User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2013/April

Archiving problem?

Why is User:ClueBot_III/Master_Detailed_Indices/Talk:2012_Benghazi_attack blank? And looking at the page history, it looks like ClueBot III is edit-warring with itself (repeatedly deleting its own changes)? —Lowellian (reply) 06:17, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Watch Out While Reverting

If there is a possible vandalism, do not revert it too soon. Check it especially the article you are editing is not familiar enough to you for you've done a great mistake. After all, YOU, BOT, are to Blamed!!!!!!--114.38.195.251 (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

If you believe that you have encountered a false positive, please report it at the Report Interface. Reporting false positives helps to improve the quality of ClueBot NG's edits. Thank you. – Wdchk (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

Can I please help???

I have read through the ClueBot's policies and would like to join.. I have read through the dataset as well... I'm also under Theo's CVU Academy, a constant support to the Cluebot... Please let me know if I can join... And by the way, you stole around 5 of my reverts, because you found articles a second faster then I did!!! The Wikimon (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

What exactly would you like to do to help? ClueBot relies on a variety of algorithms to revert vandalism; the only real "human element" is reviewing its dataset, which can be done here. —Theopolisme (talk) 22:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 20:44, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Access to Cluebot review interface

Not sure if this is the right place to ask. I applied for access to the Cluebot review interface [1] to help classify edits. It's been about a week, and no response. Should I apply again, or can I find out if there is a problem with my application? RudolfRed (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)

I've messaged MTCD to make him aware of this message--5 albert square (talk) 20:32, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

 Done - Rich(MTCD)^T|C|E-Mail 20:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! RudolfRed (talk) 23:09, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

April 2013

Can you and Oxfordwang stop threatening me? 82.153.101.160 (talk) 13:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

I got it, I got it. I set the article to your revision. Oxfordwang (talk) 13:52, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Errors

You undid my edit to the page 108_(number) page, although it was a valid and true edit. I hope your programming gets checked frequently for errors, as you often have false positives.67.43.19.26 (talk) 16:16, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Reverted an IP who reverted vandalism!

[2]. -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

That's a shame, yeah. I see you or someone else has already reported the false positive. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Cluebot.org is down - reporting false-positive here

I would report this through the usual channels but cluebot.org and report.cluebot.org seem to be down. 1593116 was mostly (if not all) a false positive. Someone actually cleaned up a huge amount of vandalism on the DVD article and ClueBot brought the vandalism back. --andrew (talk) 15:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Cluebot III archiving wrong

It's archiving to User talk:Nerdfighter/Archives/ 9 instead of User talk:Nerdfighter/Archive 9. Help? nerdfighter 16:38, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for whomever helps! nerdfighter 23:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Cobi! nerdfighter 23:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

API for ClueBot's scores

I'm currently building up to the first release of WP:Snuggle, a newcomer socialization system that's similar in design to WP:Huggle, but geared towards identifying good newcomers who need help. As part of this system, I have a simple Bayesian model determining the probability that a newcomer is editing in good faith based on per edit vandal scores published by [[WP:STiki]. Sadly, STiki only scores main namespace revisions. I'm posting this message in hope that I'd be able to use ClueBot NG's scores to boost my coverage to revisions performed anywhere in the wiki. Do you publish an API or is there a way I could obtain regular data dumps of the scores ClueBot NG generates? --EpochFail^{(talk • work)} 15:03, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

IRC at irc.cluenet.org channel #cluebotng-spam. It relays the same format as the WMF rc feed, but with additional information like the score and such. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 20:39, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

question about false-positive reporting interface?

If you report a false positive, then is there a way to find out if the request was handled? (In an earlier version of the interface I think that somebody posted a response to each one on-wiki, but I do not think you do that any more.) The reporting interface says that "Status of the report and comments can be seen from within the report panel." Is that still true? (I do not want to have to agree to Google's TOS just to be able to access the database.) Bwrs (talk) 01:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

[3] -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 20:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Why you changed List of Mongol monarch?

Are you european?If you don't know about Central Asian history then don't edit this article.If you want to edit then contact with WikiProject Mongols and write here in my talkYour edit is useless, you removed useful informations, historic data.There were basic informations that knows every man who interests Mongolian history.Ask members of this project before you do anything!

Will hayhurst

A simple google search would tell you his nickname is Billy. This was a positive contribution to a wiki page. I understand I have previous for vandalising but this was a meaningful edit. Please remove my warning as it is totally out of order. Or at the very least explain it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.150.187 (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello, first of all ClueBot is not human, it is a Wikipedia robot so it is unable to perform tasks such as Google searches.

If you believe that you have been wrongly warned then please report it here.

For the type of edit you are making, I would suggest adding a reliable source to back it up. If you don't, you may find that human editors also revert you.--5 albert square (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind help, but this is a flawed system i must say when adding a name is classed as vandalism. Maybe wiki should have invested the millions us users helped them raise in system that actual works and doesn't bite the hand of those who feed it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.172.150.187 (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

ClueBot NG is not made by Wikipedia / Wikimedia Staff, in fact I don't believe any of the bots are. Wikipedia bots are made by volunteer editors like you and me with the skill to make them and be allowed to run them on Wikipedia. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 22:37, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Cluebot missed these very vand-like IP edits

here and here. --Lexein (talk) 05:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

While ClueBot NG is very effective it's not perfect, thanks for pointing them out. I'm sure one of ClueBot's owners can use those misses to better the bot. MIVP - (Can I Help? ◕‿◕) (Maybe a bit of tea for thought?) - (Cakes) 22:41, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

False positive reporting is confusing

I reported a false positive, I hope properly. I'll omit the praise you richly deserve because apparently it doesn't go here. But I want to point out that I'm not sure I did the "revert the cluebot reversion" process right. That's because there was the form which I used (which was great, BTW), but there was also a page describing a complicated procedure to report false positives involving sending you a MySQL record address. However, the message on my talk page did not include anything about MySQL:

• The following is the log entry regarding this message: Electrowinning was changed by 67.162.165.126 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.951521 on 2013-04-27T13:44:57+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 13:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: If that page about using MySQL records to report a false positive is obsolete, you might consider removing it.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.162.165.126 (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

If you follow the link from the warning itself, it skips the first two steps of finding the MySQL ID, and links you directly into the form. The FalsePositives page is how you can get there without following that link, so it is sort of obsoleted, and I'll probably add a header to the page noting that. Thanks. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 22:49, 28 April 2013 (UTC)