User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2013/May
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Obvious test edits survived Cluebot
This one. -- Magioladitis (talk) 04:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Proposal
This sort of edits are perhaps possible to revert with a robot, (adding red link names in date pages)/Bro(sv) (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
Blanking
Does Cluebot catch page blankings? --108.211.193.185 (talk) 23:41, 2 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, most of the time for large blankings. (I would consider this one). The Anonymouse (talk | contribs) 04:12, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
Daniel Paillé
Hi, this picture is autorised by the Bloc official agent. Thank you. --BlocQuébécois (talk) 19:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
bad revert
1621666 ([1]) and your report interface needs work -- tried three times and it keep looping back. NE Ent 01:41, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Cluebot user warnings
Cluebot NG doesn't reccognize my userwarn templates, and I'm not sure why (see User talk:162.127.218.90#May 2013 as example). I can't remember, but I think Cluebot (I) recognized them after I inserted <!-- Template:uw-vandalism1 --> at the end of my template. Any idea why? Brambleclawx 15:15, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Since the wording of the templates change, but all of the standard templates have <!-- Template:uw-vandalism# -->, ClueBot NG uses that to detect which template was subst'd. If you want to make a custom template, I'd start with {{uw-vand1}}. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 16:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm certain it's there. Does it have to do with Cluebot's recognition of section heading spacing? Here's the template I use... you should be able to see the comment.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to WP:Sandbox, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Also, try Wikipedia's tutorial for tips on how to edit. Thank you. Brambleclawx 20:40, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Where is this template? What are you subst'ing? Also, it looks like you've dropped the comment at the very end, it should be in the template (which all should come before your signature). -- Cobi(t|c|b) 20:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm subst'ing User:Brambleclawx/warn1. I'll move the comment. Brambleclawx 20:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
The article 39799 Hadano has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:
- empty
While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Loginnigol (talk) 09:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
A beer for you!
|
:) — JJJ (say hello) 21:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC) |
A cheeseburger for you!
|
You beat me to reverting vandalism - again. You might need this to keep it up - keep up the good work! JDHuff185 (talk) 00:15, 11 May 2013 (UTC) |
False positive?
Hi, I'm checking wikipedia without logging-in and got a "new message" regarding some change to the wikiarticle on "Perth" (Latest revision as of 09:31, 10 March 2011). To me it seems that the IP address that I'm connecting thru now is a dynamically allocated one, as I haven't edited that article. Regards, 124.168.15.227 (talk) 02:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, just noticed the banner on how to report "false positives"... Regards, 124.168.15.227 (talk) 02:27, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
Vandalism on the Rice page again?
Please check the page on rice for vandalism, again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.139.6.143 (talk) 17:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
{{/censor}}
category talk pages
Does cluebot archive category talk pages? Can you take a look and see if i set it up correctly here? Category_talk:American_novelists. Thanks! --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, ok this is now archiving on Category_talk:American_novelists, but after archiving, it doesn't show any archives in the archive box. Any suggestions on how to fix this? I'm using numbered archives, FWIW. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Any chance that you could catch this kind of vandalism?
I reverted vandalism after 5 months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you sure ClueBot is running?
I've noticed in the past couple days ClueBot seems to take elongated breaks from RC monitoring. Maybe it's got a smoking habit, I don't know. It hasn't made an edit in over half an hour. Now many of our human RC patrollers are very quick, but I highly doubt they got everything in the past 30 minutes, leaving ClueBut to twiddle its thumbs. Whatsup? — MusikAnimal talk 02:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I guess no one is going to do anything about this? It's alarming how much blatant vandalism is just flying through RC patrol. We need some ClueBot action, uninterrupted! Server trouble? Need some donations? Let us know. — MusikAnimal talk 20:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm noticing this too, he seems to be inactive, or extremly slow, on the contrary though, it seems there is only a few editors watching for vandalism including me. The Grand Cenobite (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- The main issue right now is toolserver, recently the stability has been terrible. Wikimedia labs (where the bot is hosted) is due to get database replication online very, very soon - once this is in place the last couple of bits we're relient on the toolserver for will be migrated to labs. - Damian Zaremba (talk • contribs) 20:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah I noticed toolserver has been more or less useless as of late, does this new DB replication mean good news for toolserver as well? It was pretty nifty — MusikAnimal talk 20:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- The main issue right now is toolserver, recently the stability has been terrible. Wikimedia labs (where the bot is hosted) is due to get database replication online very, very soon - once this is in place the last couple of bits we're relient on the toolserver for will be migrated to labs. - Damian Zaremba (talk • contribs) 20:35, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm noticing this too, he seems to be inactive, or extremly slow, on the contrary though, it seems there is only a few editors watching for vandalism including me. The Grand Cenobite (talk) 20:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Bot needs training
If the bot sends a message to a user who changed things to follow the manual of style, something needs to change, or amusement will increase, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:32, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
A kitten for you!
hey hey hey, you like pancakes? i do, thxx for everything
Aambeienbeffer (talk) 09:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Warning
Per the section above by PamD, if ClueBot NG continues making false accusations of vandalism against, new, established, or good faith editors - I will block it. Hopefully User:Cobi and/or User:Crispy1989 will notice this ping and make whatever fixes are needed here. Thank you. — Ched : ? 19:49, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
{{/censor}}
Why isn't ClueBot III archiving my talk page?
Could someone check it, please? And is it possible to display my previous, manually archived threads inside that ClueBot archivebox? Thanks, smtchahaltalk 06:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I've just given the bot a poke back into life - it should be archiving again now. Not sure about the manual archives - are they stored in the same page structure? - Damian Zaremba (talk • contribs) 21:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Hi Cobi
Since you're here, would you mind taking a gander at this: User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2013/May#category_talk_pages - not urgent, just curious if I've configured it wrong, the archive doesn't show up in the box. Thx. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- |nogenerateindex=1 -- It's told not to. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 04:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ack. I have no idea how that happened. d'oh sorry. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:17, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
ClueBot III not archiving properly
Why was this thread added to April archive page rather May archive page, when the first and the last edit in the thread was made in May and not in April? smtchahaltalk 15:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Consistent false positives on footballer pages
I've been noticing false positives by ClueBot on multiple footballer pages, including Raphael Guzzo and Rúben Pinto. The edits are being done by User:Fred.baptista, and ClueBot has reverted most of his additions (statistics) despite the fact that they're not vandalism at all. Can someone take a look into this? I'm trying to stop the user from being reported for false positives. Thanks. Lugia2453 (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- A user doesn't get "reported for false positives", a false positive means Cluebot misclassifies a good edit as vandalism, when that happens just use the handy link it provides with every revert to report the false classification and help the bot to improve—it's not a report against the editor as you seem to think here and on their talkpage Jebus989✰ 23:11, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not true Jebus989. Users get warned for false positives, and ultimately reported to ANI if there are enough of them. There's clearly something wrong with ClueBot, but nobody seems prepared to admit it. Eric Corbett 23:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- You misunderstand, he blanked the warnings on the user's page for fear of the reports of false positives—i.e. people reporting that Cluebot messed up, which of course do not reflect badly on the editor making good edits. If you keep this page on your watchlist you'll see these kind of comments all the time; it's doing what it's designed to do, revert thousands of edits correctly and inevitably get the odd one (or two!) wrong Jebus989✰ 23:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Having recently received two warnings for vandalism from ClueBot recently myself, the last a level 4 warning, you'll have to forgive me if I seem a little sceptical. I was assured that it was caused by my recent "renaming", and that I was the only one affected, but that's clearly not true. Eric Corbett 23:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)After rereading I see what you were saying, I assumed the "reports" being referred to were the Cluebot FP reports but the intention may well have been AIV reports, so it may have been I who misunderstood. Regarding the main point, I know it's been discussed to death in various places but it does seem to have been quite a freak occurrence, especially the moved talkpage without transferred edits Jebus989✰ 00:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
- Having recently received two warnings for vandalism from ClueBot recently myself, the last a level 4 warning, you'll have to forgive me if I seem a little sceptical. I was assured that it was caused by my recent "renaming", and that I was the only one affected, but that's clearly not true. Eric Corbett 23:38, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- What I meant was that the user would be reported over reverts that were false positives if there were enough warnings - that's why I removed ClueBot's warnings. It looks like there was a misunderstanding here. Lugia2453 (talk) 23:55, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- You misunderstand, he blanked the warnings on the user's page for fear of the reports of false positives—i.e. people reporting that Cluebot messed up, which of course do not reflect badly on the editor making good edits. If you keep this page on your watchlist you'll see these kind of comments all the time; it's doing what it's designed to do, revert thousands of edits correctly and inevitably get the odd one (or two!) wrong Jebus989✰ 23:28, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
- Not true Jebus989. Users get warned for false positives, and ultimately reported to ANI if there are enough of them. There's clearly something wrong with ClueBot, but nobody seems prepared to admit it. Eric Corbett 23:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
Feedback please
Please offer some feedback at User talk:Eric Corbett to explain (to him and his talk page stalkers like me) what logic the bot was using in mistakenly accusing him of vandalism, once and twice - and to reassure us that this isn't the bot being WP:BITEy to a technically "new" editor, in a way which would make a genuinely new and useful editor likely to throw in the towel. It's worrying. (Oh, and second time round the bot failed to create a section heading.) PamD 18:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'd like an explanation of this rather aggressive message as well:
This is your last warning. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did at Hengistbury Head, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.
- I can't help but wonder how many other new editors are being similarly wrongly accused of vandalism. Eric Corbett 19:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Did you report it, per the instructions? It seems pretty innocuous to me - you were changing number ranges, which is something vandals often do - so it's just a false positive. Just delete the warnings and continue on your way, and report it via the mechanism provided in the warning.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't, but others did. Still no response though. And it wasn't just one occurrence. And please don't try to patronise me. I'm quite able to shrug this incompetence off, but I'm concerned for those real newbies who may not find it so easy. Eric Corbett 20:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The "last warning" language is part of the bog-standard warning template system; you can see the templates that Cluebot's warnings are based off of here (the rainbow-colored section links to each of the warnings in the series). It's not a Cluebot thing, though I think Cluebot uses slightly customized versions of the warning templates. The template talk is probably the place to take concerns over the way the templates are worded. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Is it? I thought there was an escalating scale of warnings? Eric Corbett 21:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Fluffernutter, is it really bog standard to give a level 4 warning after two (erroneously) supposed vandalisms? I've never even seen ClueBot give anything other than an excruciatingly polite level 1 before. I can't believe it's not malfunctioning, to be behaving so uncharacteristically. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC).
- (edit conflict) There is an escalating scale; Cluebot cues off of the last warning given, I think, to determine what level warning to use. In this case, the last warning Eric had been given was (ironically) a level-3 warning Drmies left as a joke here. The bot knew it had warned you before, and it knew someone else had left a level three warning for you since then, so it used a level 4 warning. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nice. That actually makes sense. Ok, so lesson here: no joke warnings! It sounds like cluebot was behaving as it should - if another editor gives a more stern warning, it should escalate further, that makes sense to me. We just need to program cluebot to understand jokes. :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The bot also uses the severity of the existing warnings into account (along with the other couple hundred of inputs to the ANN) when determining a score. The bot may have seen the level 3 warning and was more strict. This is why it says to remove the warning from the talk page if they are invalid. It may also take into account the good standing of the user who issued the warning, though I am not sure if that was ever done. It is not heuristic based, so I cannot definitively explain why, I can only speculate based on what I know about the inputs to the bot. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 22:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nice. That actually makes sense. Ok, so lesson here: no joke warnings! It sounds like cluebot was behaving as it should - if another editor gives a more stern warning, it should escalate further, that makes sense to me. We just need to program cluebot to understand jokes. :) --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:16, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) There is an escalating scale; Cluebot cues off of the last warning given, I think, to determine what level warning to use. In this case, the last warning Eric had been given was (ironically) a level-3 warning Drmies left as a joke here. The bot knew it had warned you before, and it knew someone else had left a level three warning for you since then, so it used a level 4 warning. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Fluffernutter, is it really bog standard to give a level 4 warning after two (erroneously) supposed vandalisms? I've never even seen ClueBot give anything other than an excruciatingly polite level 1 before. I can't believe it's not malfunctioning, to be behaving so uncharacteristically. Bishonen | talk 21:13, 22 May 2013 (UTC).
- Is it? I thought there was an escalating scale of warnings? Eric Corbett 21:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The "last warning" language is part of the bog-standard warning template system; you can see the templates that Cluebot's warnings are based off of here (the rainbow-colored section links to each of the warnings in the series). It's not a Cluebot thing, though I think Cluebot uses slightly customized versions of the warning templates. The template talk is probably the place to take concerns over the way the templates are worded. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Always fun to be talked down to by clever techies who don't even bother to go look. What instructions and what mechanism provided in the warning is that, User:Obiwankenobi? [Stares at the "last warning" to Eric Corbett. No mechanism there.] How are people, let alone new editors, supposed to know where to protest? Trying to find the right page is a morass. Bishonen | talk 21:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC).
- I didn't, but others did. Still no response though. And it wasn't just one occurrence. And please don't try to patronise me. I'm quite able to shrug this incompetence off, but I'm concerned for those real newbies who may not find it so easy. Eric Corbett 20:51, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Did you report it, per the instructions? It seems pretty innocuous to me - you were changing number ranges, which is something vandals often do - so it's just a false positive. Just delete the warnings and continue on your way, and report it via the mechanism provided in the warning.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The first warning includes the following: "ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.". I really wasn't trying to talk down to anyone nor be patronizing - I just think its a bit misplaced to beat up on a bot for a false positive, when the bot in its first message to you tells you that it makes mistakes and here's how to report them. Again, sorry Eric if I sounded patronizing, that wasn't my intent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, do you feel that a complete newbie who gets the "last warning" template is likely to feel welcomed to Wikipedia when the bot makes a second false positive in a week? We do have a problem with vandalism, but not so severe that we have to have a bitey bot exacerbate the problem of chasing off new editors. On this evidence, the algorithm needs be far less aggressive. Is there any intention to address that? --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Quoting Fluffernutter: "There is an escalating scale; Cluebot cues off of the last warning given, I think, to determine what level warning to use. In this case, the last warning Eric had been given was (ironically) a level-3 warning Drmies left as a joke here. The bot knew it had warned you before, and it knew someone else had left a level three warning for you since then, so it used a level 4 warning". This should answer your question. --Sitic (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The bot takes into account recent warnings, so it issued a level 1 to start with (no previous) on the second revert, it would have issued a level 2, but determined you'd been issued a level 3 in the mean time so went straight to a level 4 warning. The behaviour is there, so the correct escalation path is followed if a human reverts an edit. I'm checking into why it didn't put a header above the warning - the only part of the warning that's actually a bug. In regards to the false positives, as I noted on your talk page; report them as such and move on, or provide constructive feedback. - Damian Zaremba (talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Trust me, you wouldn't enjoy my feedback. The bot's level 1 warning was a mistake, which it compounded two days later. The question is, why the initial level 1 warning? Eric Corbett 21:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a developer on this or anything, but I've frequently seen vandals go in and just change dates or page numbers - which is what you did - for example, making everything that happened in 1125 to 125 - they think they're being clever by just removing one digit, but they're clearly just trying to insert false into into the database. If you train cluebot with lots of vandalisms like this, your edit starts to look similar. Just a guess... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's not what I did at all. What I did was to respond to a comment at the Middle Age's FAC about the MoS recommended way of dealing with year ranges in 4-digit centuries, by changing, for instance, "1125–1127" to "1125–27". Anyone who believes that to be vandalism is a fucking clot. Eric Corbett 22:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It looks similar, in the eyes of a bot - to vandalizing dates. Again, this is just a wild guess on my part. To fix it, you'd probably have to train the bot on "good" edits of that type so it could somehow distinguish those changes from changes of a similar ilk which are due to vandalism.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, because the toolserver DB doesn't know about this user, the bot thinks that this is a brand new user changing numbers, with previous warnings, and I have no idea what it would think about the nulls. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what's going on here, but if I go to my contributions page, scroll down to the bottom and click on edit count the toolserver database clearly does know about me, as it puts up a nice pie chart showing an analysis of my contributions. None of which are vandalism. Eric Corbett 23:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'll have to take a look into it more thoroughly when I get home from work. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 23:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- From my experience at recent changes, Cluebot gets it right very often, and changes in number ranges are indeed common vandal edits--usually, they're edits without a summary from IP addresses to things like weight in infoboxes, or scores and stats in athletes' articles. But usually they show up in RC with an edit summary like "new editor changing numbers" or something like that. Why it would do that with Eric's edits, twice, is not clear to me. I guess that leaving a templated vandalism warning as a joke is like saying "what do you think this insulin pump is, a bomb?" in an airport, since all that security/ClueBot hears is "bomb". Drmies (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'll have to take a look into it more thoroughly when I get home from work. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 23:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what's going on here, but if I go to my contributions page, scroll down to the bottom and click on edit count the toolserver database clearly does know about me, as it puts up a nice pie chart showing an analysis of my contributions. None of which are vandalism. Eric Corbett 23:02, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Also, because the toolserver DB doesn't know about this user, the bot thinks that this is a brand new user changing numbers, with previous warnings, and I have no idea what it would think about the nulls. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 22:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- It looks similar, in the eyes of a bot - to vandalizing dates. Again, this is just a wild guess on my part. To fix it, you'd probably have to train the bot on "good" edits of that type so it could somehow distinguish those changes from changes of a similar ilk which are due to vandalism.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's not what I did at all. What I did was to respond to a comment at the Middle Age's FAC about the MoS recommended way of dealing with year ranges in 4-digit centuries, by changing, for instance, "1125–1127" to "1125–27". Anyone who believes that to be vandalism is a fucking clot. Eric Corbett 22:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not a developer on this or anything, but I've frequently seen vandals go in and just change dates or page numbers - which is what you did - for example, making everything that happened in 1125 to 125 - they think they're being clever by just removing one digit, but they're clearly just trying to insert false into into the database. If you train cluebot with lots of vandalisms like this, your edit starts to look similar. Just a guess... --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Trust me, you wouldn't enjoy my feedback. The bot's level 1 warning was a mistake, which it compounded two days later. The question is, why the initial level 1 warning? Eric Corbett 21:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The bot takes into account recent warnings, so it issued a level 1 to start with (no previous) on the second revert, it would have issued a level 2, but determined you'd been issued a level 3 in the mean time so went straight to a level 4 warning. The behaviour is there, so the correct escalation path is followed if a human reverts an edit. I'm checking into why it didn't put a header above the warning - the only part of the warning that's actually a bug. In regards to the false positives, as I noted on your talk page; report them as such and move on, or provide constructive feedback. - Damian Zaremba (talk • contribs) 21:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Quoting Fluffernutter: "There is an escalating scale; Cluebot cues off of the last warning given, I think, to determine what level warning to use. In this case, the last warning Eric had been given was (ironically) a level-3 warning Drmies left as a joke here. The bot knew it had warned you before, and it knew someone else had left a level three warning for you since then, so it used a level 4 warning". This should answer your question. --Sitic (talk) 21:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nevertheless, do you feel that a complete newbie who gets the "last warning" template is likely to feel welcomed to Wikipedia when the bot makes a second false positive in a week? We do have a problem with vandalism, but not so severe that we have to have a bitey bot exacerbate the problem of chasing off new editors. On this evidence, the algorithm needs be far less aggressive. Is there any intention to address that? --RexxS (talk) 21:18, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The first warning includes the following: "ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.". I really wasn't trying to talk down to anyone nor be patronizing - I just think its a bit misplaced to beat up on a bot for a false positive, when the bot in its first message to you tells you that it makes mistakes and here's how to report them. Again, sorry Eric if I sounded patronizing, that wasn't my intent.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Can we keep the discussion in one place? -- Cobi(t|c|b) 01:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive249#Bad Bot
This page is a soft redirect.
Thank You.
Thanks For Reverting 24.9.7.7's Edit On Nissan GT-R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.50.206.122 (talk) 20:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
Fart not caught by Cluebot?
obvious vandalism that I fixed after 3 months. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)