User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2008/January

Ack!
The only way I can get any Anti-vandal work around here is if I block you! :)  Dfrg_ msc  06:25, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandbox
I edited in teh sandbox and got a warning from ClueBot, why?--83.67.56.138 (talk) 23:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you edited the article about sandboxes, not the Wikipedia sandbox. See the header on that page:

""
 * Thanks. -- Cobi(t 23:26, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot tag
Is there a reason User:ClueBot hasn't been tagged as a bot, which would hide it from RC by default? Superm401 - Talk 04:11, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Per the archives:
 * The BAG decided not to give ClueBot the bot flag because they wanted the bot's edits to always show in Recent Changes. If you wish to get that changed, please talk to them. Thanks.
 * -- Cobi(t 04:18, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

John David Booty
Sure, no problem. I just wanted to say thanks to a great USC quarterback on a public forum, and this was the best one I could think of. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.75.235.255 (talk) 17:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Surprised you missed this one
This edit hung around for 5 hours before I got it manually. I beat ClueBot reasonably often, but 5 hours seems like there is something amiss.Kww (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot erroneously resets warning level
I noticed this bot just placed a level-1 vandalism warning on User talk:Kazunari's False Friend. I suppose it reset the warning level to 1 because a new month has started. This is acceptable for anonymous IPs that may have different users from one week to the next, but it isn't necessary for registered users. A registered user is by definition the same person for each edit made, therefore it is appropriate to continue escalating the warnings. In this case, the user had already received a final warning; therefore, the bot should have reported the incident on WP:AIV instead of merely leaving a level 1 warning. =Axlq (talk) 06:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Per consensus on IRC among administrators and BAG members, ClueBot ignores warnings from more than 2 days ago. -- Cobi(t 06:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Even for registered users? That makes no sense. It's a reasonable policy for anon users. In this case, the bot didn't really save anybody any work (isn't that what a bot is for?); someone like me still had to report the violation anyway. =Axlq (talk) 06:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Alien V
Good evening, I'm a user of It.wiki, is creating a voice on Alien V and inasmuch as months ago I had noticed the presence voice on yours wiki, I would want to ask to you if I could have the material of your voice on Alien V, therefore in order to facilitate the creation of this voice! It answers to me on my page of argument.--Ator 17:30, 4 gen 2008 (CET)

This bot really doesn't like sex.
I changed the word 'gender' to 'sex' (per Chicago Manual of Style's admonition about using gender to mean biological sex). ClueBot evidently thought I meant something naughty, and changed it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.227.44.100 (talk) 00:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

How can I avoid upsetting ClueBot when using the word rape as a legal term? Thanks, 207.191.23.51 (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot got a bit confused
An IP made two vandal edits about two minutes apart on the December 6 article. ClueBot got confused and reverted only one of them, to [ this version]. (Revert ID 153626). I fixed it simply enough. Just a let-know. • Anakin (contribs • complaints) 15:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No - it wasn't confused at all. They're not the same IP, just very similar.  ClueBot didn't revert the first of those two, because it had already reverted that editor on that article once that day.  It did identify the second edit as vandalism, but didn't rollback both edits because the IPs were not identical.
 * I think there is case here for saying that ClueBot should not revert to a version last edited by an editor it has previously reverted, but that's a separate matter. It wasn't confused.  Philip Trueman (talk) 16:11, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Hi Cobi.

Could you please fix this edit. Your bot has warned a vandal which I've reverted and warned. Regards, —DerHexer (Talk) 21:00, 10 January 2008 (UTC) Some more:
 * Ugh. Looks like the rollback rate limit doesn't give a "rollback failed" message, so ClueBot thought it was successful.  I'll see about fixing it.  -- Cobi(t 21:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, should be fixed. -- Cobi(t 21:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

204.96.143.162
Hey ClueBot, you gave USer 204.96.143.162 one last warning, and then he/she went and vandalised the Steriogram article.  How do we go about getting this guy blocked again??? Cheers   Esradekan Gibb       "Talk" 23:33, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
 * You could've reported it at AIV. Don't do it now, though - AIV is for reporting users who have had final warnings and are currently actively vandalising. Philip Trueman (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Bookmarked for future reference.   Esradekan Gibb       "Talk" 22:53, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Marking the reverts as minor
Why doesn't ClueBot mark the reverts as minor? -- Menti  fisto  16:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

EDITING CRITICISM *******

Reference the editing on the 'RAFFLES - GENTLEMAN THUG' article - apologies, perhaps a tad over-zealous.

82.46.33.94    -     10-01-2008



Cobi? -- Menti  fisto  04:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Antivandalism Barnstar
that wasn't me it was somebody on the same ip at my school the user name that did this id doidoeuto —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cmas236923 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology of vandalism
Hello, Mr.ClueBot. I'm very sorry to vandalize page of Shoko Asahara personally. I'll apologize heartily. I'll never vandalize wikipedia again. Thank you. 202.221.237.134 (talk • contribs) 03:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Continued Vandalism
The article on Grace Talarico di Capace is experiencing continued vandalism- Can it please be semi-protected. thank you

Continued and extensive vandalism is occuring on the page from one user 24.247.57.44, Can this person be blocked and the page semi-protected. thanks

accident
i was trying to return it to not redirected —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.243.28 (talk) 20:22, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding unneeded header
I assume you know about this, but have seen in cases such as this the bot is duplicating the header. John Hayestalk 23:20, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Apology of vandalism
Hello, Mr. ClueBot. I'm very sorry to vandalize page. I'll never vandalize again. Thank you. --202.221.237.134 (talk) 05:35, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Um Jonathan Stroud himself said that Nathanial died and your edit to that page was horrendous Im very sorry. i'm going to delete a bit of that. provide a better summarry and I wont.--Velanthis (talk) 03:01, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Maesteg
Excuse me but why are you deleting serious facts about Maesteg if you do this once more I will take serious action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.67.158.157 (talk) 12:58, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot III not archiving
I was wondering what was going on with ClueBot III on my talk page. It seems to have stopped archiving for some reason yet I haven't changed any of the settings. -- Nn123645 (talk) 05:52, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Its working again :D. -- Nn123645 (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot online?
I thought I might've seen ClueBot in Recent Changes, but his userpage still says he is offline. PseudoOne (talk) 18:40, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Gorilla Monsoon (Band)
Hi, I created an article about the band Gorilla Monsoon, but there is already the wrestler under "Gorilla Monsoon". I tried to make a disambiguation link but it was deleted immediataly. Please can you help me? --Sandrokhan (talk) 19:45, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Already done, thanx anyway --Sandrokhan (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

False positive
This was just spoiler tagging, not vandalism. --Tony Sidaway 01:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi my friend.
I really think that your bomber plane image could be highly offensive for hundreds of thousands of civilians around the world who have suffered American bombs... Respectfuly --Damifb (talk) 14:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Rhtc

 * this was found on the false positives page. —Random832 15:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am writing to inform you that Rhtc had already gotten their final warning before your post. -- Gp 75 motorsports  REV LIMITER  11:52, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but that was back in November. ClueBot only looks for recent warnings.  -- Cobi(t 22:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello
It's me, the guy who edited List of The New adventures of Winnie the Pooh Episodes. I'm sorry, I was just trying to make the list more organized. The episodes "A Very Very Large Animal" and "Fish out of Water" for exemple, are repeated lots of times... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.81.138.156 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Editing "Dreadlocks" page
I apologize but I was merely replacing the expletives in one of the quotes on the "Dreadlocks" page with dashes. (as seen here [] The dashes will still allow the original message and meaning to be preserved while not presenting potentially offensive words for the public to view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.176.220.253 (talk) 23:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping spread wikipedia acceptance!
To convince "nonbelievers" of Wikipedia, i usually take a random page (such as ice cream) and vandalize it. When the page is restored seconds later, leaving my audience staring, i silently thank the bots of Wikipedia. Once again, Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.1.235 (talk) 02:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Any interest in an interesting false *negative*?
I am calling it a false negative bcz after 66's vandalism having escaped reversion for almost 24 hours, it appears that Jamiefarr's song-and-dance may have guaranteed it immunity from future automated detection. I don't know what to think of the 3 differently named vandals in 23:56 h/m -- e.g., did Jamiefarr see the age of 66's vandalism as an opportunity of some sort, and did Chatfun's pair of edits have similar intent? I doubt i have anything to add, but i am at your service. --Jerzy•t 07:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * 1)  near-blanked the article
 * 2)  forged a reversion, claiming to revert the near-blanking but actually removing good content and replacing it with what is presumably bad info, tho not obvious vandalism
 * 3) Same vandal (Jamiefarr) blanked their own vandalistic edit
 * 4) ClueBot reverted both Jamiefarr's edits, thereby restoring the article to 66's nearly-blanked state.
 * 5) (BTW,  then vandalized the valid remnant in one edit, and then added content, presumably Swahili text about the Kenya crisis, as a new body; presumably this is of no interest, unless check-user suggests something.)

WP:OP edit
Hi ClueBot. Bad edit at WP:OP. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting some vandalism on the neoliberalism page! -jncohen (talk) 02:21, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Levels of vandalism
I had given User:24.0.86.94 a final warning. Along comes ClueBot a few days letter, reverts some more vandalism, and gives the idiot a uw-vandalism1 warning. I was watching the user's page, so I noticed and will notify the admins, but it would be nice if ClueBot could get these right itself. Matchups (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * IP addresses can change on a daily bases. The IP that belonged to one vandal may have been given to a completely new user, and thus would need their first warning.  ClueBot only looks at warnings 2 days old, per a discussion with administrators on IRC.  -- Cobi(t 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Complaints
I Feel that Wikipedia should be censored--72.218.118.6 (talk) 00:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

User 24.37.150.176 is constantly writing immature, obscenities, inappropriate information on Marco Rodi article page.

No longer warning
I thought Cluebot was supposed to warn users automatically after reverting edits. However, I have seen a few reversions (such as at Poverty) that have gone unwarned. Is something up? StephenBuxton (talk) 14:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

a vandal faking-out your bot
On Derro (Dungeons & Dragons), see this sequence of edits:. The anons are the same naughty boy. See Requests for checkuser/Case/Qwerty of Man for the full scoop; a hundred sock; hundreds of IPs. --Jack Merridew 14:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

here, too --Jack Merridew 15:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

keep up fighting vandalism
glad to message you. 2008ana (talk) 21:22, 25 January 2008 (UTC)2008ana (AndresArce)

"feel free to make your edit again"
The message that ClueBot leaves on user talk pages currently includes the unqualified statement "If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it." I recommend that:

1) It might be good to add that while your bot might ignore anons who revert your bot's reversions, that other bots certainly won't. (otherwise, editors who follow the prescribed advice may in fact be creating a big mess in the edit history — what should have been one history entry has now ballooned to five)

2) Hopefully you're not largely relying on users to revert the false positives themselves since that doesn't always work, hopefully User:ClueBot/FalsePositives/Reports is being dutifully processed.

Thanks, -98.206.221.93 (talk) 18:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Cluebot IV error: WPOP case pages
Some automatically generated case pages are not having the text   correctly substituted inside the includeonly tags. Reports such as this and this do not substitute the page name correctly and this happens:
 * [[Image:Pictogram voting comment.svg|20px]] Clerk note: A proxy scan report on 65.33.245.123 is available here. The end result was: No proxy found. ClueBot IV (talk) 19:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Can this be addressed? haz (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a problem with the new parser that the developers implemented (see your watchlist notices for more information).
 * This problem has been worked around in the bot. Those that are still messed up just need someone to go to the report page and fix the code on that.
 * Thanks. :)  -- Cobi(t 22:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning users for vandalism
Seems ClueBot isn't warning users for vandalism since about 20:40 this evening - am I being dopey, or is there something wrong? &mdash; alex.muller (talk • edits) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot has gone nuts
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:78.2.70.204&action=history

Just how many final warnings does one user need? And for that matter, how many "January 2008" section headers? – Gurch 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also see WP:ANI. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying to start new page
I was just trying to start a new page under the title of Minimalist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annoyingdude117 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop
The Dana Jacobson has accurate info. Stop deleting it or else. --Sean O&#39;Donnell (talk) 02:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you going to beat up ClueBot if it doesn't listen to you? Enigmaman (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Trying to start a new page
I tried to start a new page, but there was a bastard who deleted my comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.226.127.24 (talk) 09:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The warning method
First of all, where is the place that safely stores the number of warnings a certain user has already got and does it reset them for a re-count after the warning is issued?

Secondly, here's an idea: ClueBot (1) could also revert recent changes just because they were made by blocked (at the time of detection) users. How about it?

Thanks! -Lwc4life (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mystery5619
Another editor has added the " " template to the article User talk:Mystery5619, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also What Wikipedia is not and Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the  template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 04:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly how would I set up cluebot on my own site?
I was attempting to setup cluebot to fight vandelism on the http://wiki.laptop.org/ wiki, but I get errors about:

Any ideas? ff m  18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ClueBot IV doesn't fight vandalism, ClueBot does. As for the errors, you need wikibot.classes.php in /home/ffm/clue/.  And you need a cluebot4.config.php in /home/ffm/clue/cbop/ that defines $owner, $user, $pass, $status, $maxlag, $maxlagkeepgoing, and an empty array $dnsbls &mdash; this is the bare minimum to get those errors to go away.  For ClueBot IV to actually work, you need a page like WP:OP on your wiki, you need nmap, flexscan, bopchecker.pl, libopm, whois, and the filled in values for the $dnsbls array.  -- Cobi(t 22:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * What about ClueBot (1) itself? Should all of the files be in the same folder except the class and the diff, which should one one folder on top of everything else?


 * Also, shouldn't the source article specifically name the scorelist "cluebot.scorelist.php" instead of generally naming it "Score list"? Can the source file itself be named everything since it's the only run the admin actually runs?


 * Finally, the source article is far from being the full source. What about the various JS files, templates, etc.?


 * It also doesn't explain what is, say, $status, and never defines parameters as $mysqlhost.
 * -Lwc4life (talk) 16:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Bug?
Hi, is not supposed that ClueBot continue warning in the same section? In this diff you can see ClueBot creating a new section, but it is unnecessary. Carlosguitar (ready and willing) 17:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Also note the code that is present in that diff before the sig. This diff has it aswell: "score equals -139450 on 2007-10-01T12:49:43+00:00. Thank you" --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

ClueBot IV error
ClueBot IV seems to have made an error here. It said it was adding clerk notes, but instead it removed my recent edits. Mr.  Z- man  19:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * What happened is: ClueBot IV grabbed the text from WP:OP, and while it was parsing it (less than a second), you posted yours, then ClueBot IV posted it's data, which overwrote your data.  Although it didn't actually add any clerk notes, it still tried to (it parsed the list and added any that didn't already exist, which happened to be none).  -- Cobi(t 20:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * This is the second one of these that I've seen in the last week. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)