User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2007/August

"Submit False Positive" button
I'm still encountering the "Article not found" error that I mentioned on Winbots talk page. 24.6.65.83 05:35, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What is happening is that the button tries to create a new page but anonymous IP addresses are not allowed to create new page, only edit existing ones. I have contacted the bot owner about this. --Hdt83 Chat 06:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I suspected it was related to being an IP editor. 24.6.65.83 06:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Added more "bad words"
Hello bot owner, I hope you don't mind but I added more "bad words" and increased the sensitivity of the words in User:ClueBot/Source. Your bot is doing some very good work! 71.113.16.114 06:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That list is not where you add more bad words. That list is automatically uploaded by the bot, but the bot does not read them.  If you want the bot to have more bad words, please let me know and I will add them.  -- Cobi(t 16:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have added your changes to the bot. It will be in effect next time I restart the bot. -- Cobi(t 17:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Bug report: edit conflicts
The bot seems to ignore edit conflicts. Check here. Owen&times; &#9742;  16:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Submit False Positive" button
Still not working for IP addresses.

''Article not found


 * ''Wikipedia does not have a user page with this exact title. Before creating this page, please see Wikipedia:Subpages.


 * ''Log in or create an account to start the User:ClueBot/FalsePositives/Reports/24.6.65.83 page

This requires an editor to create an account for them to report False Positives.

-- 24.6.65.83 23:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That problem has now been fixed. -- Cobi(t 00:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you, it does appear to be working now. I took the liberty of removing the "or IP address" bits from the registered user instructions, just to avoid confusion. 24.6.65.83 01:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

possible bug (rapid successions of edits)
I've noticed that rapid successions of edits tend to confuse Cluebot's vandalism report log. Here's what just happened (all times are local times):


 * 2007-08-12 19:13:16 - vandalizes the bull shark article.
 * 2007-08-12 19:13:20 - I see the vandalism and revert the article.
 * 2007-08-12 19:13:22 - Kerkyt16 vandalizes the article again just two seconds later, probably by clicking the "Save page" button multiple times.
 * 2007-08-12 19:13:25 - ClueBot reverts the article this time. I'm guessing that the bot was still trying to revert the first edit when Kerkyt16 vandalized again.

This caused the following to appear on the bot's vandalism log:

Possible vandalism: Bull shark was changed by Kerkyt16 (c) (t) replacing content with 'Local Man found dead on bottom of teal lake after and apparent Shark attackA shark was planted in teal lake to eat little fish and make the lake good for peop...' on 2007-08-13T02:13:17+00:00 ClueBot 02:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Corrected by ClueBot ClueBot 02:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible vandalism: Bull shark was changed by Kerkyt16 (c) (t) replacing content with 'Local Mann found dead on bottom of teal lake after and apparent Shark attackA shark was planted in teal lake to eat little fish and make the lake good for peop...' on 2007-08-13T02:13:59+00:00 ClueBot 02:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Reverted by ClueBot (contribs) (talk) before I saw it. ClueBot 02:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The first edit was actually reverted by me. For the second edit, the bot thinks that it beat itself, which isn't possible! This is not a major issue, but you might want to look into this. --Ixfd64 02:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I believe you are right about what happened. I will see what I can do about the cosmetic errors. -- Cobi(t 02:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

1RR?
Is there a reason why there is a limit to the number of times the bot can revert an article per day? I don't think any of the other bots have this limitation and removing this limit (or at least raising it to something like 5) would help ClueBot remove more vandalism. Just a suggestion. Congrats on getting the bot approved, it has done a lot of work toward removing vandalism. :) --Hdt83 Chat 05:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This was due to popular consensus in #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-BAG. It was to prevent edit wars on false positives.  -- Cobi(t 06:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Woops
Sorry about the block template. I think the Lupin tool got away from me a bit. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sai Kumar
Hello dear

i have seen you edit [],you did right beacuse he vandlized page,it was not your mistake.

Thanks

Khalidkhoso 13:41, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

timeout
Maybe you'll add a timeout. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Help
I need help. 2 articles I wrote : DAVID FEUERWERKER and LILIANE ACKERMANN have been repeatedly vandalized in the last 2-3 days by 74.105.77.91. When I revert to the original that individual repeats his vandalism. Is there any way to block that individual 74.105.77.91. Thanks. (Highland14 16:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC))
 * If you want to block them, please visit Administrator Intervention against Vandalism. :)  -- Cobi(t 17:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Richard Nixon's Head
I was just to create a single article for Richard Nixon's Head, and then redirect it from List of Recurring Human Characters.

I just wasn't quick enough, and I understand that change was reverted.

How do I do it to make the change and not damaging anything?? :)

DIRed14.2 16:42, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you blanked the page. The bot considers that vandalism.  If it was not vandalism, just do your changes again.  -- Cobi(t 17:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Contribs link
Hello Cluebot. You are fab. I would like to suggest or request that your edit summaries are changed to link to the contributions of the offender, in the same way that most other anti-vandalbots do. For example: and I don't know about others but I would find this very much more useful. Thanks. -- zzuuzz (talk) 18:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
 * , instead of saying, "Reverting possible vandalism, by User:141.150.179.134 (see here).." it should instead say, "Reverting possible vandalism, by User:141.150.179.134 (see.."
 * "Automatically reporting 24.126.236.96. (bot)" should instead say: "Automatically reporting 24.126.236.96 (bot)"


 * I will see about it. Though the problem is that there is a finite amount of space in the edit summary.  The reverting vandalism message almost fills it up.  Though, the reporting message doesn't even come close to filling it up, so I will see what I can do. -- Cobi(t  —The preceding  signed but undated.

Is it possible for the bot to be changed to link to a user's contributions rather than their user page, particularly for IP addresses? This would make the bot a lot easier to follow and would make it consistent with other reverts on Wikipedia. Academic Challenger 05:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been implemented. -- Cobi(t 07:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:62.105.172.213
Is this something about the bv template? --  Chris   G  10:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the bot looks for templates with names like uw-*[1234] ... possibly ending in "im". -- Cobi(t 18:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Line break
Hi! Thanks for dealing with vandalism, but in this case the bot inserted an extra &lt;br> onto the talk page, which shoved the user warning farther down the page than it should have been, aside from being bad XHTML. Could you please recode the bot to not include that extra line break? Thanks! —Remember the dot (talk) 04:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, that extra &lt;br&gt; was added by Hdt83(t) here. -- Cobi(t 07:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

If you're a bot, say so!
I noticed in the recent edit by this bot on Second Life, the bot did not flag its edit as being by a bot. Intentional or ommission? Rhialto 07:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * (cur) (last) 05:02, 25 August 2007 ClueBot (Talk | contribs) (55,943 bytes) (Reverting possible vandalism by Special:Contributions/60.52.125.19 (see here). If this is a mistake, report it. Thanks, ClueBot. (Bot)) (undo)


 * That looks like it said it was a bot. Specifically with the "(Bot)" on the end, and the fact that Bot is in it's name.  What specifically were you talking about?  -- Cobi(t 08:00, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Normally, bot edits show up in a watchlist with a bold "b" at the beginning, similar to the bold "N" that shows when a page is created. That's probably what Rhialto is referring to. --Tkynerd 17:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is only for bots that are flagged. The BAG have decided not to flag ClueBot.  -- Cobi(t 18:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism aginst "Artur Balder" entrance
At the same time there was another atack from the same IP against the spanish article about Artur Balder in the spanish wikipedia, wich is full of realiable references waiting for translation. What can we do? Thanks--Starwar25 23:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Child porn
Excuse me will yopu please not revert my edit to child porn. I am reverting to an earlier version from last night, it was not vandalsim. Look on the talk page and you will see that the addition of material by another user is disputed so please do not involve yourself cluelessly in a content dispute.Pol64 18:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bradford Bulls
Your annoying me im trying to shorten the page, theres a message at the top of the page if you look —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.113.89.13 (talk) 21:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi.
You need to add "tit", "tits", "asswipe", and "Republican" to your ClueBot list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.190.198.130 (talk) 00:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why *cough* R *cough*? :p ~   Wi ki  her mit  02:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

vandalism against Neil Armstrong article
I recommend to semi protect this article, because there are a lot of conspiracy theories about it on web. unfortunately, some misuse the right of anonymous article editing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.240.240.17 (talk) 16:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)