User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2015/November

praise +1
atop Excellent piece of work. praise +1 —Boruch Baum (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

When three play ping-pong
atop Is there any hope ClueBot-matons can catch multiple actors that tromp text closely in time? See this sequence for my example.

96.* stomps the word 'became' at 19:38, then almost simultaneously 72.* stomps other text. After reviewing their wondrous cleverness, 72.* fixes 96.*'s damage while adding more at 19:40.

ClueBot reverts both of 72.*'s changes, thus reinstating the bogon from 96.*. Own goal! I've seen people doing this same thing - reinstating fixed foo - so why am I asking an automaton to do better? Shenme (talk) 06:24, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ClueBot NG has a self-imposed 1RR rule, and it also, by default, never reverts edits by multiple users at the same time. If it misses an edit, it misses an edit. When it reverts, it essentially performs a rollback, which never reverts more than one user. And finally, ClueBot NG was never intended to be a replacement for human vandal fighters. No anti-vandal bot in history has ever been designed to fully replace humans. The most any human editor can do is to simply undo the damage the bot had missed and not complain about it. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  02:06, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

ClueBot never does anything right.
atop Official notices posted by ClueBot say "ClueBot makes very few mistakes", but I have yet to see an edit by ClueBot that I didn't revert. Apparently ClueBot indiscriminately undoes all edits to mathematical notation by users who are not logged in. I've never seen any evidence that ClueBot has done any other edits than those or has ever done anything right. I reverted this edit and reported it as a false positive. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:50, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then you haven't been paying attention. ClueBot does a great deal that is right, and a great deal other than articles that include mathematical notation, more than 100 times each hour.  Take a look.   General Ization   Talk   17:00, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I have not been paying attention to what ClueBot does. To expect that of me is absurd. Michael Hardy (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Then to claim that "ClueBot never does anything right" is absurd. You were fine when you were speaking of your own experience, but you erred in making a broad generalization about ClueBot (or anything else) without performing even the most basic research.  General Ization   Talk   17:14, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never seen any evidence that ClueBot has done any other edits than those or has ever done anything right. I'm sorry, but this is the most ludicrous thing I've ever read today. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  02:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The interesting thing to me is that despite your claim above, I can find no evidence that you reported the issue you discovered at Exponential family as a false positive; instead you came here to make preposterous claims about the quality of the bot's work. If ClueBot mishandled an edit to Wiki's mathematical notation (an error for which I think it can clearly be forgiven, given that that notation is pretty cryptic stuff not easily coded into an all-purpose bot), the constructive thing would be for you to describe the error in detail for the programmer so they can correct/expand the bot's capabilities (or perhaps to help design a different bot specifically to handle this kind of content).  But you have not done so.  The place to do it is here.  General Ization   Talk   02:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I did indeed report that edit as a false positive before posting here. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies. I see now that the false positive report is filed off-wiki at wmflabs.org, which explains why it doesn't appear in your history.  Thanks.  General Ization   Talk   22:47, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * You must just be unlucky Michael. I'm sure  will correct me if I'm wrong but I'm sure ClueBot NG's stats specify that it correctly identifies over 90% of edits and its threshold for false positives I think is 0.1%, an improvement on what it was previously.  I must admit in all my years on Wikipedia I think I can count on one hand the number of times I've reverted ClueBot NG and its predecessor.  It's great at catching vandalism.--5 albert square (talk) 23:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. ClueBot is clearly dysfunctional and is sabotaging all my contributions for no reason at all. I am left with no motivation whatsoever to share my knowledge with a community that trusts its robot police more than its human users. 152.130.14.7 (talk) 16:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * ClueBot reverted exactly one of your 23 edits before you posted the above.  General Ization  Talk   04:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi IP, ClueBot is not dysfunctional. It works on probability, in fact this diagram probably best explains how ClueBot NG works.


 * [[File:ClueBot NG Edit Flow.png]]


 * --5 albert square (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I am most intrigued with people overreacting over an error made by a computer program. Since when were humans ever perfect? Humans aren't even close to being perfect, so when did bots become an exception? I love how people are busy rambling about how Wikipedia is "blindly trusting its robot police" and "Cluebot is Clueless" without doing any thorough research in their arguments. Apparently in this day and age, two erroneous reverts means that 100% of all the edits the bot has made must be erroneous as well. If an anti-virus program accidentally classifies a trusted program as malicious, the only fool in this equation is the person who decides to uninstall it because "It's blocking all my trusted programs!" This debate has been ongoing since the early days of ClueBot NG, and I sadly don't see it ending any time soon. As long as people clearly don't recognize and appreciate the work both automated and human vandal fighters do, there will always be someone who thinks ClueBot is Clueless. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  13:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

FP
atop https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Eastern_Illinois_Panthers&diff=687629907&oldid=687629903 Cluebot reverted fight song lyrics from an official source so i added it back. False positive    TypingInTheSky (talk) 19:45, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, please report the false positive here. Thanks.--5 albert square (talk) 22:25, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Gibsonburg Ohio
atop I added more facts about Gibsonburg and this damn think keeps deleting them. Luebcke9 (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since your edits to Gibsonburg, Ohio ‎ are totally unsourced and therefore not verifiable, if ClueBot had not reverted them a human editor would have done so.  General Ization  Talk   00:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * And actually only one of your unsourced edits was reverted by ClueBot; the rest were reverted by human editors (the last one by me).  General Ization  Talk   00:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Cluebot not recognizing existing month headings Comment
atop Here, CBNG created four different "October 2015" headings, each starting with a Level 1 warning, presumably preventing this IP from automatically being submitted for blocking. Seems like a bug to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gaelan (talk • contribs) 02:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi this is not a bug.--5 albert square (talk) 20:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Really? In my experience, CBNG has always at least escalated the warnings. (talk to) Gaelan('s contributions) 23:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * ClueBot reads warnings from a few days ago, if it finds one then it will escalate the level of the warning. It hasn't been approved to read ones from several days ago so if it doesn't find warnings issued within the last few days then it will revert back to level 1 warnings and the process starts again.  Once it gets past a level 4 warning it then reports it to WP:AIV.--5 albert square (talk) 23:59, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Cluebot, you do good work.
You're a boon to the entire anti-vandalism effort. You and your operator deserve kudos. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 01:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Feature request: null edit after page blank->restore
Hi, I don't know if this is the right place for a feature request, if not please point me to the right place. The request is for the bot to do a WP:NULLEDIT on any page that was blanked after it is restored ie. vandal blanks a page -> bot restores it -> bot issues a null edit. The purpose of the NE is to restore the category links and backlinks which otherwise can take days for restoration waiting in the queue. A current example is David Livingstone which was recently blanked and restored by the bot. However as of this writing, there are no transclusion backlinks in WhatLinksHere. They were deleted during the blanking, but won't be restored until the queue is free which can take days. A NullEdit would restore it immediately. -- Green  C  21:41, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

ClueBot III down for a while
atop Hey—anyone know what's up with ClueBot III? I emailed the maintainers but haven't heard back. Trying to get "/ArchiveThis" to work on WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request when it's back up czar  15:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look in the absence of, and  and from what I can see you have ClueBot III set to archive threads over I think it was 2,160 hours old. That works out around 90 days so when ClueBot III comes to archive, it will not archive anything with the latest response under 2,160 hours. From what I can see on that page, the oldest thread is bang on 90 days old today so it should be archived shortly. Just may take the bot a day or two. 5 albert square (talk) 06:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * , thanks! But the threads marked resolved should also archive at first notice, right? (Not wait 90 days?) czar  08:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah apologies, I'm on holiday just now, logging in from a mobile device and I missed the resolved thread. I'm not 100% sure but I think that should be prompting the bot to archive it. I know that using "abot" and "atop" tells the bot the thread is ready for archiving. Would assume that's the same. 5 albert square (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Why
atop Why did u block my message Nysportsfan14 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * because you vandalised it by using the word "shit". As Wikipedia has to maintain a neutral point of view, personal opinions are not allowed, I would recommend reading WP:NPOV which will explain more.


 * On another note, because of ClueBot NG's warning, I checked your edit filter log to check your edit history and I can see that you attempted to blank ClueBot NG's talk page which is obviously wrong. Please do not do this again or a WP:SYSOP may block you. 5 albert square (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Georgian wine – thanks
atop Thanks for removing vandalism on Georgian Wine. SireWonton 02:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SireWonton (talk • contribs)

About edting
atop Why u edit the name of LAL chand Nishad on bansi democracy page Akhilesh Kumar nishad (talk) 08:21, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * You are asking a bot why it reverted you. I've reviewed the reversion and suspect it was because you removed a disambiguation note for the subject when you added information.  This was the note that said, For other uses, see Bansi (disambiguation), which was at the top of the page before you edited it, but not after.  You probably didn't realize you were removing the notice, but doing so probably convinced ClueBot that the edit was not helpful.  The other information you added can probably be returned to the article, but be sure to cite your sources, otherwise someone will probably remove it again.  Good luck. Etamni &#124; &#9993; &#124; ✓ 08:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

How can I help?
atop Are you accepting volunteers to review FPs or anything like that? Thx BlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 15:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * would probably be the best people to ask. 5 albert square (talk) 13:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

thxBlAcKhAt9(9 (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Ruining my edits
atop ClueBot Ng, you and AClockworkOrange2 are always spoiling my edits Kofi4496 (talk) 13:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * "always spoiling your edits"? From what I can see on your talk page this robot hasn't left a message on your talk page for 3 months?


 * As the red box at the top of this page indicates, ClueBot NG is not a human, it is a robot designed to revert potential vandalism. I have looked at the edit ClueBot NG reverted and I can see why a non-human would revert it. If I'm honest, I would also have removed it, not because it's vandalism but because as someone that knows nothing about the subject, I don't see what it adds to the article. 5 albert square (talk) 13:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

in onkar
atop good evening Sir being A priest of Sikh religion, I never read ik Onkar in splitting form as you have written. there is no word in our holy scripture that is Shri Guru Granth Sahib ji can u justify ..? Taranjeet singh Khalsa (talk) 18:44, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Read the red box at the top of the page. As a bot, ClueBot cannot justify anything, but human editors have confirmed its "judgment" by reverting the same edits after you reasserted them.  The issue may not be your arguments but the fact that  is inappropriate for an encyclopedia.  I suggest you bring this up on the article's Talk page for discussion rather than make the changes again.  General Ization   Talk   18:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Teach this bot something
atop This bot needs to learn some more lessons of what is vandalism or not. This is vandalism; so is this, this, and this. 115.188.191.246 (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * The bot already knows a lot about vandalism. This, this, and this were all caught. There's already a sizable number of vandalism that does get past this bot for various reasons; the only thing that does matter is that you, as a human, caught them. --I am  k6ka  Talk to me!   See what I have done  03:06, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Update link
atop The new report URL is https://tools.wmflabs.org/cluebot/?page=Main — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.219.129.78 (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

User accounts?
atop User accounts: ClueBot IV

ClueBot V

ClueBot VI

ClueBot VII

ClueBot VIII

ClueBot IX

and ClueBot X seem to be registered

User:ClueBot IV

User:ClueBot V

User:ClueBot VI

User:ClueBot VII

User:ClueBot VIII

User:ClueBot IX

User:ClueBot X — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernosky (talk • contribs) 13:31, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi


 * That's correct. They are all legitimate alternative accounts of . Not all of them are operational just now. 5 albert square (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Calinism
atop Please do not revert my edit, I tried to correct the numbers of Reformed denomination. Pew forum says 56 million adherents.co think the number is 75 million it is 20million difference. I think 56 million is the wrong number. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.6.253.10 (talk) 16:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I leared in Sunday School the Reformed denominaions number about 80 million — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.6.253.10 (talk) 17:21, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


 * ClueBot NG is a robot, not a human. Please read the message in the red box at the top of this page. If the bot has undone an edit by mistake, please see this page. — k6ka  🍁 ( Talk ·  Contributions ) 14:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Pimple
atop I am ishaan grewal I am extremely sorry for adding unreasonable content on some articles as I had done so unknowingly and was just trying to help Wikipedia. I will now only put good and useful content on articles. I am very sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishaangrewal2001702 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

My edit
atop That My Weird School edit that you removed that I made had no reason of being removed. It was just another example and you just deleted it for no reason.Mohawkpizzadude34 (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Mohawkpizzadude34


 * Hi


 * Please read the message in the red box at the top of this page.


 * ClueBot NG is not a human. It is an automated computer program, therefore it is unable to check your edit. ClueBot NG works instead on probability and there is something in your edit that has triggered it and flagged as possible vandalism. I would suggest that you discuss the edit on the article talk page. If this information is true then a confirmed editor can make the edit. 5 albert square (talk) 10:15, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello
atop Well hello there Cluebot, I'm Pichu0320. Nice to mee you :D

Pichu0320 (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Baba Sehgal
atop Hi, I corrected the information on his education background which is giving false info to the readers. He did his graduation from G B pant university of agriculture and technology and that too in B. TECH electrical Googlebaba1 (talk) 11:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi


 * Please read the red box at the top of this page. ClueBot NG is one of our robots and therefore not a human editor. ClueBot NG is an anti-vandal bot, however that does not mean that your edit is vandalism. It works on probability which means that there must have been a phrase or word mentioned that has triggered the robot to revert it. Having reviewed the reversion the bot made, I agree with ClueBot NG's reversion. I think what triggered it was when you said something like a single had had more hits than chicken fried rice.


 * If the information on his education is incorrect, I would suggest that you start a discussion on the article talk page. You will need to provide reliable sources to back up your claims.


 * Finally, you said in one of your edits that this information has come from the "man himself". I would suggest that you read our policy on original research. 5 albert square (talk) 14:30, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

A suggestion
atop Could ClueBot, after it has found and reverted a vandalistic edit, then take a look at the recent edits of the IP or account involved to check for more vandalism, since vandalism often occurs in bunches? This would emulate what many human editors do when they come across vandalism. BMK (talk) 03:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That wouldn't really help since ClueBot NG already looks at all edits that happen in real-time. So any edits that that IP or account has already made will have already been processed by ClueBot NG. -- Cobi(t&#124;c&#124;b) 10:56, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks, I didn't know that. BMK (talk) 22:57, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Cluebot revert
atop Hi, Cluebot reverted this edit, however it did not restore everything. I might be going blind at this time of night, but maybe there is something wrong? Sorry for bothering if it's something else if not the bot! Lukasz Lukomski (talk) 00:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi


 * It is because the bot has reverted all edits by that IP not just the one that you have used as an example. It reverted it back to the last safe revision from July 2015 which shows as 17,727 bytes, therefore ClueBot NG has correctly added back 17,727 characters. I hope this explains everything! 5 albert square (talk) 17:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Cluebot warning following Template:Welcome-unconstructive
atop A while back I added a comment to Welcomevandal, now named Welcome-unconstructive, in the hope that Cluebot/Huggle would recognise this welcome template as a level-1 warning and follow up with a level-2 warning if necessary. But at User talk:A1UC Xol today, the bot posted a level-1 warning. Any ideas? How does Cluebot parse the warnings that have recently been given to an IP? -- John of Reading (talk) 14:48, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The comment needs to come before the timestamp.  -- Cobi(t&#124;c&#124;b) 20:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I've edited Welcome-unconstructive. -- John of Reading (talk) 21:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Discrimination
atop Why is my definition flagged? Spenceradika (talk) 00:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)


 * First of all, this is not discrimination. Please read the box at the top of this page. ClueBot NG is a robot designed to fight vandalism, it is NOT a human. It has flagged your edit as POSSIBLE vandalism, I suspect that this is because you mentioned vagina. ClueBot NG works on probability, I'm not saying that your edit is vandalism however as I'm sure you can appreciate that terminology is used frequently by vandals. I hope this explains things. 5 albert square (talk) 02:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Also please note that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary, and certainly not a foreign-language dictionary. Word definitions and non-English terms that would not be be the topic of an encyclopedic article should not appear on disambiguation pages here. You may want to check out our sister project Wiktionary.  This has little to do with why ClueBot reverted your edit, but explains why I would revert it if you were to repeat it.  General Ization   Talk   02:28, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

ClueBot NG (talk)
atop
 * Cluebot is not a human being; posting Wikilove here is rather pointless. If you want to report a false positive, there is a link at the top of the page. Also, this is the English Wikipedia; if you need help with translation from Hindi(?), WP:INB is the place to go. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)