User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2012/November

Hey

CAN U LEAVE A NICE COMMENT PLEASE THANKS FROM THIS USER24.125.95.184 (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I'M REALLY REALLY SORRY

All I wanted to do is say that I was Deadpool's biggest fan. I swear i won't do it again and again, I did not know it was vandalizing SORRY SORRY SORRY thanks for telling me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D-MACHO (talk • contribs)

Yoko Ono

I have a couple of issues with you changing the edits that I made to the Yoko Ono article. I know it was a little crass and disrespectful, but there should be no room for bullshit on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is meant to give users facts about the particular figure they are looking at, and that was what I was trying to provide. I was trying to give it to people straight, and tell them what Yoko Ono was really about, but apparently that's wrong. So I'm not gonna change anymore on there, just let people believe the lies and see if I care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OneThingMan (talk • contribs) 18:17, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Firstly, ClueBot is a Wikipedia robot, not a human, and so can't respond to messages.

Secondly, there is no room for vandalism on Wikipedia. The edit that you made to Yoko Ono's article is pure vandalism, nothing to do with correcting facts. To quote Jimmy Wales, why don't you turn around and become a faithful editor? ClueBot can't block you, but if you continue editing in the fashion you edited Yoko's article with, you will end up being blocked from editing indefinitely by one of us sysops--5 albert square (talk) 21:25, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I understand you have your opinions but, as you say, there's no room on Wikipedia for 'bullshit', and if you vandalized the page then clearly it wasn't fact but opinion, which is not what this site is all about Fonzleclay (talk) 22:30, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Bot error

Resolved

Hello: Please look into this bot error. Thanks. — Ganeshk (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

I figured out that the bot was archiving the answered thread. Please ignore this request. — Ganeshk (talk) 15:54, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Cheese conspiracy.

You reverted my edit to Byrne Dairy, in order to silence my attempt to share with the world the existence of tasty, wholesome Byrne Dairy cheese. According to you, Byrne Dairy does not offer cheese. Byrne Dairy has never offered cheese. So keen are you in your cover-up, that you direct me to report "false positives," although assuring me that you rarely, if ever, make mistakes. But when I click the link, I get this:

It works!

This is the default web page for this server.

The web server software is running but no content has been added, yet.

Clearly an extension of your nefarious attempt to frustrate, silence, and otherwise intimidate those who would share the truth of the cheese.

I will not be silenced!

I will not be intimidated!

I WILL NOT BE FRUSTRATED!

For proof, see http://i.imgur.com/mwxWy.jpg! Even http://www.byrnedairy.com/OurProducts/ButterCheeseCultured/tabid/89/Default.aspx!

YOU CANNOT HIDE THE CHEESE!

THE CHEESE STANDS ALONE!!!

Dailyboth (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:44, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

False positive, false accusation of vandalism.

The bot falsely called a 2 deletions of unsourced and poorly sourced statements vandalism, and clicking on the "report it " function did not lead to any place where the error could be reported, just a page which said "It works! This is the default web page for this server. The web server software is running but no content has been added, yet." I will remove the incorrect accusation of vandalism from my talk page and re-do the removal of unsourced or poorly sourced statements shown in the history of the article Yesterday and Today at [1]. Thanks. 99.140.251.63 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

From Nepal

i have receive you massage. i am doing for betterment. Rajeeb Bastola — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.244.79.28 (talk) 04:11, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:REX

Dear ClueBot! It is about the project page WP:REX. Is it possible, to archive the requests if marked by the Template:Resolved within f—ollowing three days? It is very unfortunate and disadvantageous to archive the resolved requests by copy & paste. Thx a lot for your help, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 13:49, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Doc — I'll set something up for you. —Theopolisme 15:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Super! The best will be, that "resolved" requests are archived after 3 days onto the subpage Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request/Filled requests/2012. Thank you very much, -- Doc Taxon (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Come on I just said my opinion that ham is stupid, don't block me I tried to make a good edit. --NightmareTerrorRazorKiller (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, firstly ClueBot is a Wikipedia robot not a human.

Secondly, the edit is nothing but vandalism. Whilst ClueBot can't block you sysops like myself can. Why don't you turn around and become a faithful editor? If you carry editing the way that you are then you stand the chance of being indefinitely blocked.--5 albert square (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the first trial but I already undid it because only resolved requests should be archived, and into the subpage of the right year. Thanks for now and further experience on that. --Doc Taxon (talk) 09:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{{/censor}}

Can't report properly

The link to report a false positive just tells me that 'It works but no software has been added.' This is technically a valid addition to the lead of this article. The subject is addressed in a single sentence halfway through the article. I'd have reverted it as UNDUE for the lead, but it is not vandalism. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, it is not really a valid edit, please check yourself. However, I confirm that the bot reporting is completely broken... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.56.11 (talk) 13:53, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Reporting does not work!

The bot has reverted an edit and requested to report it. However, reporting will only generate a system message: "It works! This is the default web page for this server. The web server software is running but no content has been added, yet." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.94.56.11 (talk) 13:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

↑ This — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.209.126.175 (talk) 16:42, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Slight hitch at WP:RX

Cluebot3 seems to be archiving not quite okay and people have been undoing the archiving (see last few edits). Somebody commented out the archive template at the top, but archiving still seemingly kicked in, so I took the template out altogether for now. It is a complicated page (archiving is based on the {{resolved}} tag) with people at times getting section headings mixed up. Thanks. Churn and change (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

pardis matter

the edits i made are just deleting advertisements .the article is a pure advertisement for a new city and its constructing companies. if you wana make wiki an unreliable source of advertisements go on!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxn (talk • contribs) 08:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

the edits i made are just deleting advertisements .the article is a pure advertisement for a new city and its construction companies. if you wana make wiki an unreliable source of advertisements go on!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roxn (talk • contribs) 08:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You are welcome to argue with a bot if it makes you feel better, but I should point out that a couple of human editors also thought that blanking the article Pardis was inappropriate. – Wdchk (talk) 01:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Improve ClueBot's dataset by following Wikipedia's mantra

Vandalism makes me sick. It wastes editor's time, confuses readers, and undermines the credibility of Wikipedia. That is why I love ClueBot. But for years its catch rate has hovered around 50%, and I think it is time to make it better.
Currently, there is a way to help. Those inclined can go to a website and manually score edits ClueBot has found, as either constructive or vandalism. While I think this is an excellent idea, I find issues with this method.

1. This requires a multitude of trusted editors to review an endless list of edits, when they could otherwise be making other contributions to Wikipedia.
2. Editors have to take it upon themselves to go to ClueBot's page and follow a series of links to even know this is an option. Not many editors find out about it.
3. Since most entries for review are edits ClueBot has already flagged as suspected vandalism, there isn't much room to grow ClueBot's definition of vandalism.

I propose a solution to both these problems: the creation of a wiki markup tag that can be placed in the edit summary of a vandal revert, such as {{CB:vandalism}}. ClueBot can parse these, and add the reverted edits to a queue to be reviewed on the interface, and then to its dataset. This has three advantages:

1. Editors get satisfaction of both catching a vandal and keeping it from coming back.
2. ClueBot will, by definition, get data on cases it currently can't catch.
3. Visible tags are simple for any editor to use, and increase awareness of ClueBot, getting more editors on board.

In this way, we can crowdsource ClueBot's data, on a scale we have not yet approached. And we will get data specifically on cases ClueBot is missing. I realize this addition will mean work, as well as maintenance. I am more than willing to contribute my time and effort to make this happen. It is my firm belief that if we can make improving ClueBot as simple as making an edit, we can make Wikipedia better for everyone. Thanks.
L2blackbelt (talk) 17:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There are a few issues with this, primarily:

1. This will only work with training vandalism, and not constructive edits (there would be no point in reverting a constructive edit).
2. Most of the edits on the review interface are random selections of edits.
3. And there is no vetting on who uses the tags, nor is there any sense of consensus with tags (on the interface, it shows the same edit to two different people and requires that they agree).

-- Cobi^(t|c|b) 19:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You are right on the first point. Sorry about that. I updated the paragraph. That aside, do you agree that this could be a useful method to get potential cases ClueBot missed? For example, a tagged edit can be sent to the interface, as opposed to being automatically approved. The last big point I had was concerning publicity. Having the tag point to a page which explains getting involved in ClueBot, and perhaps has some wall of honor for users with the most approved reverts, could get more editors involved in the project. Do you have any thoughts on that? --L2blackbelt (talk) 22:35, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Like others are saying, reporting does not work...

I'm trying to fix a very important plot error on a page for the movie for Cloud Atlas. The bot won't let me change it back! Help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.182.108.28 (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Reporting should be fixed - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{{/censor}}

Jay Westervelt

"Bog Turtle" continues to vandalize this page in defiance of your warning. Please address.

Semperfly (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Hello Semperfly

ClueBot is actually a Wikipedia Robot so can't respond to messages or edit pages.

I'm actually one of the Wikipedia administrators and I came across your message here by chance. I've warned the user again, If they given more than 4 official warnings (like the ones ClueBot and myself issued) then please file a report at WP:AIV. Thanks!--5 albert square (talk) 23:11, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

{{/censor}}

Request for access to help with the dataset

I made a request through the review interface several days ago, but I have not yet received a response via e-mail. Could somebody please look into this? The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 02:13, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

History of Art

I answer to both of you, many thanks.

We are French students. Generally, we feel quite strange that wikipedia in English ignores important aspects of non English speaking other countries. So that is why we begin to try to improve it.

Well, for the example of Laurent Gervereau, I heard what you said all of you. So, I will write some short words only for 4 subjects (we could take for him literature, Art, politics, cinema, photography...) with references : political ecology, history of art, image, philosophy

Then, please help me Francophonie & Androphilie to put it in a better English

Many thanks

PlurofuturoPlurofuturo (talk) 09:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Don Cossack Choir Serge Jaroff

Resolved

 – I reported a false positive at the Report Interface. – Wdchk (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Last week we relaesed a new DVD of the Don Cossack Choir Serge Jaroff. Please take a look on label SLAVA! of the Netherland - Russia Centre of the University Groningen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.157.172.228 (talk) 16:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It looks like you bumped into a false positive. Did you know reporting these helps ClueBot to not make the same mistake again? So, why not report a false positive at the Report Interface – it's really easy to do! Thank you. – Wdchk (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Please help me set up auto-archiving of this talk page that has extant manual archives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:File_copyright_tags could use installation of an archival bot. It has manually archived pages; the archiver retired years ago. Could someone with familiarity setting up auto-archiving of a talk page that has extant manual archives please offer some quidance on how to set it up for auto-archival? I've no idea how to set it up so that, e.g. archive search is available from the main page and works smoothly over the old and new archives. I've no idea if it's possible to do so or if the archives 'll end up all mangled. (This is an edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ClueBot_III, which redirects to this page, for ClueBot Commons.)--Elvey (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)--Elvey (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Elvey. I'll be happy to help set it up. With what frequency would you like the archives to be (years/months)? —Theopolisme 05:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Theo. Thanks. I guess I'd say archive threads aged more than 2 months. A new archive when maxarchsize is met (I guess the default 150000 is fine) makes the most sense to me. The last archive was "/Archive 9 (August 2007–December 2008)"; the stuff needing archival now looks like it'll fit in one archive, which I guess would be "/Archive 10 (December 2008–September 2012)". I'm not sure if I've understood your question, so I offered answers given a few interpretations.--Elvey (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

removing vandalism at the same time at Henry Samson

I was rollbacking the vandalism not creating it. Please delete the reference to my name with regard to the vandalism. Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Henry_Samson&action=history The vandalism was created by User talk:24.181.178.175 someone you have tagged before. Mugginsx (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I looked into the history and your talk page. I didn't see Cluebot NG reverting your edit. --Webclient101^talk 01:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Please help me set up auto-archiving of this talk page that has extant manual archives

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:File_copyright_tags could use installation of an archival bot. It has manually archived pages; the archiver retired years ago. Could someone with familiarity setting up auto-archiving of a talk page that has extant manual archives please offer some quidance on how to set it up for auto-archival? I've no idea how to set it up so that, e.g. archive search is available from the main page and works smoothly over the old and new archives. I've no idea if it's possible to do so or if the archives 'll end up all mangled. (This is an edit to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ClueBot_III, which redirects to this page, for ClueBot Commons.)--Elvey (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)--Elvey (talk) 02:55, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi Elvey. I'll be happy to help set it up. With what frequency would you like the archives to be (years/months)? —Theopolisme 05:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Theo. Thanks. I guess I'd say archive threads aged more than 2 months. A new archive when maxarchsize is met (I guess the default 150000 is fine) makes the most sense to me. The last archive was "/Archive 9 (August 2007–December 2008)"; the stuff needing archival now looks like it'll fit in one archive, which I guess would be "/Archive 10 (December 2008–September 2012)". I'm not sure if I've understood your question, so I offered answers given a few interpretations.--Elvey (talk) 06:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC) --Elvey (talk) 16:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Unconstructive good-faith edits: false-positive?

If ClueBot NG has reverted a disruptive/unconstructive edit that appears to have been made in good faith (for example, talking about how to improve the article on the article itself rather than the talk page), is it appropriate to report that as a false-positive? Amp71 (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Good question. That's exactly what happened at Eastern gray squirrel (1362325). Modal Jig (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I would think so. I have previously reported an edit by another user that was flagged as vandalism by Cluebot, but which I believed to have been made in good faith, even though it wasn't actually a good edit. ProfessorTofty (talk) 03:50, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and as I have done just now, mentioned in the post below. Although in the example given above, I suspect that someone rambling on within article space about some issue as if they are on a talk page, could look like vandalism to even a human editor. It would be very difficult for a bot to decern such intent. Still not a bad idea to report it though...imo. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 04:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Ford mondeo valves

Hi,

We own this mondeo since it was first revealed on 2001 and we had the problem for many times. The loose valves causes disturbing noises.

And I didn't mean to vandalise the content. I wanted to share my experience, this can be proofed by any ford dealer. It is a common problem. Can.kilic1981 (talk) 03:14, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Just happened to stumble onto this. Aside that your edit contained some improper grammar, as well as being unsourced and anecdotal, it certainly appears to have been made in good faith. As your action was clearly not vandalism, I have reported a false-positive to ClueBot. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 03:36, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Request for access to help with the dataset

I made a request for access at the review interface (review.cluebot.org), but I have not yet received a response. Could somebody please grant me access if possible? I posted this earlier this month, but I received no response here either. Thank you in advance. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 22:01, 29 November 2012 (UTC)