:42, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Bots are not perfect. If the bot has made a mistake, report it here so the error can be investigated. The bot's false positive rate is at 0.1% (that's extremely low), and the bot developers are sorry for any errors the bot makes. The bot, however, is very complex and it's bound to make mistakes.

We're sorry to hear that you are leaving Wikipedia. We understand that, eventually, an editor may need to leave for one reason or another. We hope that you'll come back, because we could really use the help! Also, don't be angry if a bot mistakenly reverts your edit. The bot is bound to make mistakes, but in the end rest assured that a human is the barrier between a broken bot and you. So don't worry about it. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 13:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)