User talk:ClueBot Commons: Difference between revisions

 

Line 89: Line 89:

:{{re|Mathglot}} Huh, that’s a bit odd… {{ping|DamianZaremba}} or {{ping|NaomiAmethyst}} any ideas what this might be? – [[User:Rich Smith|<kbd style=”color: Red;”>Rich</kbd>]]^{[[User talk:Rich Smith|T]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Rich Smith|C]]&#124;[[Special:EmailUser/Rich Smith|E-Mail]]} 11:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

:{{re|Mathglot}} Huh, that’s a bit odd… {{ping|DamianZaremba}} or {{ping|NaomiAmethyst}} any ideas what this might be? – [[User:Rich Smith|<kbd style=”color: Red;”>Rich</kbd>]]^{[[User talk:Rich Smith|T]]&#124;[[Special:Contributions/Rich Smith|C]]&#124;[[Special:EmailUser/Rich Smith|E-Mail]]} 11:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

<small>”’Housekeeping note:”’ this bug is ”’un”’resolved, please interpret the ‘resolved’ badge with checkmark above as part of the bug description, and not of its resolution status. Thanks. [[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 16:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)</small>

== Feedback: Please give human readable reports ==

== Feedback: Please give human readable reports ==

The current status of ClueBot NG is: Running
The current status of ClueBot III is: Running
Praise should go on the praise page. Barnstars and other awards should go on the awards page.
Use the “new section” button at the top of this page to add a new section. Use the [edit] link above each section to edit that section.
This page is automatically archived by ClueBot III.
The ClueBots’ owner or someone else who knows the answer to your question will reply on this page.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 4166.5 days may be auto-archived by ClueBot III.

Damian has been working hard to bring the Report and Review interfaces back. We are now happy to announce that all is ready!

Report Interface:
We need Wikipedians to assist with clearing the backlog of false positive reports

Review Interface:
This has a direct effect on the bot and what it knows about vandalism or constructive edits. We need Wikipedians to review edits to effect how the bot should be trained.

Please reply under this message if you want to get involved – Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:43, 5 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’d love to get involved, as a new rollbacker, I wish to help out! Valorrr ^{(lets chat)} 03:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Valorrr: I’ve added the relevant rights to you on both interfaces. You’ll be able to review edits now – Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:36, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Smith I would be interested in helping out. I just happened to stumble onto this today, as ClueBot kept beating me to several rollbacks I thought I caught instantly! Nubzor [T][C] 20:19, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nubzor: You need to login to either Report or Review first before I can give you the relevant rights, although a new update may have you the rights straight away – Rich^T|C|E-Mail 21:57, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Smith Long time no speak! Been busy learning a new job which is why I didn’t initially reply. I’m happy to help though. I just logged in and looks like I still have rights from last time 5 albert square (talk) 18:19, 9 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@5 albert square: Good to hear from you! Perfect, glad to hear it 🙂 – Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:22, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Smith Sorry about that. I didn’t even try to log in earlier. I (believe) I was successful at logging into both. I will look into this more tomorrow before I start tinkering. Seems like something more useful/helpful than just patrolling RC. I always chuckle when I am positive a rollback will be successful, only to see it was ClueBot that beat me to it 🙂 Nubzor [T][C] 00:44, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Quick question for you after taking a look–The Reviewer Interface & instructions provided there make perfect sense. But I’m not 100% certain on the Report Interface. Are we “defer[ing] to reviewer interface” regardless if it’s a false positive or not, so that it can then be potentially incorporated into the dataset, either as vandalism or as constructive? Are we just filtering out bugged/invalid entries? Or am I misunderstanding. Nubzor [T][C] 02:18, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nubzor: Essentially yes, if it’s an edit that would be helpful for the bot to learn what is/isn’t a FP, then defer. If the edit has been suppressed or deleted, then mark it as invalid – Rich^T|C|E-Mail 10:07, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rich Smith Perfect, thank you! Nubzor [T][C] 14:40, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I’m relatively new to editing but I’d love to help out if I can.

Seantavius (talk) 21:40, 13 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I see that I’ve been granted access to the review interface. Thanks

Seantavius (talk) Seantavius (talk) 13:12, 14 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sign me up. I’m busy this month but hopefully I’ll have more time to dedicate in the coming months —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 19:38, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@K6ka: You should be able to just sign in, your Wiki rights will give you instant access 🙂 – Rich^T|C|E-Mail 19:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Snazzy snazzy! —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:25, 15 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. This is a report about a possible bug, in which Cluebot alters a sig embedded in template {{resolved}}, such that it renders improperly on the Archive page, although it looked fine on the Talk page before archiving happened.

At the page Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop, please note the signature which appears in the comment added in rev. 1316301524 of 17:10, 11 October, 2025 (UTC) in section Special:Permalink/1316301524 § Larger torn table icon; the sig is embedded in the {{resolved}} template, and the wikicode look like this:

Thanks! {{resolved|1=[[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 17:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)}}

and renders like this:

Thanks!

So far, so good. After that, there was one subsequent, unrelated edit on the page (rev. 1316434789 of 12:42, 12 October 2025), and then in the next edit, rev. (1316435789 of 12:53, 12 October 2025) Cluebot removed 2 discussions (-4,941 bytes) from Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop, including the comment with my sig, and added them (+4,946 bytes) to Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Illustration workshop/Archive/Sep 2025 in rev. 1316435785 of 12:53, 12 October 2025. Note the 5-byte difference: the code line added to the archive appears to have a {{tl}} template introduced to the {{resolved}} template which wasn’t there before, thus:

Thanks! {{tl|resolved|1=[[User:Mathglot|Mathglot]] ([[User talk:Mathglot|talk]]) 17:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)}}

This renders as follows, making the Archive comment sig look garbled, where the prior Talk comment sig was fine:

Thanks! {{[[Template:Mathglot (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)|Mathglot (talk) 17:10, 11 October 2025 (UTC)]]}}[reply]

Is this something that needs to happen for archiving to work properly, and can it be done in a way that does not break the rendered signature post-archiving? Mathglot (talk) 08:54, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Mathglot: Huh, that’s a bit odd… @DamianZaremba: or @NaomiAmethyst: any ideas what this might be? – Rich^T|C|E-Mail 11:21, 13 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Housekeeping note: this bug is unresolved, please interpret the ‘resolved’ badge with checkmark above as part of the bug description, and not of its resolution status. Thanks. Mathglot (talk) 16:08, 22 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My IP changes all the time and I’m not likely to check this, so take this as anonymous feedback.

Please give reports to users that are understandable to novice users or users who only know how to do a few little things on Wikipedia. Especially if you are messaging people to are not logged in, who are mostly new or casual users.

My edit was a genuine attempt to constructively contribute and I’ve redone it for now. But I’ve not reported it as a false positive because maybe there was a reason it looked like a bad edit, or possibly I actually did make an error. I don’t know if I did something I’m not supposed to, because the message I got about my edit being undone just gave a numerical score and an acronym I’ve never heard of, and the links didn’t seem to explain what any of it meant.

No need for a personal response, but if I’m here again in future and I get an edit reverted by the automated system, can I please have a message about it in words, not numbers or acronyms or jargon.

thanks in advance. 2405:6E00:628:A97B:4062:D222:2CAF:BA50 (talk) 07:03, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Without explaining what you found confusing about the message the bot sent you, other than “This message is not intelligible“, we can’t action on your feedback. You will need to be more specific if you want to help us improve. —⁠k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 18:15, 19 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I don’t know if this is the right page to report this problem, I found a link to this bot from the ℹ️ icon next to the archive index. The archiving on Talk:Six-Day War seems to have stopped working. The information about archives at the top says it should archive after 30 days? but there are multiple threads still on the page with no replies since last year. 2405:6E00:636:D60A:6919:B055:E32D:67C4 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The archiving for that page is handled by User:lowercase sigmabot III, not this bot. The reason archiving isn’t taking place on that page is because the |minthreadsleft= parameter is set to 20, which means it will only archive if there are more than 20 threads on the page eligible for archiving. Aidan9382 _(talk) 08:47, 20 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]