User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2010/January

False positive
Not sure if I properly reported the false positive on Elliot McGucken. There's a link on the article's talk page to more details why the edits need to go. BeforeAfteread (talk) 18:28, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not give warning message
Better, do not give warning message to IP vandals as most of the time it lands on the computer of the innocent who actually work for the betterment of Wiki. Its my suggestion, as I hope Vandals do vandalism and run away and never take time to read instructions or warnings. Better silently block the IP for few hours - I am Browny CAT 59.92.58.24 (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if ClueBot didn't warn, users who were caught by ClueBot wouldn't know when they were doing vandalism, even when they don't mean to, and even if they don't read it, it's worth trying to give them the message. Also, that is why it is suggested that an account is created. If no one did vandalism at all, by the way, you can just report a false positive. The best thing to do is to create an account. -- Ha dg  er  00:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Obsencities?
I know that I am new to this - but I have to say that I find this response to my contribution on the Olduvai foot to be perhaps offensive:

"Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Olduvai Hominid 8. Your edits have been automatically marked as unconstructive/possible vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Olduvai Hominid 8 was changed by Oh8 (u) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2009-12-31T12:39:47+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 12:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC"

Obscenities? Never. And since I am one of the internationally published authors of this fossil assembalge, I wonder where the editors gain there "obviously expert" knowledge. I would be grateful for guidance as of which way to go forwards from here. I would be more thatn happy to write for Wiki, but not to be accused of obscenities. Rob Kidd —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oh8 (talk • contribs) 03:26, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can surmise based on this diff, the bot thought the word "homo" was obscene. Similarly, both I and apparently another editor had their edits reverted for having the string "666" in our edits. I am at a loss as to which obscure slang possesses an obscene expression "666" and what it signifies ("The Number of The Beast", perhaps?!). As is clear both from my reaction and from that of the other two editors mentioned, people generally tend to get very angry or annoyed when they are unjustly and absurdly accused of having used obscenities. The bot's list of expressions to be automatically reverted is broken and should be fixed as soon as possible. Also, the required way to file a formal complaint looks so cumbersome that out of the three editors mentioned, only I have had the patience to do it appropriately (and even I gave it up the first time), so it's an additional bureaucratic stupidity that the page declares that complaints filed informally will be deleted automatically. --91.148.159.4 (talk) 23:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

January, 5, 2010 - URGENT
ClueBot- I need help with Valparaiso University School of Law's page and have greatly appreciated your help in the past. The page is being consistently vandalized. Various users are deleting content that is copyrighted off of our webpage. Sources are needed as we are our own source. What I really would like is to have the original page back up and have our page locked as an educational institution that can only be edited by myself or another administrator in the Law School. Please let me know how this can be handled. KellyMarieKruger (talk) 16:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Content issue beyond ClueBot's scope. Discussing with editor at their talk page. No action required from the botop, botwise. (Yayy ClueBot! :) Franamax (talk) 22:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Cignal Digital TV Article
Hello!! Im sorry but did you know Cignal does not announce any future channes and interactive channel using the actors and actress in the Philippines as a speculations informations. This is libelous and false information. This is not a vandalism at all. But some IP users didint think that to destroy the reputation of the said DTH provider. - 203.177.74.140

Seemed to have missed this vandal
Cluebot catches so many problems before anyone notices them, that I hate to even mention this. But it seems to have missed this vandal until a person caught it many hours later:. Don't know whether it can or should catch it. I'm normally pretty happy with the way the bot works now. We can live with this! Student7 (talk) 14:23, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Stopped a good pagemove
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football/Archive_33#Formal_petition_to_change_the_naming_conventions

There a petition to change all the seasons to the year before the title was delivered. When checking around I noticed that all other european footballeague used the year in front (2009-10 Premier League)

The only league not to use that was the italian Serie A. And when i moved the second (I did successfully move Serie A 2008-09 to 2008-09 Serie A) this happened. Either someone else move the titles or give me a way to move them faster (there are over 70 of them) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sznax (talk • contribs) 20:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

ClueBotIII: Flagging Sections to Prevent Archiving
Hi. Is it possible when setting up an article talk page for ClueBotIII archiving to flag/tag certain sections at the H2 level to not be archived? That is, no matter how old a thread is, can it be exempted from being added to the archive? Thanks! —  Spike Toronto  08:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

HI
ok thanx! Luv U!

I deleted all the texted on the wikipedia of List of minor Doctors Characters (2010) because the information was wrong. I am a big fan of the soap and the characters have just been made up.

I will delete them again, okay. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.154.56 (talk) 18:17, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * If it's wrong you should try to fix it, or discuss it on the talk page with other editors. If it's so blatantly and irreparably incorrect that it needs to be removed entirely, then there are proper procedures for that. Reach Out to the Truth 15:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Missed vandalism being protected by ClueBot
I was reverting vandalism by another user. The vandalized page had much more text than the proper one, which I assume flagged cluebot when so much "content" was removed. This false positive appears to have been repeated again when someone else tried to undo cluebot's incorrect restoration of the vandalism. I attempted to report this through the "false positives" page, but the relevant selections for reason just told me to post about it here. The page in question is Global Agenda, edits 524386 and 524589. Xjph (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC).

WP:DABS
Hello;

ClueBot II appears to have stopped updating User:ClueBot II/dino, the source page for Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/dinosaur articles by size. J. Spencer (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

ClueBot VI is logged out since 10 January 2010
Just a note, is clerking WP:CHU/U while logged out (see example). Regards  So Why  22:21, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Warning IP's
I note that your bot gave two #1 warnings to an IP within 3 days apart. both of them had the same section headings (January 2010). Not sure if this was intentional or not. username 1 (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Has ClueBot II stopped editing completely?
hasn't made a single edit in a month. I am pretty curious - why has it taken a "break" for at least one month. Thanks for any answers! Schfifty 3  21:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

what did i do wrong?
what did i do wrong?

YourBrain (talk) 00:27, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You blanked an entire page. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Deletion from achive
What happened here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABot_requests%2FArchive_33&action=historysubmit&diff=339120668&oldid=339120664 ? Josh Parris 03:05, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

repairs ineffective?
The 'fix' applied today to Rocky Mountains appears to have NOT been effective. It seems that I don't understand the page structure well enough myself to attempt anything better. Filterbob (talk) 20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

"I made a mistake"
This should not be reported using the false positive tool, but I can't find where to report this. ClueBot correctly identified my mass deletion as a Bad Thing, but I don't want to gain a vandalism rap. I undid my change, and it turned out that ClueBot had beaten me to the revert at any rate, so no hamr done. What is the right place to correct ClueBot's classification of my lamentable edit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haakondahl (talk • contribs) 01:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit history can't be changed, but you can remove Cluebot's warning from your talk page if you'd like. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I think that either way, the edit shouldn't have been done (it's okay if it was just a computer error, though). You can remove the warning though, because it's not against the policy to remove messages from your own talk page (unless it's a declined block request and it's removed before the block expires, before someone unblocks that person, etc.). -- Ha  dg  er  01:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot editing while logged out
User:ClueBot VI is editing while logged out, see. WJBscribe (talk) 19:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

ClueBot isn't tracking warning levels
ClueBot is leaving level 1 warnings for registered users who have already logged recent level 2 and 3 warnings. See User talk:Whalefishfood, for instance. I replaced the most recent warning with uw-vandal4. —Largo Plazo (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Selena
why on earth did you delete my edit? I was trying to improve it but you didn't give me a chance to do that... AJona1992 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC). Hello I'm AJona1992 and I personally took three days to re-create and add more information for the article Selena. I am a huge fan of Selena and I personally didn't like the old version of the article becuase Selena deserves more then only five small sections so I did all my reasearch for Selena. There were mistakes that I wasn't awear of and I'm sorry I would never vandalize at all on wikipieda I try my best to add informative and resourcable information. So, I am sorry if you thought that but I really want to add and re-create this article please there's more Selena did in her life that's not here. Please and thank you AJona1992. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJona1992 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Typical time before first archiving? (ClueBot III)
About how long does it usually take ClueBot III to first discover a talk page where it's been asked to do archiving? Jeh (talk) 09:44, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Lesson on Wikipedia looking like vandalism
I had temporarily added some (vandalic) words to the "Social Networking" page for teaching purposes (I was showing Wikipedia's machinery to a colleague) and when I corrected them back a few seconds later I found that ClueBot had already reverted the change. Sorry for any inconvenience. Signo (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Reverting removals of
A common problem I've found when sorting through Category:Pages with missing references list is that newer users tend to remove the Reflist tag in situations such as this causing a cite error to appear. Would it be possible for a ClueBot to detect, revert and leave an AGF notification on the new users talk page? This would be quite helpful and would take some weight off editors working through the backlog. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 14:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Roger Federer
Hi, the changes that I made in the article of the statistics of Federer are not vandalism. I just wanted to reduce the size by creating a new article as it is always recomended (See Roger Federer Grand Slam perofrmance). It still needs to be worked out, but please revert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanguito Wiki (talk • contribs) 20:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)