Loading AI tools
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This 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. |
The Royal Rumble talk page on Wikipedia is displaying a list to all archives of this page (instead of archives of the actual Wikipedia page). No matter what I do (or what anyone else has done so far), the problem seems to remain. Do we have to nudge Cluebot to update that or something? Banaticus (talk) 05:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
very frustrating to find edits reverted without any sort of rationale given beyond a number.125.92.221.238 (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)
Good morning
Question what I me pose: how is the "Observatory of Harvard" what you speak in your article over the little planet 4231 Fireman
Yes, I question me because in the fish of IAU Minor Planet Center to purpose of (4231) Fireman it is marcked what the asteroid is discovered at Harvard on 1976-11-20 by Harvard Observatory; but in the case of discovered 1976 11 20.36187, it is marcked "801 – Oak Ridge Observatory".
Be that what you not confuze "Oak Ridge Observatory" and "Harvard College Observatory" ?
Apophyze mi for mi evil english.
--Jean-François Clet (talk) 10:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
Several article's I've archived have been duplicated. To see what I mean see the following talkpages:
What has happened or have I done anything wrong with it to cause this duplication? Adamdaley (talk) 11:54, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm quite concerned about a lot of revisions happening in Methodism particularly that part of History of methodism in the Philippines. Edits contained vandalism and inappropriate language and citing some insults, in the other group. If my opinion counts, that would be a kind of discrimination. Isn't it? Are allowing it in Wikipedia? Thanks. Christian Eilers (talk) 12:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
Something called ClueBot III is repeatedly archiving the talk page of Talk:Battle_of_Ayta_ash-Shab. I don't mind archiving older stuff but what has been added since November 2011 is still part of the ongoing discussion and I would like to keep it for a while. Is this procedure activated automatically or by an editor? Can I turn it off? Can I archive efterthing written before November 2011? How?
Regards, Jokkmokks-Goran (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
You have reported that I made some sort of unconstructive contribution to the Drinking water page. Where as the funny thing is, for the past 3 weeks, I haven't made any edits on wikipedia at all, so please stop creating the unnecessary ruckus and don't go on blaming people for something they haven't even done. And please don't threaten to block me and all, I joined the wikipedia to be a cheerful contributor and not to get blocked, and if you do have to block me, then you may do, it wont be of any harm to me. Singhaldipanshu (talk) 19:24, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe th above page is again a target of vandalism. I happened there in the course of writing new articles on Bruegel's paintings and found the page, which contains libelous statements about certain public figures. Checking its history, I noticed other attempts at vandalising it recently. I will now proceed and re-write the article as appropriate, but I thought the Wiki Admin should know, just in case...--Smintheus Fellin (talk) 14:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Lovely though the ideal of machine-moderated wikipedia might be, in this case at least it was total c-r-a-p so, basically, it's not rocket science. Richard Evans IS the current President of Wolfson College, Cambridge, and Gordon Johnson, is no longer the President, What exactly the problem with this? Fact. Get over it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.96.105.230 (talk) 20:59, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
OK. I read your message. thanks for your information! :) nanopico97 —Preceding undated comment added 05:38, 9 February 2012 (UTC).
Bot down? Not archiving since a day or two... --lTopGunl (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
(Reverting possible vandalism by 203.45.177.185 to version by RoslynSKP. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (852910) --Rskp (talk) 03:38, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
You've just used the term "vandalism" in connection to my inclusion of a paragraph. Was your comment really directed to my paragraph or was I just victim of a confusion? 85.179.143.106 (talk) 05:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
I need help, I found 3 M&M spokescandies on Google, posted them on M&M's and some guy named Eeekster is telling me what I don't know and I don't know what do to... --MegGriffin55 (talk) 23:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
I DID remove the link, there's no need to threaten me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.169.46.7 (talk) 13:59, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
What happened to the first Cluebot? ☻Cafeolay2☻ (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
I am relatively new here. Someone keeps editing this page and only signs in using their IP address: 99.12.242.7. In the first edit they took the article completely apart, including photo. I had to restore the entire thing. Also, this person is making threats by stating that they "reported" the page, making assumptions stating that I am closely related to the pages' namesake solely on the fact that I happen to have the same surname, etc. In short, their criticism and edits are not constructive to say the least. I believe it is vandalism. Please help. Solomonmercado (talk) 18:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
On my watchlist it lists all of Cluebot's edits even though I've selected to "hide bots". Could this account be classified as a bot for the purposes of watchlists? --Harizotoh9 (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
Please see my comment at Talk:Gropecunt Lane/Archive2#This Talk page is archived too aggressively (your browser may not locate this section correctly). Is this a widespread problem? (There seem to be three Talk pages relevant to this Bot--here, the Bot's Talk page, and the owner's Talk page. Please forgive me if I chose the wrong one.) There seem to be two problems: whether the Bot parameters are set incorrectly for that particular article, and informing the editors about how to set the parameters. (If they cannot be set, then that is another problem.) I apologize for my ignorance of how Bots, or this particular Bot, work. I just want to report these problems and have those who are knowledgeable fix whatever needs fixing, if that's okay. David Spector (talk) 21:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis
. The parameters listed in that template control the bot's actions for that specific page. In the case of the page you referenced, there is a parameter |age=744
. This defines the number of hours a thread can go without a reply before it should be archived (744 hours, or 31 days). If you believe this value needs to be changed, you can discuss it with other editors at Talk:Gropecunt Lane. For more information on the archive template, see User:ClueBot III. – Wdchk (talk) 17:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC) (Updated) 01:47, 19 February 2012 (UTC)You beat me to reverting on List of Big Time Rush characters, thus this is your first and final warning'. Do this again, and you will be awarded a barnstar without further notice. Kiko4564 (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
Just like to say that I'm sorry for vandalising a page. Won't do it again. We're all tempted to do stuff. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.40.225.252 (talk) 04:56, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
I know, just wanted to say I'm sorry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.122.233.50 (talk)
Talk:Santorum (disambiguation) was a 100K page; I added the appropriate template including the parameter
|maxarchsize=30000
Expecting to return the next day to find three archive pages. I found one, 83K in size. That's either a bug, or the doco need clarifying. Josh Parris 01:22, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
In this edit, ClueBot III changed a link from Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 48#WikiProject tagging for Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania to Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 45#WikiProject tagging for Wikipedia:WikiProject Pennsylvania, presumably because it had just archived Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 45#WikiProject tagging. Anomie⚔ 16:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I attempted to report a false positive (904259), but couldn't get past the captcha. I made at least a half dozen attempts, and made use of the button to give me a different one until it gave me one that looked obvious enough; in spite of this it never gave a positive response, not even on a couple that looked hard to misread. --mwalimu59 (talk) 18:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
The recent revert to Decossackization looks like a false positive, the change which the bot reverted may be controversial but I don't think it was vandalism. If this had been done manually I would have regarded it as an abuse of the minor change flag. PatGallacher (talk) 21:10, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
User:ClueBot III says "Administrators may turn the bot off by changing this page to 'False'." However, it is actually semi-protected. Ankit Maity requested to full protect it, but this was denied on the grounds that Cobi could do it himself. I just wanted to make sure Cobi knew. The same protection applies to other pages like User:ClueBot NG/Run. Superm401 - Talk 00:16, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Hello.
Just to let you know I have posted a new false positive http://report.cluebot.cluenet.org/?page=View&id=911136 (when I was not logged in to Wikipedia, so, my edits used a temporary IP address) and, in the list http://report.cluebot.cluenet.org/?page=List there are a lot of Reported false positives.
And what's up with Sending to Review Interface? I checked some of the false positives with this status, and they all have the same 2 entries every day:
Is this a bug of some sort in the report site? Why bother do the same 2 entries every day, when the result of those entries is the same of the day before? I just think this is unnecessary overhead in each page of a false positive.
Thanks, in advance. Mrmagoo2006 (talk) 07:32, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
If a series of different vandals edit in succession the bot only reverts the most recent vandalism and locks in the rest into the article:example. Δρ.Κ. λόγοςπράξις 14:21, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
While searching wiki for vandalism using known "shock site" URLs as my search parameters I noticed that The Southern Lehigh High School edit your bot performed reverted to a vandalized version of the article, I manually reverted the page to a previous (and hopefully accurate) version. Other than this minor glitch I like your bot and it makes my job so much easier when I do an anti-vandalism patrol. Keep up the good work. Washuchan (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
I think NAMBLA should be on the list of words that gets edits automatically reverted by ClueBot, since it's almost always going to be vandalism rather than a constructive edit. That would catch edits like this one: Robofish (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Jeffrey Vernon Merkey, a user banned by ARBCOM and Jimbo for off wiki threats to users (among other things), has come back as an extensive IP sock farm using the 69.171.160.* range. I'm trying to clean up his mess and ClueBot is being unhelpful. Revertorium (talk) 16:23, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi, just a few minutes ago I undid an edit on the AC Cobra page. I then thought an action that Cluebot NG could look for: all-caps. Though in this case "SIT DOWN" would probably be very hard to remove automatically, and may create a great deal more false positives. But I thought I'd put it out there. :) Starfleet Academy "Live long and prosper." 01:26, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi… I wanted to report a false positive but the site report.cluebot.org, where I have to put the revert ID is not working. What to do now?
Thanks. --Aghetrichter (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry if this isn't the page I should put this on, but I think it's kind of funny that it always says "Reverted possible vandalism". I think it should know that "she likes mc donalds" on the Molly Pitcher page is actually vandalism. Toaoftechnology (talk) 02:17, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
Hi. I'm wondering which of the following best describes ClueBot NG's use of the dataset:
If it's the former, why not do the latter? Thanks for all your good work! 13:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.