User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2009/March

Cluebot blanked talk page
What is going on here? diff Matty (talk) 03:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on pages in the File namespace.
Somebody complained at WP:AIV about this edit. Of course, the culprit is the vandalized page itself, but something should be done about it. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 21:52, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a case of vandalism
Dear ClueBot Commons, the article Y-Cromossomal Aaron, was edit by a group of people who agree with the new and necessary changes. Please, do not delete the article. The new information is correct, very informative, and have the approval of everybody. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.63.100.161 (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey my archive is all weird...
an someone have a look, my archive is weird.... It's on my talk page, The reason is beyond me but someone must know :p  mczack26   speak to me  20:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments
cluebot stop editing my pages... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.84.58.152 (talk) 19:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ha, there's a power button on the Bot's page. Niiiiiiice. Rustyfence (talk) 12:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsigned comment w/o heading
Yeah cluebot stop editing my pages. you are sooo annoying. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.191.33.247 (talk) 02:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, Indeed?!?
Cobi! I am so grateful that Cluebot fixed the mistake that I made. I R Cluebot's Happy Smile! :) --  Tresapedario - I•MyFace•MyToes - timed 23:23, 25 April 2039 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tr3sap3dar1o (talk • contribs)

Premiere
Reliable source or not, we all know the premiere was today. Not everything has a source to it. Goku1st (talk) 19:16, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Template
Does cluebot have any dedicated templates? If so, I would like to see one. α§ʈάt̪íňέ-210 discovered elements ∞ what am I? 22:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

ya i know. it keeps changing my stuff.

This Computer Keeps Getting Warnings from this Bot-- But it is a Public Library Computer
What are you going to do-- ban the whole library?

66.227.84.101 (talk) 02:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

hahah probably. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.42.97 (talk) 01:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Account creator
Why does ClueBot have/need the accountcreator flag? Stifle (talk) 12:00, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Emailing you... – xeno  ( talk ) 03:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * ClueBot shouldn't have the accountcreator flag. Just bot, rollbacker, and IPBE.  -- Cobi(t 02:07, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

minkeepthreads default
Was surprised to see a talk page on my watchlist blanked after ClueBot archived every single thread on the page. Is zero a useful default? User:MiszaBot has a default of "5", which seems preferable for showing that a talk page has been active in the past, and for keeping occasionally-recurring talk threads on the page for longer. --McGeddon (talk) 10:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

...
Wow that fast I didn't even get to see my revision it happened so fast. And the bot knew it wasn't vandalism. I call tyranny! --67.86.84.5 (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

If you get hit by a train,does it make a sound?

Suggested enhancement
Hi there, time and time again I come across anonymous deletions of whole sections or other large chunks of articles -- often just people hitting keys at random, I suppose -- that have lain undetected and unreverted for a long time. Given the tiny proportion of Wikipedia articles that I look at, I extrapolate that across the whole of Wikipedia this must be a major problem. Goodness knows how much material has been lost forever in this way. Is there any way that this sort of edit can be automatically detected and reverted? Even if this results in some loss of editing ability for anonymous users (e.g. can't delete whole sections) I still think it would be worth doing. One problem, I guess, might be distinguishing deletions from reorganisations. It would be kind of tiresome if anonymous users could not, say, switch the order of sections. Anyway, I hope that better brains than mine can see a way to address this problem. 86.142.109.103 (talk) 04:08, 8 March 2009 (UTC).

Another act of vandalism by Mariosalazar
You forgot to flag Mariosalazar (talk) for his vandalizing edits on the article Alizée. I have already reverted this obnoxious edtiors abusive doings. But I felt you should be the one giving him a warning for this, since you have the previous two times. KeltieMartinFan (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Diff recommendation
I recommend that you use Template:diff instead of posting hard-coded URLs. This gives the greatest flexibility, and is helpful for users like myself who would prefer to use the secure links (https), as the template will give the http or https link according to how the viewer is currently visiting Wikipedia. LobStoR (talk) 04:05, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

index problems
Could someone take a look at archive index generation? It's generating some bizarre things on my page.--Rtphokie (talk) 16:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The comment above appears to have been put in the wrong place.--Rtphokie (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

ClueBot restored wrong version
This bot generally works great, but I wanted to let you know that it recently restored the wrong version of Fernando Torres. After a user with an account (Matyp133) blanked part of the page, an IP address (91.195.183.216) made 3 vulgar edits. ClueBot undid the vulgar edits, but restored the blanked version of the page. See Revision history of Fernando Torres for further details. Thanks. Shanata (talk) 11:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That inevitably happens because ClueBot reverts only what it detects and doesn't look further back. -- Menti  fisto  11:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Apology
I'm sorry for the reverts on Gamesmaster. It's just that I don’t like bad language on an encyclopeadia website but I guess it's all part of what Wikipedia is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.168.89 (talk) 19:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

About the names of Makówki in other languages
I was in the process of correcting the title. Please add the following text to Mohnpielen (see discussion Makówki) Thank you.(70.133.65.117 (talk) 11:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC))



Mohnpielen from northern Germany, particularly the Mark Brandenburg and Berlin, , , , , , , as well as from Silesia, where they are known in (Lower Silesian: Mohnkließla as well as Mohnpielen, Mákos Guba) is a traditional dessert (poppy seed "dumplings") served usually on Christmas Eve (and perhaps on the following days, as long as the supply prepared for Christmas lasts).

The preparation of this food goes back to ancient German pre-christian tradition, when during the frost days many seeded foods were prepared in order to assure a rich harvest. It was combined with Christmas tradition, but a part must be left in the bowl for a later meal. The remaining part is called Frau Holde (Goden, Perchta)'s Teil

Now sometimes also listed in Polish sources about Silesian cuisine, they are called in Polish language Makówki. A similar dish, but with slices of Kifli (Kipferl) was brought to Hungary by German as well and is now called Mákos Guba.

The main ingredient are: sweet white bread and finely ground poppy seeds boiled in milk with butter. Other important ingredients include: dried fruit (figs, raisins, apricots, dates, etc.) almonds and other kinds of nuts (the choice of nuts and dried fruit varies). It is flavoured with sugar, honey, vanilla, cinnamon and rum.

The rolls or bread are cut into thin slices, cubed and layered in a clay pot or more often into a glass or crystal bowl. After each layer, the sauce of the boiled poppy seeds, with flavouring and nuts, is poured so that the bread is well soaked. The top is decorated with some extra nuts and fruit. The dish is served cold, at least several hours after preparation.

Mohnpielen are well known in earlier German literature and a number of Historical publications from Brandenburg and Berlin. Julius Stinde wrote about Familie Buchholz, Theodor Fontane in his travels through Mark Brandenburg wrote about Mohnpilen and other dishes, and Lovis Corinth descibes how he always makes them.

Notes

Google book search

Google book search Makówki Actual Results 2-3 books about Makówki food, more than 600 show Polish text of completely different matter.

(Total: 375 books)
 * Mohnpielen = Result 171 books about Mohnpielen food
 * Mohnklöße = Mohnklöße = Results 158 books
 * Mohnspeise = Mohnspreise = Result 46 books

(70.133.65.117 (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC))

Google book search Makówki Actual Results 2-3 books about Makówki food, more than 600 show Polish text of completely different matter.

Google book search


 * Mohnpielen = Result 171 books about Mohnpielen food
 * Mohnkloesse = Result 158 books actually only 1 book (sic!) 213.238.122.164 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Mohnspreise = Result 46 books No results at all (sic!) 213.238.122.164 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats not egzactly true. Here are 10 books from those results that tell about Makówki - dish:


 * 1. Kuchnia Śląska (silesian cousine)
 * 2. Opole's Regency countryside between 1815-1914
 * 3. Customs of Silesia
 * 4. Silesians, review of transformation since the Piast Poland...
 * 5. Upper Silesian Folklor
 * 6. Traditions, customs and celebrations of Silesia
 * 7. Adaptation and integration of Silesians after WWII
 * 8. Food of the country people
 * 9. Cultural heritage, regional education
 * 10. Western review

Naturally most of the results for Makówki Śląsk (Silesia) - 143 and Makówki danie (dish) - 50 show only the results considering the foodstuf. Each of them alone outnumbers the results for Mohnkließla and Mohnpilen taken togeather - 22. 213.238.122.164 (talk) 21:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

-- Following are results of Polish search:

From the talk page of the Makówki article.

There is a discussion wheather the name of the dish schould remain as it is or schould it be translated into German.

Here are the results of Google Books search of the names in question.

1. Makówki - 624 results

2. Makówki Śląsk - 143 results (Śląsk Polish for Silesia)

3. Makówki danie (makówki dish) - 50 results

4. Mohnkließla - 1 result

5. Mohnpilen - 21 results

6. Mákos Guba - 177 results

I hope that now the discussion will end becouse it can be easily seen that the German names dont appear in the books as often as the other names.

Cheers 213.238.109.254 (talk) 18:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Links to vandalism on file pages
Would it be possible to have ClueBot add a leading colon to file links when posting vandalism warnings on file pages? For example, I added the leading colon here after ClueBot posted the warnings. Without the leading colon the text is warped by the excessively large image inserted in the middle of the warning. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Glitch
Please see and. Notice that ClueBot warned the user even though it did not revert the page Kyoto Protocol. It was probably because I hit the rollback link on Special:RecentChanges before ClueBot automatically reverted the page, however, it warned the user before I did. I would suggest that the bot double-check to see if it reverted the page before warning the user. -- IRP ☎ 19:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:SCV redlink removal.
Cluebot used to remove redlinks from Suspected copyright violations, which was very useful. I'm wondering if this could be re-activated, and if there was a reason it stopped... – Toon (talk)  20:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User: 121.54.64.36 as Vandalize User
Hello!! Please help me to block the user 121.54.64.36 most the article in written almost vadalized article like Xing Kong, STAR Cricket, Star Majha, Discovery Real Time among other articles mostly a treat vandalism article which is not true at all. I try to revert the exact article not the vandalized one. Here's his/her Special:Contributions/121.54.64.36 of 121.54.64.36 but mostly vandalism but I already revert it all articles. Please stop him to block that user pernamently. Thanks. Edwings 09:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

CHARMED
Hello I noticed that you reverted my edits as vandalism. I was meerly cleaning up the page it already has the info on the characters in the same detail below in the character section of the page so that much longer & detailed version is not needed otherwise you have the same information about the characters twice on the same page for no reason. It was not vandalism at all. That page is a mess in general with the same info on it several times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.138.127.202 (talk) 18:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

keyword suggestions...
looking at this diff it might be a good idea to add the forms of 'dominate' (in regex: "\bdominate(s|d)?\b") to the calculation - it's a very common vandal word, but not so common for normal article use - as well as the variations of 'hi mom' ((e.g. "\b(hi|hey),? (mom|ma|dad|pop|pa)\b". I'm kind of surprised cluebot missed this, actually. -- Ludwigs 2 00:26, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

No its wrong
its me, personally that added that content, then I remove it. how to use the sandbox please ?ErectedMonster (talk) 14:28, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

bot report
you got a virus of spywares and virus!please shut down now for repairing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Berendale (talk • contribs) 22:11, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Non-free image in cluebot warning
This warning displays a non-free image outside main article space. It should probably be linked (File:Coat of arms of Canada.svg) instead. Gimmetrow 18:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I reported this problem last month, but no one responded. It seems that no one is responding to any of the concerns left here recently. wodup 18:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello
Yes I'm sorry for the vandalism going on, becuase of this IP address. But I must ask not to block this IP address since this a IP for an entire school so I just thought I should tell. Thank you.--71.95.215.2 (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Gwabadee gwabadee gwabadee
How do I go about requesting a new word/phrase be added to the blacklist? I've got an article on my watchlist, John Craven, where a particularly persistent vandal keeps adding the same nonsense paragraph, always from a different IP, over a period of at least 2 years now:
 * "When John Craven talks he sounds like hes saying gwabadee gwabadee gwabadee gwabadee gwabadee gwabadee gwabadee gwabadee gwabadee gwabadee gwabadee"

The article has been semi-protected a number of times, but this of course stops all IP's from making any edits, even constructive ones. A little help from the King of Bots would be much appreciated. Cheers, Beve (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC).

FYI: Vandalism not fixed in five days
FYI only: I just reverted this trivial vandalism from 22 March 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Guo&oldid=279032675. I'm surprised that it would persist for five days- ClueBot is usually faster than that, I think. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:15, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems to basically remove the ability of people to make significant changes to Wikipedia without a login?
At present the false positives page is locked for editing. As an unregistered user, this means that the edit I wish to make (perfectly valid, but I appreciate that the point of the false positives page is that the merit of these things isn't relevant here) is being blocked by an entity that I cannot respond to. In other words, at the time of writing this bot undermines Wikipedia's claim that it can be edited by anyone without being accountable as the the usual page locks are and without any trusted member of the community checking the material that is effectively locked. I suggest that this is a major design flaw. — 78.105.17.36 (talk) 23:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism
Hi Cluebot, while going through the article Goiás, i noticed that some clear vandalism has been untouched in almost a month (1st March) and i was wondering since you reverted the vandalist's earlier vandalism, i was wondering if you could please revert the vandalism and tell me how to revert double vandalism (e.g. vandalism thats been done twice).

Thanks :) --Bezuidenhout (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored the pre-vandalism data. I didn't revert it because I didn't want to lose intermediate edits. If it's something like that, you always have the option to manually correct it. In this case, I looked at the edit history and compared the last edit of the vandal to the prior, non-vandalized version to make sure I identified all data that had been vandalized. Then I literally copied the original data and pasted it over the vandalized data in the current version of the article. ClueBot has a pretty strict criteria to avoid false positives so there are a lot of situations where it will not revert vandalism. It's not always a case of "missing" it. For example, ClueBot won't revert edits by a specific user to a specific article more than once in a given day (I assume to avoid an automated revert war). Keep in mind, those are ClueBot's rules. You are not bound by the same rules (though revert wars are still not allowed, see 3RR). But in the case of vandalism, there is nothing special about fixing repeated vandalism. You may fix it the second time the same way you fixed it the first time. If vandalism persists from a specific user or IP address, warn the user on their user talk page, following the format for warnings outlined in Template_messages/User_talk_namespace. If they persist after several warnings, and it is obvious that they are vandalizing and that their edits are not in good faith, ask for administrator assistance in Administrator intervention against vandalism. They will be able to temporarily or permanently block a user or IP address from editing after repeated vandalism. DanielDeibler (talk) 01:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Bug
Excuse me, Mr. Bot, but I believe you have a bug when warning someone about vandalizing an image:. Magog the Ogre (talk) 11:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

ok man don't angry —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.235.124.237 (talk) 14:18, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Beijing Capital International Airport and others
Edits like this should probably not be reverted. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports for the reason. Cheers. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 22:36, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

No Clue
I never ever edited the US Supreme Court on this IP address, you got the wrong person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.135.13.171 (talk) 04:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I pissed off cluebot
I beat it to a revert, so it tried to spite me by replacing my warning to the user with its own. That @*#$%#* took my credit! Someguy1221 (talk) 06:14, 31 March 2009 (UTC)