User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2010/November

This is an archive of past discussions with User:ClueBot Commons. 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 warning that Cluebot NG gives out at the moment, does not seem to display properly. --Saddhiyama (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 19:03, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ClueBot NG seems just to have started up (but not having reset its reference counter?). So far, so good, but the user page says: "Selecting a threshold to hold false positives at a minimal rate of 0.25%, the bot catches approximately 63% of all vandalism." Shouldn't that be 'maximal'? Philip Trueman (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Also fixed. Crispy1989 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

For people that are sensitive to war, at least the avatar for ClueBot NG doesn't show any falling bombs in it. mechamind90 20:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

ClueBot NG is not yet a full bot, in that it still shows on my watchlist despite my setting the watchlist to not include bot edits. --HXL 何献龙 22:08, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

It is in a trial period. Discussion can be found on the BRFA. Crispy1989 (talk) 22:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I am seeing Cluebot adding a header for the current month after one already exists. Is that something that can be fixed or just something we have to live with? (This got archived even though I posted it less than a week ago, so I am reposting.) Jojalozzo 01:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4]

On Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science within 24hrs. Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:55, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked ClueBot from Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science for now. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. The page is well watched, and rarely (almost never) vandalised. Problems on the page are more usually due to editors violating other WP guidelines.Sf5xeplus (talk) 14:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Just caught another FP [5], doesn't appear the the bot is completely blocked --LarryMac | Talk 16:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

(after ec) ClueBot NG is still at it. Another false positive. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 16:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cluebot-NG was not trained on data outside of the main namespace, and is not designed to analyze data outside of it. The Wikipedia interface is being changed to ignore edits outside of the main namespace. Crispy1989 (talk) 16:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

That page was on the optin list. I've removed everything from the optin list, for now. Keep in mind, when users add pages there, they are inviting the bot somewhere where it has not been tested or designed for. It may work well. It may not. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 17:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

ClueBot made this bad revert: [6] and I attempted to report it at the standard place. Unfortunately, when given revert ID 610876 it didn't pull up the data from the edit (and said it had not been reverted, but I trust this is some sort of default).

I'd like to know what filter the edit hit (one of the "making a minor change with obscenities" filters, but which regex?) as well as to check that similar edits will be allowed in the future. The Mathematics WikiProject adds many {{OEIS2C}} templates and I wouldn't want to fight ClueBot's edits.

CRGreathouse (t | c) 12:57, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

yes same problem above eg ID8834 for this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science&action=historysubmit&diff=394563020&oldid=39456300 gives the wrong user and the wrong article.Sf5xeplus (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

This link is a remnant from the old Cluebot. It will become operational again when the new bot does. False positives are currently being reported on the BRFA. Crispy1989 (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• 일국의 군 통수권자에게 대가리라는 표현을 쓰시다니... 영어 문화권에서 아르헨티나라는 국가를 이렇게 심하게 모독할 줄은 정말 몰랐습니다. 주의하시구요 역대 아르헨티나의 대가리라는 국가원수모독성 제목은 두 번 다시 사용하지 마시기 바랍니다. 시스플라티나 (talk) 14:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

생각해 보세요. 역대 미국의 대통령 → 역대 미국의 대갈통, 이러면 기분이 좋나요? 시스플라티나 (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• in army prerogative of supreme command person of a country ' ' ' Head ' ' ' Writes the expression which is and hangs… Argentina the nation which is will defile will decrease truth did not know like this severely from the English cultural area. To pay attention, nine ' ' ' Head ' of successive Argentina; ' ' , The chief of state defilement characteristic subject which is wishes two time does not use again drinking. [[User: Cis [phul] mote|Cis [phul] mote]] ([[User talk: Cis [phul] mote|talk]]) 14:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 시스플라티나 (talk • contribs)

You think about List of Presidents of USA → List of Head of USA, When is like this, cheerfulness? 시스플라티나 (talk) 14:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

• ClueBot only reverted your edit because a page does not exist. It does not know anything specific about topics except for what it knows to reject. mechamind90 14:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Does what it says on the tin really: You just get an error page if you click the link given for editing stats. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicdrewdriver (talk • contribs) 15:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Where is this link? Is it on the Cluebot-NG page or old Cluebot page? Crispy1989 (talk) 16:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

re this. The edit summary was illegible. "Questions, comments, complaints -> BRFA Thanks, ClueBot NG." BRFA? Is your bot user's page, not mine. Then, "Thanks" -- uh, I do not want a bot to say 'Thanks'. Just link to the 'bot, ok? And, operator, your bot did not set the "b" switch. -DePiep (talk) 18:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

re-reading my thing, I apologise for the rude text. Can you find the questions, or should I rephrase? -DePiep (talk) 18:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank your for reporting the false positive. The bot normally detects vandalism reversions by other users using the edit summary. I'll look into detecting it by other means. The edit summary must be terse because its length is limited. "BRFA" is Bot Request For Approval - Cluebot NG is in a trial period, and has not been approved as a full bot yet. This is the reason the edit summary links to the BRFA (so false positives can be reported there so reviewers can see), and also the reason it does not yet have a bot flag. Crispy1989 (talk) 18:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reply. Still, I think the es (edit summary) should be better (not: could be). I sensed a bot, but that is not the issue. I suggest (again): please take care of the es. I expect just one link to the bot-talk-page (with a STOP button there!). Again: I understand your testing state, but for me the es should be part of the test. -DePiep (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC) (better sign ?1)

• During trials, edit summaries typically link to the discussion about the bot pending approval. BRFA was linked there because I wanted people to go there to make comments/questions/complaints.
• That big, red, tacky stop button is a link to the block page. Admins can click block at the top of the page just as easily as click that big red button. The button also confuses normal users when they click it and get sent to a permission denied page.
• Anti-vandalism bots have typically never set the b flag in edits. Approved bots should not per the bot approvals group. And unapproved bots cannot.
• As for the edit summary, other than the BRFA link, it is exactly what the original ClueBot uses.
• -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 20:41, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

You skipped my q: do not say "Thanks" by bot. Disgusting habit; US? Don't copy what "the original ClueBot uses". -DePiep (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Discussion about the bot's behavior is occurring on the BRFA. Before changing the edit summary, the community should discuss reasons why politeness in an edit summary is a problem. Please start a discussion on the BRFA about this issue, and if the community agrees, we will change the edit summary. You should start the discussion before the end of the trial period, so the BAG has a chance to reject the bot on the grounds of being too nice. Crispy1989 (talk) 06:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I undid your edit to the page on pet rabbits because what i'm saying is true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catlover324 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Your edits on this page are considered vandalism. Crispy1989 (talk) 20:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I think ClueBot NG would make a great Ph.D. thesis topic in computer engineering. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:05, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Theses focus on theoretics. Cluebot-NG is designed to be practical. This is one major thing that sets Cluebot-NG apart from previous attempts at machine-learning vandalism detection on Wikipedia. It could be adapted to remove some of the aspects that were added for practicality, but our time is better spent improving it so it can improve Wikipedia. Crispy1989 (talk) 06:18, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. On second thought, it would probably be more suitable for a regular research paper rather than a M.S./Ph.D. thesis. --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There is this, but it's not a formal research paper. Crispy1989 (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I have just started to very frequently get this error message when classifying edits using the review interface, even more so than other error messages I was getting. PleaseStand ^(talk) 01:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Now I don't seem to get it anymore. PleaseStand ^(talk) 03:30, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Most of the reverts previously were made by Cluebot, but after my short break of a week or so, Cluebot NG is now the only bot that I see reverting. Is it a replacement or a new version of Cluebot? I am a violinist ♫ talk to me here! 14:42, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Both ClueBots are running; however, ClueBot NG appears to be faster and catches more vandalism than the original ClueBot, drowning out old-ClueBot edits. Here's a screenshot I just took. :p - SnoFox^(t|c) 15:51, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Cluebot-NG is a complete rewrite of the original Cluebot, using new code, and completely different algorithms. It is intended as a replacement, but is currently in a trial period. While it's in a trial period, both Cluebot-NG and the old Cluebot are running, but as SnoFox said, Cluebot NG is faster and catches more vandalism than the original Cluebot, so these are the edits you see. Crispy1989 (talk) 22:37, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I am endorsing the work that ClueBot did at [7]. The change was most definiteley vandalism. Let me know if you have any questions. Hasteur (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

This is simple easy-to-catch vandalism. The bot is capable of catching much harder vandalism than this. Crispy1989 (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

I can understand why removing a section is suspicious. But it should be stopped by abuse filter or by cluebot, not both. So do some joined up thinking please :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.253.37 (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Oddest thing. ClueBot reverted some vandalism in the first line of Medical cannabis but if you look at the resulting revision, that line is still displayed even though it's not there if you click the edit tab. Do you or someone else know what's going on? Msnicki (talk) 23:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Update: A couple additional edits have been done on that page and that extra first line has now disappeared, even from the particular revision created by ClueBot for which I provided the link above. Very odd. Msnicki (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

[8] Philip Trueman (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a stupid question. What's the NG stand for? The nerd in me is hoping for "Next Generation" Sven Manguard _Talk 03:33, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

[9] :) --Yair rand (talk) 08:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

This is fucking retarded. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.187.44 (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with this filter bot other than that it reverts constructive edits to pages on Wikepedia, and starts spamming messages to users attempting to revert vandalised edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.187.44 (talk) 04:39, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Note: This comment and the proceeding one are written by a user who has a long history of vandalism. All of the edits from this user that Cluebot-NG has reverted are clear, obvious vandalism. Crispy1989 (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Note to other vandals: If you don't like Cluebot-NG reverting your edits, don't post angry messages here. Just don't vandalize. Crispy1989 (talk) 11:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not meant as criticism, it is just a question. Sometimes I come across vandalism like this one. It is very obviously vandalism, and I'm sure all of the Cluebots would be able to determine it is vandalism with a very high certainty, but for some reason this edit stayed up for 3 hours. Why is it that vandalism like this sometimes still gets missed? Arthena^(talk) 21:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The bot actually caught that. It didn't get reverted because the Wikipedia interface code currently has a rule that ignores edits where the user has more than 50 edits. In this case, the user did have more than 50 edits, but most edits were vandalism. It may be possible to adjust this rule to that it only applies when fewer than 10% of the user's past edits have been vandalism, or something. Crispy1989 (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The WP:FILM peeps have been dealing with this ever since Inception came out. Neat trick there, bot. Millahnna (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The bot uses a completely different mechanism than all previous antivandal bots. This new mechanism allows it to catch things such as this. Crispy1989 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

This is not meant as criticism, it is just a question. Sometimes I come across vandalism like this one. It is very obviously vandalism, and I'm sure all of the Cluebots would be able to determine it is vandalism with a very high certainty, but for some reason this edit stayed up for 3 hours. Why is it that vandalism like this sometimes still gets missed? Arthena^(talk) 21:48, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The bot actually caught that. It didn't get reverted because the Wikipedia interface code currently has a rule that ignores edits where the user has more than 50 edits. In this case, the user did have more than 50 edits, but most edits were vandalism. It may be possible to adjust this rule to that it only applies when fewer than 10% of the user's past edits have been vandalism, or something. Crispy1989 (talk) 22:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The WP:FILM peeps have been dealing with this ever since Inception came out. Neat trick there, bot. Millahnna (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The bot uses a completely different mechanism than all previous antivandal bots. This new mechanism allows it to catch things such as this. Crispy1989 (talk) 22:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Is it necessary to somehow correct a classification if I have, by chance, clicked the wrong button? If so, how do I do it? PleaseStand ^(talk) 00:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not currently possible, or necessary. Each edit must be classified by at least two users before it is considered definitely correct. If the two users disagree (one clicks constructive, one clicks vandalism), the edit is skipped. Discarding a few edits (out of tens of thousands) from the dataset isn't a big issue. Crispy1989 (talk) 01:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

[10] Philip Trueman (talk) 22:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Will ClueBot NG replace ClueBot any time in the near future or will the work cohesively? Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 5:40pm • 06:40, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The original ClueBot will stop editing in mainspace when ClueBot NG is approved. It will likely still run in template space and the optin list for a while - or until ClueBot NG learns enough to operate in those namespaces. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 06:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance, but wouldn't it be possible to copy that part of the code onto ClueBot NG's code and then modify it as needed or is that more work than it's made out to be? Regards, —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 9:59pm • 10:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Cluebot-NG is not just an upgrade of the original Cluebot. Its mechanism is entirely different, and incompatible, with the original. Cluebot-NG will eventually learn how to properly classify edits in other namespaces. Crispy1989 (talk) 11:49, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok thanks for the clarification. —Ғяіᴆaз'§Đøøм • Champagne? • 3:58pm • 04:58, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

i didnt know dis —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.7.120.132 (talk) 04:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

It is OK to propose an article for deletion, even if you do not have an account. It's probably the words "cool story bro." that caused the bot to revert your edit. PleaseStand ^(talk) 12:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

In the current dataset, "bro" is used in a number of vandalism edits, and zero good edits. If this is acceptable, then expanding the dataset with instances of "bro" being constructive would help. Also, "cool" has a 97.6 vandal probability (but since it appears in some good articles, this alone wouldn't trigger it). "cool" would also be outweighed by "story", which has a 21% vandal probability, and "sources" which has a 25% vandal probability. Crispy1989 (talk) 12:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

When is the first ClueBot coming back again? WAYNEOLAJUWON 22:13, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I see not all edits by this bot are flagged with the b flag, e.g. [11] This gets annoying on watch lists. Tijfo098 (talk) 11:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Anti-vandal bots are typically not allowed to mark their edits with the bot flag. A quick search of the archives shows more resources and further responses:

• User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2007/August#If you're a bot, say so!
• User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2007/September#Flag?
• User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2007/November#Bot flag
• User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2008/January#Bot tag
• User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2008/July#Missing bot flag in edit summaries
• User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2009/July#Bot shows on RC

And these for discussions specifically about ClueBot NG:

• User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2010/November#re Watt
• User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2010/November#Bot Classification

-- Cobi^(t|c|b) 11:32, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello, ClueBot Commons. You have new messages at Hybirdd's talk page.
Message added 18:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Three changes were made to List of Maronite Patriarchs‎. I finally realized that I didn't like these. They were without an explanation, by an unregistered IP, and had removed links. It wasn't that clear, because material was apparently added as well. Finally I reverted it, only to find that the bot had already done so! Incredible! Student7 (talk) 22:17, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to report cluebot sequence number 34998 as a false positive (which I reverted).

http://delta.cluenet.org/~cobi/cluebot.php gives me a form:
ID:
User:
Article:
Diff:
[1]

Heuristic:
Reason:
Reverted:
No

Why are you making this report?
"I made a mistake."

"Someone vandalized."

"I vandalized."

"ClueBot didn't catch some vandalism."

"ClueBot reverted a good edit."

Other

There's no submit button & no info on the change loaded.Kiore (talk) 08:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Where did you find this link? It's not currently functioning - all the references we know of to this link have been changed. Did we miss one? Crispy1989 (talk) 12:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

It's on User:ClueBot/FalsePositives. I'm pretty sure that's the link I followed. Kiore (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Having the same issue. Perhaps you can post here a link to a correct reporting page for false reports? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ClueBot_Commons links to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ClueBot/FalsePositives —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.58.118 (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Why is the bot adding month headings when warning on talk pages, when the relevant month heading is already present? e.g 1, 2 --Pontificalibus (talk) 13:50, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I can only assume it's down to the length of time that's lapsed between the warnings. Looking at the ones you've mentioned there, there is a good few days between the warnings. If you look at this IP's talk page you will see all warnings are on the same date and ClueBot only created one heading despite warning the IP more than once. I'm sure if I'm wrong I'll be corrected! --5 albert square (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Well it would be nice if the Bot followed convention rather creating duplicate headings after a certain number of days...--Pontificalibus (talk) 16:06, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Suported. IMHO it does not make sense to add a welcome message after a final warning has already been issued in the same month (example) by the same silicon-based lifeform. Alfie↑↓© 17:35, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I've actually found out now from Crispy that it's a glitch with ClueBot NG. Hopefully will be fixed soon :) --5 albert square (talk) 18:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

THX for the information! Alfie↑↓© 21:54, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bot reverted this edit to Stacey Slater earlier.

However the IP making the edit has only edited Wikipedia once before and in this case I suspect that they weren't trying to vandalise the article, I think they were trying to add in a hidden comment but just didn't know what they were doing. I really do think it was a good faith edit, however ClueBot marked it as vandalism.

I was going to suggest, if the person has nothing posted on their talk page before, would it be possible for ClueBot to post a welcome template message maybe explaining about vandalism before it starts to warn people? I was thinking a template kind of along the lines of the Welcomelaws template or the Welcome-Anon-Vandal template that Friendly currently uses. That might be of use to the person especially if they're new.

I didn't report it as a false positive because although I don't think the edit was vandalism I can see why ClueBot may have reverted it as this.

However would my suggestion be possible?

If it is and you need a template to be written, I would be happy to assist with this as I'm part of the Welcoming Committee on Wikipedia :) --5 albert square (talk) 21:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The current (first) warning message is already very polite, but there always is a fine line between being strict with the 55% of vandals it catches, and making it easy for the 0.25% of false positives to get around it. If you can come up with a good idea that both makes it easy for users to handle the very few false positives, and makes it difficult for vandals to get around the bot and simply revandalize, I'd love to hear it. Crispy1989 (talk) 18:29, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

What I was thinking was something along the lines of what User:XLinkBot does which is post a welcome message and post a friendly warning at the same time. It may be that we would get less vandals then if they get either the Welcome Laws template or the Welcome Anon Vandal template as a message from ClueBot especially if they're new to editing because both those templates explain a lot about vandalism. Hope that makes sense! --5 albert square (talk) 18:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

AM I IN THE BLACKLIST?--182.53.48.177 (talk) 16:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're meaning have you been reported for vandalism then the answer at the minute is no because WP:AIV is sitting empty :)

I'm not aware of ClueBot or ClueBot NG having a 'blacklist' as such, though if I'm wrong I'm sure someone will correct me. --5 albert square (talk) 18:13, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no blacklist. Having a blacklist would cause a very large number of false positives. Crispy1989 (talk) 18:26, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think there's a whitelist, though. There may be editors that ClueBot is set to completely ignore, which would only in extremely exceptional circumstances include IP addresses (mostly it would be registered users). mechamind90 04:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

ClueBot hasn't made any edits since November 10th. Has it been retired already? --Ixfd64 (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed cluebot had removed some vandalism to the Haydock article. Since then, it has been vandalised again by a user named Olliepee. It seems they opened that user name specifically to vandalise the Haydock article. Anyway, I've reverted it back to the version last edited by myself (92.239.71.235) as you (or cluebot) did on the 6th November.

92.239.71.235 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

You are only reverting back to the original vandalism. 98.111.95.78 (talk) 02:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes things like this happen, but they can be fixed. False positives should be reported on the BRFA using the format specified there. Any other discussion is also occurring there for the moment. Crispy1989 (talk) 02:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

You have reverted some edits I have made. I was the original author of the article in question and have requested its removal by Wikipedia as in hindsight Wikipedia is the wrong forum for it. Please could you let me know how I go about getting it removed. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.4.83 (talk) 13:04, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about the article currently called criticisms of age regulations in sports, then you could add {{db-blanked}} to the page, but it's not entirely clear that you are the only author, so an administrator may not actually delete it. Other than that you'd have to start a deletion discussion about the article, but having a quick look, it looks as if it is a notable topic so is unlikely to be deleted. SmartSE (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't imagine how you recognized that this edit was vandalism. You are very clever. Your programmer must be very smart and talented, and also quite attractive to his or her preferred gender or genders. Hurrah! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:00, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Robot can not except cookies or other such gifts, but its master thanks you--Lerdthenerd (talk) 10:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Robot operators like WikiCookies and Barnstars, though. Robots like HTTP Cookies. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 22:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

"There he joined a crew later called "The Young Turks", which was a group of Americanized Italians AND JEWS in New York which included mobsters like Frank Costello, Albert "Mad Hatter" Anastasia, Frank Scalice, Settimo Accardi, Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese, Joe Adonis, Vito Genovese, Meyer Lansky, Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel and was headed by one of the future's most powerful Mob bosses, Charlie "Lucky" Luciano."

look, there's a few men of Jewish Mafia in the list, not only Italians, where do you see a vandalism here?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.145.208.144 (talk) 12:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

This was a false positive, likely because the only thing that was added was "jews", and this is usually found in vandalism. Crispy1989 (talk) 19:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Don't know if this is in the right place, but I thought I'd try asking here. The Blair Waldorf article (and others, I'd imagine) is a regular target for a certain kind of fancruft. Vandals will continually try inserting a fictional, unverified middle name. A registered user was recently blocked for this, and now an IP or two is at it again.

Is there a way to create a bot that could detect and revert something like this (like whenever the word is inserted into the article)? Or could something like ClueBot be adjusted to do it? Just thought I'd see if something could be done. -- James26 (talk) 13:40, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Cluebot learns what vandalism is by example. If there are several instances in its dataset of this particular middle name being added, then it will learn that it's considered vandalism, and will start reverting it. Note that the Bayesian database (the part that would detect this) currently requires 4 instances of a word to contribute to the score, so at least 4 instances of the middle name being added and reverted would be required. Crispy1989 (talk) 19:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Or are you saying that it's an automatic process that may take effect eventually? In any case, thanks for your response. -- James26 (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In working with the review interface I've been asked about at least 4 edits by User:RjwilmsiBot adding metadata and the like. I imagine you have a whitelist with other bots on it but you seems to have missed this one:-)--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The review interface does not have a whitelist, it just displays all edits in a random order over the period of a day. Because some bots operate intermittently, bots that were operating that day may be overrepresented. We should pick random edits from a wider timespan, of maybe a few months. Crispy1989 (talk) 19:05, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

May I thank you for the immediate and extremely necessary, sensible, competent and (as I personally believe) nationally useful (in fact extremely useful and sensible in all respects including international) immediate removal on 18 November of the remarkably non-substantiated comment provided by the person or persons as named under 'User talk' address above, and also for your explanation and suggestions on this same talk page. You may be interested to know (if any of you should have the time or the interest) that I myself have added a further comment to the talk page in question (User talk:82.1.67.40). WELL DONE WIKIPEDIA will be the ultimate verdict, or so I believe. It remains to be seen. If you want further information I shall be pleased to provide it to you (by email or by post, contact peter.judge [ at ] laposte.net). Thanks for that which you have so WELL in fact MAGNIFICENTLY done. I find it difficult to explain fully my gratitude but a step will now I can assure you be a contribution in financial terms to Wikipedia by myself, even if I am afraid it must be rather modest. Au revoir, and good luck to you and Wikipedia. Peter Judge 22 November 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.96.225 (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Uhhh, what? All it did was delete some random sentence and you wasted a long time typing the above, which doesn't even explain why the revert was so important. 173.183.69.134 (talk) 07:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for suggesting that the truth no longer counts in our technical age! Is this what you mean? Human war is surely about a concept of truth, or is not justified at all; war memorials are of course about war, and therefore about truth. What was said by a person on the website dealing, if only by implication, with these matters, was that it was telling lies. The revert was essential for any number of reasons including as pointed out by myself the general philosophical concept of truth. In connection with this, the Wikipedia article in question, West Hartlepool War Memorial, perhaps together with others, only hints at the true issues, relating to 'truth', in this case, the international implications of European (including Russian) civic art in all forms which began with the Renaissance, together with the 'renaissance' (or 'rebirth') in question, which was of course not that of Christianity but of the pre-Christian ancient world, as exemplified in particular by the revival of the concept of 'victory' symbolized by Nike (or within Rome, 'Victoria', in the 19th Cent. the name adopted for a person who became Queen-Empress together with the name of the Emperor Alexander of Russian, in the form of 'Alexandrina', her 'godfather') together with associated architecture such as triumphal arches, and included the introduction in an original form (that is post-Christian conversion to a different section of European civilization) in the increasingly technical Europe, which has now reached the state we are in today. This was I suggest (although no-one else says this so far as I am aware) typifed, after the First World (or 'Great') War within the memorials of the Allies, in response to the Russian revolution by what was both collaboration and specifically agreed differences between in particular the British Empire, France and the United States, the memorials being related therefore both within the countries in question and as between the countries. If you talk or indeed anyone else is interested in discussing these matters further then I suggest (and will be very pleased if you think that after all it would be in the public interest of the Council of Europe under the 1985 Granada Convention to which the UK is a signatory, and therefore not be perhaps at least in this sense such a 'waste of time') that we do something rather unique perhaps, and talk about it together, but confidentially, and free of any charge if not more than three people join in, and not particularly expensive otherwise, I am glad to say, as available now on the Internet. My email address is given above so anyone who is interested can let me know (Councillors within the north-east, in particular in Hartlepool and Middlesbrough, and persons working within English Heritage, Historic Scotland or any members of the Committee of Experts under Article 20 of the Granada Convention, to which Committee this text is incidentally copied, who can of course remain anyonymous although I would very much appreciate it if they did not do so, may have a great deal to gain, who knows?). In any event I now have nothing more to say here, other than to repeat, notwithstanding that I have been called idiotic to do so, my extremely sincere appreciation for what was done by the holder (or holders) of this particular Talk Page. Au revoir if you want, in the way specified. Peter Judge. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.37.148 (talk) 11:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Maybe if quoted words are not counted, it can have less false positives, as false positives can result from quoting something that appears un-orderly. This will not allow people to use quotes to hide vandalism, as edits with only quotes can still be detected.173.183.69.134 (talk) 07:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The bot already handles quoted words differently. They do not contribute to the Bayesian scores. Crispy1989 (talk) 18:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Could you take a look at [12] and see if there would be anyway of making cluebot realise it was reverting to an already vandalised version? I would think this should be fairly obvious, as it was reverting to a 44 byte version when the page used to be 16 kbytes. Cheers SmartSE (talk) 13:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

ClueBot NG, you never cease to amaze me. How you picked up this edit as vandalism on The Queen Victoria's page I don't know! I would leave you a gift of some sort but the message above says you can't accept gifts, so please accept my most grateful thanks instead. You really are doing the best job at the moment reverting vandalism --5 albert square (talk) 21:44, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

We have a lot of IP editors making legitimate edits to the article and getting identified as vandalism by cluebot. I have temporarily excluded cluebot ng from the Deathly hallows page, since a lot of new editors are feeling bitten. I reported one of the erroneous flaggings, but there have been at least 5 more bad reversions in the past day by cluebot, and not one of which has been actual vandalism. Could you please look into this issue? Sailsbystars (talk • contribs • email) 00:07, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Amazing. Thanks for this. --Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 04:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I entered the revert id (46513) at http://delta.cluenet.org/~cobi/cluebot.php, but there was no confirmation that my report was received. I tried several times, using different browsers. Is the False Positives page broken? --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe I'm the only person encountering this problem. Is anybody listening? --Stepheng3 (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Stephen, if you look at the first post on the page it seems a few users are having trouble reporting false positives --5 albert square (talk) 21:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Why hasn't this been fixed? Why is the bot allowed to continue operating when there's no way to report false positives? --Stepheng3 (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Stepheng3: Where have you found this link? I believe the new error reporting page is found here. -- SnoFox^(t|c) 23:09, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I originally got there by way of the wikilink in the edit summary that ClueBot NG provided for this edit. The wikilink took me to User:ClueBot NG/B, which redirected to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/ClueBot NG. Somehow I got to a page that resembled User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives but probably wasn't, since I see that the latter page was only created on November 21st.

Trying to recreate the process just now, I got to User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives. That points to cobihome.external.cluenet.org, so it seems that the problem (whatever it was) has been dealt with.--Stepheng3 (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I have written most of the existing section "Etymology" in the article.I tried to make some abbreviations -clean up without changing the meaning,because I understand that many details can confuse a reader.I have tried in the past to improve the article,but it was rejected too, so I cannot improve my own section because it can be considered "vandalism".Does the section "Etymology" need clean-up or not?79.103.25.225 (talk) 17:16, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Is the source code available under a free license? Thanks. emijrp (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I will revert your edit. That guy just wanted to make thath article more interesting. I think we must let him to do his job till the end, he has just started. Vater-96 (talk) 00:07, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey, hi.

I just wanted to tell why did I put the "short summary".

As you now FOX transmits internationally the TV series: "The Walking Dead"

I'am from Latin America, and while watching TV I saw a commerial about the next episode of The Walking Dead, (revealing what I out on the episodes section.

If you want references, and PROBE he's a video of the ORIGINAL "TV" online of Fox Latin America:

http://mundofox.com/la/videos/the-walking-dead

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.171.42.41 (talk) 06:26, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

You didn't have to unedit The Penguins of Madagascar. It just needed a little more info. Some pages need a little more info. It's what makes it fun. 76.26.187.138 (talk) 14:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi. CuriousColonal = Vandalism (Origin theories of Christopher Columbus) --Davide41 (talk) 16:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

My edit was right... The first version said that the album would come out on 7th December, but that's wrong because albums usually come out on Fridays. So I change it back to my edit (which was right, 4th February 2011) --79.216.184.12 (talk) 17:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

See [13] Airplaneman ✈ 19:01, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The new guy was on a roll! mechamind90 02:24, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

[14] I believe a {{trout}} or a {{whale}} to Stepheng3 is in order. 930913 (Congratulate/Complaints) 02:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I paused the bot. If you think >100 false positives (i.e. bitten/alienated users) per day is acceptable, go ahead and revert me.--Stepheng3 (talk) 05:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I am leaving the bot paused for a day or so, pending a response from Stepheng3 to my last post in the above thread, discussing this issue. As stated there, most people are fine with a small fraction of a percent of edits being reverted as false positives - Stepheng3 fails to include perspective in the flat numbers he posts, and also fails to account for the fact that the bot reduces vandal-fighter workload by half or more. I am open to being corrected, so I am awaiting his response to my above post before restarting. If he does not respond soon, however, I'll allow the bot to continue its work. Anyone else with something to contribute to the thread should do so. Crispy1989 (talk) 05:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)