User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2016/April

Redirect catching
Is it possible to create a filter to catch this? I noticed it creates false positives on the new pages feed, as I have caught two ones tonight, one for "fisting" and the other for "KKK". Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:25, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * ClueBot doesn't operate on filters, but rather a variety of techniques described in detail at User:ClueBot_NG. If such edits are frequent, you could try raising the matter at WT:EF to discuss a possible edit filter which could stop such edits before they go through. jcgoble3 (talk) 05:59, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

rationales
When seeing [], one can conclude that the following modifications would be useful.


 * 1) English dates in archives should be recognized.   $pattern = '/(\d{2}):(\d{2}), ([a-zA-Z]+) (\d+), (\d{4}) \(UTC\)/i' should be detected (at least once in a whole archive). When found, it should be replaced by $replacement = '*** ${1}:${2}, ${4} ${3} ${5} (UTC)' and the whole page rewritten.
 * 2) When the archive page contains no sections, the index page should not be created, and should not be referenced in the Master Detailed Indices.
 * 3) Dates formatting in the generated indices. We shouldn't have extra spaces in the date cells: this is required to allow sorting by dates (when all dates in the column are known). Moreover, we shouldn't have inner spaces in date cells: this is required to avoid line splitting at rendering
 * 4) Short months are not recognized. 'January' is the standard, but 'Jan' should be recognized also.  Moreover, table $month should be a global variable, instead of being recreated at each section (circa 10,000 times for the Administrator's Noticeboard).
 * 5) Detection if the index page should be rewritten. I don't understand why a '/\<\!-- CB3 MD5:([0-9a-f]{32}) --\>/i' pattern is used, since it requires a full lecture of the index page. The test should be: proceed only if the index page is missing or older than the archive page.
 * 6) returning $data is a fossilized remain from the old (Main Detailed Indices is build by transclusion, not by writting in full). For the present, this return is only a space eater. Instead, we should use $ret to signify 2: indices was written, 1: writting was skipped (indices newer then archive), 0: empty archive, don't list it.
 * 1) Short months are not recognized. 'January' is the standard, but 'Jan' should be recognized also.  Moreover, table $month should be a global variable, instead of being recreated at each section (circa 10,000 times for the Administrator's Noticeboard).
 * 2) Detection if the index page should be rewritten. I don't understand why a '/\<\!-- CB3 MD5:([0-9a-f]{32}) --\>/i' pattern is used, since it requires a full lecture of the index page. The test should be: proceed only if the index page is missing or older than the archive page.
 * 3) returning $data is a fossilized remain from the old (Main Detailed Indices is build by transclusion, not by writting in full). For the present, this return is only a space eater. Instead, we should use $ret to signify 2: indices was written, 1: writting was skipped (indices newer then archive), 0: empty archive, don't list it.
 * 1) returning $data is a fossilized remain from the old (Main Detailed Indices is build by transclusion, not by writting in full). For the present, this return is only a space eater. Instead, we should use $ret to signify 2: indices was written, 1: writting was skipped (indices newer then archive), 0: empty archive, don't list it.
 * 1) returning $data is a fossilized remain from the old (Main Detailed Indices is build by transclusion, not by writting in full). For the present, this return is only a space eater. Instead, we should use $ret to signify 2: indices was written, 1: writting was skipped (indices newer then archive), 0: empty archive, don't list it.

Pldx1 (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

rationales
When used over a page with many archives, the resulting MasterDetailedIndex is on overflow. Here are some ideas about fixing this problem


 * 1) When there are more than a given number of archives (maybe 50, maybe 100), the process shouldn't be called at all from the template &#123;&#123;User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis&#125;&#125;, i.e. we should have.
 * 2) When there are more than 100 archives, the MasterDetailledIndex must be split in several parts, each transcluding less than 100 Indexes. And then the MDI should be a page that links to the MDI-Parts. For example, there are 915 Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive... requiring 10 MDI-parts...
 * 3) This routine should use the return code given by generatedetailedindex to not list an archive file that doesn't contain any section (i.e. aren't genuine archives).
 * 4) If we change the header in the DI (cf the subroutine), the header fo the MDI should be changed accordingly.
 * 5) Sorting the archives by their last modif date is not so evident when one of these archives was modified for any reason (e.g. some random gnome decides that any of his hobby should be changed). Maybe we can reuse a page like Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchives to force the ordering (of most of the pages).
 * Pldx1 (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) If we change the header in the DI (cf the subroutine), the header fo the MDI should be changed accordingly.
 * 2) Sorting the archives by their last modif date is not so evident when one of these archives was modified for any reason (e.g. some random gnome decides that any of his hobby should be changed). Maybe we can reuse a page like Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchives to force the ordering (of most of the pages).
 * Pldx1 (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Pldx1 (talk) 13:22, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Multiple copies
If you gave out the source code, would it be possible for someone to edit the code to moderate a different list of pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bell MT (talk • contribs) 16:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The source for ClueBot NG is open, see User:ClueBot_NG. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 22:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Archiving trouble
The page WP:FFU has this configuration template: The idea is that sections only are to be archived if they are closed, and closed sections always contain User:ClueBot III/ArchiveNow, while unclosed sections do not contain this template. For this reason, the age parameter is set to a high value (a bit over half a year). Unfortunately, there are lots of closed sections which haven't been archived for a long time, and I can't figure out why. Is anyone able to help? --Stefan2 (talk) 18:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Speedy delete vandalism
Hi,

I was wondering why ClueBot NG doesn't check new pages for vandalism and tag such pages for G3? It only seems to check edits to existing articles; or at least I've never seen ClueBot NG tag a newly created page consisting entirely of vandalism. Adam9007 (talk) 17:10, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Simply put, this functionality was never added to ClueBot NG. The bot can't do something it wasn't programmed to do. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 14:05, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a vital function isn't it? Adam9007 (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

chupacabra
What made you think that I vandalised the chupacabra page? Talk this out with Acroterion, but you will not stop me inserting more sightings. Have a look on the web and in"Tracking the Chupacabra" for more information on that particular sighting Please stop thinking of me as a vandal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gigantopithecusman (talk • contribs) 08:37, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Why do you think that I vandalised it, you robot? I will put it back, and you please talk with Acroterion Gigantopithecusman (talk) 08:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Please read the message in the red box at the top of this page. Are you seriously expecting a robot to talk to someone for you? — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 14:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 March 2016
Zaha5516 (talk) 15:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Mansaf (منسف) is a traditional Jordanian dish made of lamb cooked in a sauce of fermented dried yogurt and served with rice or bulgur. It is the national dish of Jordan and it is also common in Palestine, Iraq, Syria, and Saudi Arabia. The name of the dish comes from the term "large tray" or "large dish".

Preparation
The lamb is cooked in a broth made with a fermented then dried yogurt-like product called jameed, and served on a large platter with a layer of flatbread (markook or shrak) topped with rice and then meat, garnished with almonds and pine nuts, and then sauce poured over all. Abode is crazy

Cultural and political role
Mansaf, as historian and anthropologist Yousef Ghawanmeh states in his book The cultural history of Jordan during the Mamluk period 1250–1517, is associated with a traditional Jordanian culture based on an agro-pastoral lifestyle in which meat and yogurt are readily available. Mansaf is served on special occasions such as weddings, births and graduations, or to honor a guest, and on major holidays such as Eid ul-Fitr, Eid ul-Adha, and Jordan's Independence Day. It is traditionally eaten collectively from a large platter in the Bedouin and rural style, standing around the platter with the left hand behind the back and using the right hand instead of utensils.

Though mansaf is frequently referred to as Jordan's "national dish", anthropologist Joseph Andoni Massad states that mansaf is not a truly "traditional" dish, but is rather a more recent dish which was developed during the Hashemite-Mandatory era of the early 20th century, and then promulgated as a "national" dish following independence. Massad notes that the current form of mansaf differs from the independence-era and Mandate-era recipes, but is portrayed by the state as a dish that is both national and a Bedouin tradition, despite it also historically being a dish of the peasants and Bedouins of the neighboring regions of Palestine and Syria.

Regions and variants
The cities of Al Karak, As-Salt, and Hebron and their countrysides are reputed to make the best mansaf in Jordan and West Bank. Other variants of the dish also exist and are adapted to the regional tastes and circumstance. These include fish mansaf, found in the south around the port city of Aqaba. An urban, less ceremonial adaptation of mansaf using non-dried yogurt is called shakreyyeh. It is sometimes cooked with poultry instead of lamb and is common in the northern part of Jordan.

Preparation
The lamb is cooked in a broth made with a fermented then dried yogurt-like product called jameed, and served on a large platter with a layer of flatbread (markook or shrak) topped with rice and then meat, garnished with almonds and pine nuts, and then sauce poured over all. Abode is crazy

Cultural and political role
Mansaf, as historian and anthropologist Yousef Ghawanmeh states in his book The cultural history of Jordan during the Mamluk period 1250–1517, is associated with a traditional Jordanian culture based on an agro-pastoral lifestyle in which meat and yogurt are readily available. Mansaf is served on special occasions such as weddings, births and graduations, or to honor a guest, and on major holidays such as Eid ul-Fitr, Eid ul-Adha, and Jordan's Independence Day. It is traditionally eaten collectively from a large platter in the Bedouin and rural style, standing around the platter with the left hand behind the back and using the right hand instead of utensils.

Though mansaf is frequently referred to as Jordan's "national dish", anthropologist Joseph Andoni Massad states that mansaf is not a truly "traditional" dish, but is rather a more recent dish which was developed during the Hashemite-Mandatory era of the early 20th century, and then promulgated as a "national" dish following independence. Massad notes that the current form of mansaf differs from the independence-era and Mandate-era recipes, but is portrayed by the state as a dish that is both national and a Bedouin tradition, despite it also historically being a dish of the peasants and Bedouins of the neighboring regions of Palestine and Syria.

Regions and variants
The cities of Al Karak, As-Salt, and Hebron and their countrysides are reputed to make the best mansaf in Jordan and West Bank. Other variants of the dish also exist and are adapted to the regional tastes and circumstance. These include fish mansaf, found in the south around the port city of Aqaba. An urban, less ceremonial adaptation of mansaf using non-dried yogurt is called shakreyyeh. It is sometimes cooked with poultry instead of lamb and is common in the northern part of Jordan.

Blank space
Hi: I noticed that when ClueBot automatically posts notices atop newly-created user pages, it adds two blank lines of space before the section header. While this may not seem significant on the surface, correcting this would actually save a bit of storage space on Wikipedia's servers, due to the high number of edits the bot performs. Any way to fix this? North America1000 11:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The bot adds those two extra spaces so it can safely add new warnings under old ones without ruining the wikitext of the page. It's like adding a new month-year heading above a level 1 warning even if the month-year heading already exists; could be fixed, but not high in development priority IIRC. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 16:43, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Unable to report false-positive
I am unable to report a false positive error (2585254) as I am unable to save the report - I fill in the recaptcha and press submit and it just goes back to submission page again. 86.186.86.14 (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I just checked and it appears your false positive was successfully reported. Sorry if the interface confused you. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 00:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

False fix
Sorry if I'm reporting this in the wrong place, but since it's not actually a false positive, I wasn't sure where to report it. This is the ClueBot NG action in question. It has correctly identified vandalism, but has incorrectly reverted the article back to a previous vandalized state. After more similar vandalism was made, this same mistake was then repeated by a good-faith editor, who logically (but wrongly) reverted the article back to ClueBot NG's earlier "false fix". I've now reverted the article back to a sane state... so I'm only mentioning in case this might be instructive for tweaking. Thanks. Phil wink (talk) 17:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There are a few things to note that explains this:
 * When ClueBot NG reverts, it does a rollback, undoing all consecutive edits made by one author to the last edit not made by that author. ClueBot NG cannot revert edits made by more than one user in one go.
 * ClueBot NG will not revert the same user/page combination within a 24 hour period, and it will not revert to an edit that it made itself (So you'll never see CBNG with "Reverting possible vandalism by SomeVandalHere to version by ClueBot NG")
 * ClueBot NG will never evaluate an edit more than once. If it sees an edit, it will determine whether or not it is vandalism, and then attempt to revert it. If the revert cannot be done, CBNG won't look at the edit again. That means CBNG won't look at the revision it is reverting to.


 * What happened in this situation is that 92.40.249.149 made [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catherine_Yass&diff=710038991&oldid=710038606 this edit]. CBNG most likely was certain that it was vandalism, however it did not revert because doing so would revert the page to an edit that the bot made itself. When 188.29.164.206 [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Catherine_Yass&diff=710039293&oldid=710038991 vandalized] the page, CBNG was able to revert the edit because it was reverting to a version of the page the bot didn't make. Since CBNG doesn't reprocess edits it has already looked at (or skipped), it unknowingly restored text from the previous vandal.


 * I hope this helps. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 17:38, 14 March 2016 (UTC)


 * OK, I believe I understand the steps and constraints, and of course it's very easy for me to suggest fixes that might take someone else hundreds of hours to implement... but... If there's an un-revertible vandalism followed by a revertible vandalism, it strikes me that it may be more advantageous to leave that second vandalism in place for a human to fix. Why? If an editor randomly happens upon clear vandalism, goes to the history, and sees that the previous edit was a CBNG revert, I suspect most would feel totally confident making a simple revert back to the CBNG version, perhaps without checking the quality of that CBNG edit (as evidently happened here). In other words, it seems to me that allowing CBNG to revert to a vandalized state strongly endorses that vandalized state. Perhaps there could be a blacklist for revisions that have previously been identified as vandalism but could not, for whatever reason, be reverted; then CBNG could be prevented from reverting to these blacklisted revisions. And/or they could be forwarded to another editor or bot for further investigation. Again, I know it's easy to complain and I trust there are arguments to the contrary, but it strikes me that the effective CBNG endorsement of known vandalism is, in principle, a serious problem. Phil wink (talk) 18:20, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Archiving...?
I see the notice went up January 31, so this problem has been going on longer than that... likely more than 2 months now. Is there any solution on the horizon? Should the affected pages be manually archived in the interim? Should they switch to another bot? Just looking for info. Thanks - the WOLF  child  12:49, 21 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Bumping, because I just noticed that the bot has not edited at all since 00:57 UTC February 29. Somebody kick the server, please? jcgoble3 (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I see that the bot owner,, has not edited since February 3. I wonder if that has something to do with this? And, is anyone else looking after their bots in their absence? - the WOLF  child  05:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2016
STOP REVERTING EDITS THAT ARE NOT VANDALISM RIGHT NOW!!!!! 2602:306:C5E4:24A0:582C:382A:DFDC:294B (talk) 02:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but ClueBot NG is prone to errors. Please do note this. You will be less likely to be caught with "vandalism" by that ClueBot NG if you register an account for at least 4 days and made at least 10 edits with it. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 05:58, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

666 vandalism
Here is a suggestion for ClueBot NG: I think that we ought to pay attention to the common number 666, the number of the Beast. An example of such vandalism is this, in which a year has been replaced with 666. I think that there must be instances obviously detectable for the bot to recognize as vandalism, and that includes both changing a four-digit number with no comma to separate last three digits (therefore likely representing the number as a year) into "666" and inserting "666"s seemingly in an non-encyclopedic manner (e.g. "[Insert subject name] is 666 an American..."), but it is probably already implemented anyway, so more subtle instances such as changing years (as I have stated) are to what we ought to be paying attention when it comes to reimplementing the bot. Gamingforfun 3 6 5 ( talk ) 04:18, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ClueBot NG doesn't operate on filters, but instead an artificial neural network that uses machine learning and a large database of edits to identify vandalism. There are many reasons why the bot did (or did not) revert a particular edit, but in the end the bot was never intended to replace human vandal fighters. There's lots of vandalism that the bot can't catch anyway. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 23:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

ClueBot NG user rights
Are you sure ClueBot NG is not a reviewer? In the Windows 10 article, on this revision, wrote "Reverted 4 pending edits by Bilal-elha, 173.228.235.158 and ClueBot NG to revision 713183751 by Codename Lisa: rv to last version by Codnam". It seems strange because ClueBot NG is supposed to review other users' edits. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 05:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand what happened there either. Perhaps it was because there were two edits-pending-review underneath the one that CB tried to undo. In any case the result is the right thing. Jeh (talk) 07:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * For some reason (likely because of its speed) the pending changes system might not pick up on the fact that ClueBot NG, which is flagged as a pending changes reviewer, rollbacked an edit on a page with pending changes protection enabled, so it'll continue to appear in Special:PendingChanges despite already being reverted. In this case, though, it would appear that there were already unreviewed revisions on the page. ClueBot NG can't actually mark other people's revisions as approved; it can only mark its own edits as approved. Thus, if there are unreviewed revisions on a page, and then a vandal edits the page and gets reverted, the page will still appear on Special:PendingChanges, because those unreviewed edits haven't been checked by a human yet; this is wanted behavior, because you want a human to review the changes, not a bot. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 23:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Makes total sense. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:13, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is just it seemed funny, or odd, that this sort of thing happened. Qwertyxp2000 (talk &#124; contribs) 06:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Where is the discussion?
Wondering where discussion about ClueBot III is taking place. I would like to see discussions pertaining to the current state of the investigation concerning the archival error. 112.204.209.64 (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * About it not archiving user talk pages? I've been emailing the bots admins prior to putting the notice up.  If I remember correctly, the last I heard Cobi was waiting on Labs access to investigate further.  You could try searching WP:BOWN to see if there's anything further there.  I'm just manually archiving my talk page in the meantime :)--5 albert square (talk) 03:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

4 O'Clock Club Cast
Please stop reverting constructive edits and labelling them as vandalism like you did on 4 O'Clock Club. The character of Mrs Goodman has not had her first name revealed as Helena. I don't know where you got that from but until her first name is revealed on screen, her name on the cast list must remain as Mrs Goodman. 2A02:C7D:720F:C700:A494:394C:FDCF:80FB (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please read the notices at the top of the page. False positives should be reported at WP:CBNGFP, not here. Also, stop treating the bot like a human, because... it's a bot. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 23:41, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Good catch
Nice catch for a bot Stairway_to_Heaven Keep up the good work :)  Mlpearc  ( open channel ) 00:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Catchpa broken
The captcha interface at ClueBot NG Report Interface is broken, it does not accept correctly entered strings. Does this thing require Flash or something? (If it does, there should be a big warning about what should be installed/allowed to use the page)

-- 70.51.45.100 (talk) 04:15, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Strong support: I've just had the same experience. I suggest disabling the captcha requirement on reporting false positives until this is fixed. Philip Trueman (talk) 13:35, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Archive not working?
Does anybody who knows this stuff know why my user talk page currently isn't being properly archived? Thanks! Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Cluebot III seems to be down. -- lTopGunl (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Add option to User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis for be collapsible
Can anyone add the |collapsible option to the template?, to avoid long lists of archives and vertical navigation of the page, I would like to someone can add the collapsible option from the part beginning the index, and "uncollapse" the search bar for example, just the index list. Thanks! Dan ∂ hell Let's talk  22:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Page Content request.
1. Can you remove many of the fake releases on The Simpsons home media page? You see, titles like "The itchy and scratchy millionaire", "The Super Simpsons Heroes" and many others.

2. On the Everybody Dance Now (Australian TV series) page, can you archive this ref page with this archived one?

This is just all you need to do. Thanks. 180.200.152.87 (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Please see the message in the red box at the top of this page. ClueBot NG is a robot and cannot think or act like a human; please do not ask it to make edits for you. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 02:14, 17 April 2016 (UTC)