User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2015/July

Bots
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html  This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.

What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.

This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.

If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!


 * The simple solution is to simply include the "rawcontinue" parameter with your request to continue receiving the raw continuation data (example ). No other code changes should be necessary.
 * Or you could update your code to use the simplified continuation documented at https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/API:Query#Continuing_queries (example ), which is much easier for clients to implement correctly.

Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.

Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.

Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Mustafizur Rahman (general) is a copied version
please note the article Mustafizur Rahman (general) is a copied version of Pervez Musharraf .Farzana zardari (talk) 11:22, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, in future the correct process is to place one of these templates on the page, then one of us admins will come along and delete it. If you look to the right of that page, you will see drop down boxes, the template that would have been appropriate in this case is A10.--5 albert square (talk) 20:28, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Please correct error
at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Vannevar_Bush (comment was deleteted without answer) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krauss (talk • contribs)


 * That is not an error. If you look at the bot's archiving instructions for the page it is set to archive threads over 120 hours old.  The thread is over 120 hours old, hence it was archived.  Unless someone changes the bot's archiving instructions, it will archive it again in another 120 hours.--5 albert square (talk) 11:38, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Why was this user not warned?
I've just noticed this edit to Peggy Mitchell, the bot has reverted obvious vandalism but then hasn't warned the user? Why would this be?--5 albert square (talk) 20:10, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

ClueBot 3 Notice
Hi all,

This is just a quick notice that ClueBot 3 will be turned off over the next few days in order to try and fix the archiving issues that has been plaguing it. This will mean that some noticeboards and popular talk pages may get a bit full and require manual archiving.

Sorry for the inconvenience caused by this, but I think we all rather have a proper working CB3 :)

 Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 18:03, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

P.S We are looking in to why CBNG not giving revert ID as well :)

Great! Glad to hear the issues have been noted and that a fix is (hopefully) on the way! --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  01:54, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

State Rights
Why'd you edit my page? I was standing up for my states rights and religious beliefs PekkaRinne (talk) 19:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I assume you refer to . It met several criteria for vandalism; and besides that, was also a clear breach of WP:NPOV. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

False positive without valid id
The edit here reverted previous edits that do not seem to be vandalism. However, the id given is 0, as is the case on User talk:DogukanOdaci. This means that I cannot report it through the normal tool. Is this behavior meant to happen? Fern 24 (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello, please see the above notice from one of the bots operators under "ClueBot 3 Notice", [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClueBot_Commons&diff=next&oldid=668930313 this is being investigated].--5 albert square (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Also Bot owners' noticeboard. -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the information, I wasn't sure where to look for this bug. As long as it's reported and known it's okay. Fern 24 (talk) 08:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Not Vandalism
Hi Bot, your this revert was not vandalism, in fact user was removing unsourced WP:POV, WP:OR, you can see "citation needed" tag there, also source provided is dead link. So clearly it was not obvious vandalism. -- Human 3015  knock knock • 15:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The bot can't respond to messages posted here; messages sent to this talk page are read by humans, not robots. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  01:04, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * , so bots should not have talk page. Anyway I posted it for humans whoever operates this bot or whoever can help to improve this bot. Though Cluebot is nice bot but I hope that this bot will not help any user to avoid 3 RR rule. -- Human 3015  knock knock • 01:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The talk page of a bot is used to discuss the bot. If so bots should not have talk page was our philosophy then technically articles should not have a talk page then ;) --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  02:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

What is this....deleted my essay
This site or thingy deleted my essay about time that i spent alot of hard work on😓😰😢😡😤😔😁👿😱😷😲😶😪😤😣😦😩😥😨 Victor2CjB (talk) 22:25, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Victor2CjB. ClueBot NG is a robot, not a human, and it does not have administrator abilities, so it cannot delete pages. Please check out our deletion policy to see why your pages have been deleted. Alternatively, you may be confusing "delete" with "revert". The main difference is that "deletion" removes content from public view and makes it so that only administrators can view or "undelete" it, and "revert" means that an edit was undone, but it is still available in the page history, accessible to anyone, and can be restored by anyone who can edit. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  22:37, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect that refers to . The content that was removed is completely unsourced, and reads very much like original research/opinion. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Also this. Note no revert id in the edit summary, which is required for reporting false positives via the normal mechanism. Also note "ANN scored at 1" in the talk page message, apparently indicating that it was vandalism with absolute certainty. Also note that there was nothing clearly unusual about the added content. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  03:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG has tons of zero reverts ids, with the last nonzero one on 2 July. Maybe I don't understand how that's supposed to work, but I assumed the revert id was always supposed to be nonzero, otherwise why would the edit summary always give you a link to a reporting facility that requires a revert id. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  04:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It's being investigated, see [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClueBot_Commons&diff=next&oldid=668930313]. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  13:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That mentions the zero revert id but not the score of 1 for something that shouldn't have been reverted in the first place. I'll assume the two are connected, and any fix will fix both issues. Btw, I didn't get your ping, I guess because you removed some content in the same edit. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Revert ID has nothing to do with ANN score. The revert ID is generated when an edit is made. The ANN score is assigned to every edit the bot checks, and determines when an edit should be reverted or not. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  01:02, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, then I was wrong, and the fact remains that the bot reverted an edit that wasn't even close to vandalism, giving a score of 1, which, as I understand such scoring, means absolute certainty; i.e., a 100% probability. I see that as a significant problem, perhaps more significant than the other one, depending on how often it happens. If I were responsible for the bot, I would be very interested in understanding how that could happen, even if only once. That's the purpose of false positive reporting, and this would be the mother of all false positives. &#8213; Mandruss  &#9742;  00:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What the bot considers as vandalism and what we consider as vandalism may be completely different. The edit likely contained a lot of words and phrases commonly used in vandalism edits used to deface BLPs. Of course, since the bot is so incredibly complex, it would take someone with superhuman powers to know exactly why the bot did this and did that. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  14:10, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I thought I was clear above what I was referring to, which was the addition of this content: As you can see, there is nothing resembling vandalism in that, and it should not have received a score anywhere near the threshold required to revert it, let alone a score of 1. The bot can never be 100% sure, even if an edit is nothing but the addition of apparent garbage like "sajscc",  and should therefore never give a score of 1, although it can get very close to 1. The "superhuman powers" thing is just wrong. Someone who knows the programming language in which the bot's logic is written can study the code until they understand it. It's simply a matter of finding a person who knows the language and is willing to take a look.  If you're not a person who can do this, fine. If you don't know who is, fine. But please don't assert that it's impossible for mere humans. If we reach a point where our computer software is too complex to be understood and modified by anyone present, we are in big trouble. At that point, we no longer have control beyond just pulling the plug on the software; that's axiomatic. &#8213; Mandruss   &#9742;  07:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Updates!
Hi all,

ClueBot NG CBNG crashed yesterday as for some reason an important file to run it got lost, we replaced the file and it's now back, sorry about that. Also! Revert IDs are now back as well, looks like there was an issue with it hitting the MySQL database.

ClueBot III Is running... kind of... we are keeping an eye on it

 Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 22:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Glad it's back as I'm wanting the bot to start archiving my talk page now!--5 albert square (talk) 23:35, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thats nice.-- Human 3015  knock knock • 23:46, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that User:Lowercase sigmabot III archives your talk page :) -  Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 17:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Glad to see that Revert IDs are back, but there is still one problem: the "long IP" edit summaries. Special:Diff/670558541 Eman 235 / talk  19:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, we are looking in to that, however there is a direct link to the report interface in the warning on the user talk page (link that says 'Report It Here') -  Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 21:48, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes I was meaning that I was thinking of retiring Lowercase Sigmabot and asking CB3 to do the job instead.  Been thinking that for a while but as soon as I thought it that was when CB3 started going off the radar :)--5 albert square (talk) 22:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In my case, I had chosen to retire Lowercase sigmabot III for CBIII mostly because it generated archive indexes, and with Legobot being erratic in that task, I decided to make the switch. Not long after that, all this happened. *sigh* It just seems my talk page indexes are never going to be in good shape. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  14:07, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm waiting for CB3 to calm down a bit before I make the change :)


 * are you aware that talk page is still not being archived by CB3?  I'm not sure if something needs changed.  In the meantime I'm off over there with a broom :)--5 albert square (talk) 18:47, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for correcting my mistake, I changed it now. Thx thx thx Jessrox3000 (talk) 10:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Picture of military plane
Why is the picture a military plane? Doesn't it unnecessarily promote war, violence, etc? Socialistguy (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * It's a metaphor on Wikipedia in which anti-vandal bots are depicted as military fighters and/or bombers. See User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2014/November. AFAIK this has been around since the very early days of anti-vandal bots on Wikipedia, more than a decade ago. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  14:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying . I noticed this page says 404 not found. The bot managers may want to fix it. Socialistguy (talk) 09:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Request additional phrases to revert
Various IPs are adding the terms 'video-on-demand' and/or 'in select theaters' to movie and TV tables on BLP pages. These often include movies that aren't even in theaters anymore. For example, these. Might these phrases be added to one of the ClueBots? If not, how might such edits be automatically stopped. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe talk - Inspector General  ‖ 19:20, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Adding another phrase to CBNG's dataset
Another Internet meme, the phrase "dank meme" has been used to vandalize many articles. I searched "dank meme", and many articles came up with evident vandalism (I have reverted all of it and warned all the users). May I suggest adding "dank meme"/"dank memes" to ClueBot's dataset? Thanks. ~GottaGoFast Step it up 21:38, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

thanks
thanks sir for look at Angrej — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakam singh indian (talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

Article prefix/namespace bug
A MediaWiki bug (T87645) resulted in a number of articles intended for other namespaces being created within namespace 0 on January 27th 2015. A number of these (listed below) were related to the activities of this account. All have now been superseded by entries in the correct namespace.

I intend to delete the misplaced articles of the next few days. I do not believe this action should interfere with (or even be noticed by) this bot, but please yell if you disagree.

Cheers. - TB (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Village pump (technical)/Archive 134 and posts linked from that, incl. User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2015/February and User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2015/February. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info; I've added a regular check & cleanup for this issue.  For now, all the entries of the list above are fixed. - TB (talk) 19:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

How do you delete vandalism so quickly?
Did Wikipedia give you like a special program or something? Ollypf (talk) 02:28, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ClueBot is a bot assigned to revert vandalized articles automatically. -- Dspradau   → talk   02:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi
Who are u? Robb icecream (talk) 10:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please refer to the red box at the top of this page. You can get more information by following the links. – Wdchk (talk) 13:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Broken link
Hi creators of Cluebot, I just wanted to let you know that this link is broken. Hope you guys fix it soon so I can help review the dataset :) Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 11:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This is still the case as of today. Is the dataset review no longer a thing?Rambunctious Racoon (talk) 07:39, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * --5 albert square (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Why?
From Mikeman434 In response to the removal of my edit on the Reading Fightin Phills page, I believe that this edit being retracted from the page is a mistake, the LeHigh Valley Iron Pigs website will confirm that KC Serna has joined the team, he is also my older cousins boyfriend. So if you can, can you reinstate my edit? Thank you Mikeman434 (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see the information I left on your Talk page. ClueBot is a computer program, and cannot answer your question. General Ization  Talk   02:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello
Are you Vietnamese? Tuyết xanh (talk) 14:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read the text in the red box at the top of the page. <font color="#006633">General Ization <font color="#000666">Talk   14:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for ClueBot NG
I've noticed that ClueBot NG has the ability to recognize when a user has been given a certain level of vandalism warnings. For example, if a user has recently received uw-vandalism1 and uw-vandalism2, and they make an edit that ClueBot NG reverts, the message that the bot leaves is very similar to uw-vandalism3. However, what I've noticed is that the bot does not recognize that a user has received a level one warning if that warning is welcome-unconstructive or welcome-anon-unconstructive. If possible, I would like to see its programming tweaked in a way that it would be able to recognize when a user has received a warning that is mixed in with a welcome message, so that it does not leave a level one warning on the page of such users and leaves the level two warning instead. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

You reverted a BLP PROD blanking.
I flag this as a false positive. DoNotTakeTheBait (talk) 02:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Not a false positive. Good revert. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:27, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it's not. It's reverting PROD BLPs. DoNotTakeTheBait (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Show me where guidelines say we blank prodded articles. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:BLP PROD DoNotTakeTheBait (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Feel free to look at my contributions to see my good faith in regards to wanting to remove non-notable living rape victims from Wikipedia per WP:BLP. I did accept the rationale of one editor however on the PROD removal and did not revert the PROD. DoNotTakeTheBait (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please read what you're linking to. "To place a BLPPROD tag, the process requires that the article contain no sources in any form (as references, external links, etc.), which support any statements made about the person in the biography." --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:37, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The policy on BLP in general allows you to delete information. There's no way to know which of these rape victims are alive or dead, especially considering that they were young birth mothers. DoNotTakeTheBait (talk) 03:42, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

175 sources. As I said, good revert. --<b style="color:navy">Neil N </b> <i style="color:blue">talk to me</i> 03:47, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * If you read the nomination process of WP:BLP PROD, it says:


 * Make sure the article contains no sources in any form, which support any statements made about the person.
 * Check the biography's history to be sure that it was created after March 18, 2010.


 * As has already advised you, there are 175 sources in the article.  Also, if you check the article's history, you will see that it was created in 2007.  Therefore, the process that you used does not apply to this article and this is a good revert by the bot.  I hope this explains everything to you.--5 albert square (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

ClueBot III not archiving again?
Is anyone else experiencing ClueBot III not archiving their talk page again?--5 albert square (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Ever since I had bots archive my talk page I had never paid much attention to the subject. I guess this again explains why I have a backlog of old discussions (mostly newsletters). If this persists, I might just go back to Lowercase sigmabot III. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  00:39, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Old threads that don't get archived are often caused by total absence of timestamp (see the first few at User talk:Redrose64 which I must get around to clearing out), or by a timestamp in non-standard format. Even the presence of a Left-to-right mark (LRM) adjacent to (or within) the timestamp can cause archiving to fail; an LRM is invisible, but it can creep in if you copypaste a timestamp from elsewhere. For example, somebody might have copypasted the timestamp from page history, where every entry has three of these LRMs: one directly after the date, one directly after the "(talk | contribs)" closing parenthesis, and one directly after the closing parenthesis where it shows the number of bytes added or removed. -- Red rose64 (talk) 07:49, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * IIRC ClueBot III didn't use timestamps to determine when to archive pages, it actually thumbs through the page history to determine when the last comment to a discussion was made. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  03:18, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Did ClueBot NG miss this?
Given that ClueBot usually corrects vandalism on this page immediately, I was surprised to find uncorrected vandalism here. (Although I don't have a citation to back up my assertion, I'm pretty sure that Unicorn meat is not an ingredient in Swedish Fish candy!) I know that reporting false positives helps to train ClueBot NG but does reporting false negatives? Is there a specific way to do so? Thanks. (I'll watch here for any reply.)  Etamni &#124;  &#9993;  03:31, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The trouble is that unicorn and meat are not usual vandal phrases so it possibly wouldn't have shown up on ClueBot's radar. It hasn't even set off any of the filters.  That would have required a human revert.--5 albert square (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)