User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2015/March

Protected edit request on 27 February 2015
It should be changed to "True" because the bot is currently running as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yoshi24517&diff=649060812&oldid=648909250. Thanks.

Yoshi24517 Chat Online 16:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅--5 albert square (talk) 21:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

People replacing and the prior url with a spam link
There are a number of companies promoting this practice including this one

The edit looks like this. Not sure if this is something that cluebot could address? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that's something that ClueBot can help with. Would have thought that would be more XLinkBot.  Pinging in  to get their view--5 albert square (talk) 21:30, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Might be something the Edit filter could also work on. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:43, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

March 2015
Hello, I'm Bobherry. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Practical because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks!  Bobherry Userspace  Talk to me!   Stuff I have done  02:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:DTTR! Eeeeeeeeeee!!! --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  03:10, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, a false positive. But the report interface is down again ... Yngvadottir (talk) 05:12, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * to make you guys aware that the false positive tool is down at the moment--5 albert square (talk) 05:34, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It looks like the webservice crashed but the labs controller didn't get notified so it wasn't automatcally restarted :( -  Rich T&#124;C&#124;E-Mail 11:42, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Bot requests
User:ClueBot III is archiving bot requests that haven't been dealt with. I have just had to reinstate one of these. — Smjg (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The bot is currently set to archive threads older than 168 hours, not whether they have been dealt with or not. Therefore it's not going outside of its code. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  15:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * But clearly it isn't doing this on every single page on Wikipedia, so what's making it do it on this one? This needs to be changed somehow so that it doesn't remove entries from queues of requests waiting to be dealt with. — Smjg (talk) 23:16, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Different discussion pages have different archiving settings. If you edit the first section of Bot requests, you will find a User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis template, this contains the settings specific to that page. Within that you will find 168, so threads will be archived if 168 hours have elapsed since the last activity on the thread. -- Red rose64 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

re. Bovril
Hi there! I saw that the Infobox was missing from "Bovril", so, I decided to add it. FYI, the other additions by 160.5.96.130 are NOT by me. With kind regards. --Aristo Class (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi, please keep in mind that ClueBot NG is a robot and not a human. Its job is to revert vandalism, not regulate article content. The revert it made on the article you mentioned was unrelated to your edits. Thanks, --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  15:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 26 February 2015
Can we have a list full of Cluebots that say this...

Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * I think they already do. Or something similar--5 albert square (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * As the above comment states, there is already a link to an explanation of each bot on the userpage. Rjd0060 (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Where? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:28, 8 March 2015 (UTC)


 * On the talk page, the box that you are linking to is already on this talk page. It links to all the active ClueBots.  It would be pointless linking to the ones that are inactive.--5 albert square (talk) 18:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion for more vandalism
Remember my comment about the article My Singing Monsters with the blatant advertising of something petty, such as "Big Blue Bubble is giving away 20 diamonds as a seasonal offer. Enter code 15749013CH in the referral code menu. Offer expires 2/29/2015"? Why isn't ClueBot NG thinking about reverting this sort of vandalism? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
 * How might ClueBot NG distinguish advertising from acceptable content? -- Red rose64 (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Acts of vandalism
Hello, I am discussing the "acts of vandalism" I made to the page The Critics. It is indeed true and I do not consider it an act of vandalism. Please elaborate on why you marked it as vandalism. Thank you.

Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewethanchowtoy (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Someone insulting your bot
This user here is insulting your bot with the string Stupid. I reported it in UAA. -- Pikachu2568 (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * They copped an indef block [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3AClueBot+NG+Is+Stupid more than a week ago]. See the history of this page for [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClueBot_Commons&offset=20150302120000&limit=3&action=history two of the reasons why]. -- Red rose64 (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

"revert ID" not visible due to long comment
Hi! I've tried to report a false positive (legitimate contribution reverted by your bot), but wasn't able to get the "revert ID" from the changelog because the log message was too long and was therefore truncated by the MediaWiki software: Please fix this bug, so the false positives can be reported. --MaSt (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you go on the talk page of the user that the bot reverted and click edit and somewhere near the end of CBNG's message you will see the Revert ID. (where it says MySQL ID) MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:02, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The "user" is an IPv6 address and doesn't have a talk page. Anyway, it's not so much about the specific case, but rather about the possibility to report false positives in general. The changelog message should be generated in a way that guarantees the visibility of the "revert ID". --MaSt (talk) 20:08, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * All users have talk pages (or can potentially have talk pages), even IPv6 users. If a ClueBot messaged them, it'll be on their talk page. In this case, it's User talk:70.208.154.106 - which is IPv4, not IPv6. -- Red rose64 (talk) 20:35, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks - I was thinking of what to respond before you beat me to it. Of course, the edit that was made before the IPv4's edit was made by an IPv6 address (hence why the Revert ID is not fully visible) MadGuy7023 (talk) 20:50, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I checked the wrong anonymous user's talk page. But that only proves the point: It's not obvious. I'm sure the problem has an easy fix, in the bot configuration there is probably a template for those changelog messages that needs to be adjusted. --MaSt (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Request to Block Vandal IP 69.172.85.34
I would like to bring to your attention to block an unconfirmed user making disruptive edits with the above mentioned IP address. Here are all the disruptive unconstructive edits logged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.172.85.34

The user has been warned multiple times on the talk page. Before it gets chaotic to undo the edits, please consider blocking the IP address.

Kapil.xerox (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Kapil


 * ClueBot is a robot and therefore unable to respond to messages or block anyone. The correct place to report this is WP:AIV.--5 albert square (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Bot ignoring warnings from some tools
I recently saw ClueBot NG is ignoring warnings from tools other than Twinkle. I had issued a level 1 warning, but the bot issued again a level 1 warning. Could you please fix this? --ToonLucas22 (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Could you link to the talk page where you encountered this issue? --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  16:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Bot restores internal links to non-existing articles
Removing internal links could be vandalism, but removing internal links to articles which do not exist is not. At this stage it seems that the bot does not make the difference. Ydecreux (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:REDDEAL. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, but then it means that a bot decides whether an article is likely to be created and considers as possible vandalism the suppression of links that have been red since they were introduced on September 6, 2007. Ydecreux (talk) 15:45, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The bot isn't magic. It determines which edits are vandalism based on an artificial neural network and a database of pre-screened edits that are vandalism. It checks the incoming edit with the edits in the database and then determines whether or not it should classify the edit as vandalism. It does not regulate article content, nor does it check when the content in question was added. Its job is to reverse nonconstructive edits. If the bot encounters an error, simply report it and then revert the bot's edit. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  23:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I did report the bot error, but had not revert its edit yet. Ydecreux (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Missed one that it caught before
Dear CBNG master (and best regards to CBNG itself): There's a user without a User page but with a Talk page User Talk:Clarkxwayne, who only (and after waiting out any block) edits the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God page (link to UCKG History). Their favourite trick is to replace all content with a glowing tribute, losing about 40,000 bytes. In the recent past ClueBot NG (ID 2154744) has instantly identified and reverted the sanitisation (1:46 10 March 2015, at the same minute as the original change was made). Virtually the same vandalic change as on 10 March was made at 01:50, 21 March 2015, but CBNG has not at the time of writing picked it up. It would seem that the CBNG filters have been altered to let this sort of thing through? It may not be possible reliably to catch this sort of thing, but I thought I had better notify you. (Losing 40,000 bytes should have some weight, though also happens with a few legitimate edits; maybe losing lots of bytes should be weighted according to the number of bytes deleted?) Congratulations and thanks for the good work. (By the time you see this the article may have been reverted by a human, though not yet.) Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi. The edits don't appear to be vandalism, but they could be misguided. It is possible that CBNG simply did not find the edit to be vandalism (which is normal), as the bot does not catch 100% of all vandalism, and its vandalism-detection algorithm is very complex. It can be difficult to determine why the bot decided to revert or skip a particular edit, because of this complexity. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  15:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reply. If CBNG simply hadn't found this edit I'd have thought nothing of it. But it did find virtually exactly the same edit some days ago and reverted it. This action was correct; others besides myself have carried out the same reversion a few times, and Clarkxwayne was first warned and then blocked (the block has clearly expired). So my opinion would be that the CBNG filters have weakened since the first incident (10 Mar). Of course it's perfectly likely that they had to be modified (automatically I expect) because of false positives. I had posted on User:ClueBot Commons/Praise for the instant 10 Mar reversion, prematurely it seems! Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I doubt that the bot was ever weakened, considering that the bot operators are mostly inactive or very quiet nowadays. There are many reasons as to why the bot might skip the edit. Possibly it simply lost connection with the server temporarily, as I've seen happen occasionally. The bot won't go back to check the edits it had missed if this happens. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  16:45, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

False positive
How do I know when the verdict is returned on the false positive ClueBot yielded? --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you've reported it via the link above, you won't know. It's assessed by another editor, and if it's a false positive the bot is trained on it.--5 albert square (talk) 23:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the info; yeah, I reported it right away. It's really interesting to me - I'd love to know precisely what tripped it. --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 03:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to it? Maybe someone on here could try and guess :)--5 albert square (talk) 22:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of 1726 Hoffmeister for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1726 Hoffmeister is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/1726 Hoffmeister until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of 1734 Zhongolovich for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1734 Zhongolovich is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/1734 Zhongolovich until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of 1796 Riga for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1796 Riga is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/1796 Riga until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)