Jump to content

User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2011/June

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Cluebot, you're the worst!

Cluebot is worse than SkyNet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.114.127.165 (talk) 08:50, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok, if you say so... - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 22:43, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm --The Σ talkcontribs 02:11, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

CBNG Poorly Scoring Itself

Hi CBNG team,

When recently chasing down a possible bug in STiki (see the related section on STiki's talk page), I discovered that CBNG occasionally scores its own reverts/edits very poorly (score = 1.0). I am sure there is some software-catch in place so that CBNG does not try to revert itself. However, these raw scores are still being published to the various feeds -- causing edits to be prominently enqueued in STiki, and forcing editors to inspect them (and sometimes causing confusion, as with the talk page discussion above).

I, of course, could implement some fixes in the STiki listener so that edits made by CBNG are never enqueued, regardless the score. However, the more elegant solution would seem to be for CBNG to implement a fix itself, perhaps reporting a score of "N/A" with the reason being "CBNG revert." This would benefit all those who do (or will ever) use these feeds. Let me know. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 19:50, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am aware currently in the spam channel it will list all edits even outside of the Main namespace. The reason it does not try and revert its self and cause a massive mess is due to a check in the action code which checks if the edit has been made by the user the bot is configured to run as.
I would suggest that CBNG scoring its own reverts makes sense - some people/tools may wish to use this information.
You could easily filter out these results by checking if "# User is myself" is present in the 'comments', an example revert is as below:
ClueBot NG * (-323) Reverting possible vandalism by 2.217.211.251 to version by 95.148.72.109. False positive? Report it. Thanks, ClueBot NG. (444473) (Bot) # 0.886183 # User is myself # Not reverted
I could ask Cobi next time I see him to look into this but I believe the 'comments' on an edit is there just for this purpose. - DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 13:11, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, this is trivial for me to implement -- just thought you folks would like to know the pattern is occurring. Additionally, the IRC feed that STiki uses (#cluebotng-spam) is not being written to at current, although the bot is operational, and (#cluebotng-VAN -- or something like that) is publishing revert noticies. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 15:26, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
I noticed the RC bot is down at the moment for the spam channel - I asked one of the people with access to the server to restart it so it should be back up soon. I'm going to look into making the IRC feeds more stable and extending access to the data though APIs in the next few months when I have time. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 15:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Follow thru

Hi. I noticed your bot gave a recent vandalism warning to User talk:184.59.153.129. The warning came with several others both before and after, and there has been no follow thru, despite the user's continued vandalism. Could you please follow thru and block the IP, or would you recommend I go thru the admin. noticeboard? Thanks! X4n6 (talk) 20:42, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Achives a bit too quickly?

With this edit, ClueBot III archived a discussion that was not finished and had just been posted to less than 4 hours earlier. What's up with that? – Paine Ellsworth ( CLIMAX )  12:05, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone added {{done}} to the list of archivenow tags, and then included it in that section, so the bot promptly archived it. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 14:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

bs

--The Σ talkcontribs 18:02, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Warning of Mysteries

[1]

Enough said. --The Σ talkcontribs 02:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I too think that there is a problem with ClueBot treating registered users as IP-accounts, that is upholding the same few days as expiration date for the old cycle of warnings and then beginning a new. Registered users should only be allowed 4 warnings in total before it results in a block, no matter how much time has passed inbetween each warnings. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:06, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Final Destination 3 page

Excuse me you violate the Final destination 3 page they might terminate your program if you add more 87Stone (talk) 12:42, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Biting the newcomers

Most of the edits Cluebot NG reverts are not vandalism, just bad edits. The edit summary it provides, "Reverted possible vandalism by", I feel may be biting the newcomers. Can you change the standard edit summary to something like "Reverted unconstructive edit by"? --Confession0791 talk 02:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

On what grounds do you make the assessment that most the reverts are not vandalism? There are a huge chunk of edits that are vandalism ranging from single word changes up to mass removal. This is an anti vandal bot not an anti constructive edit bot - our aim is to catch vandalism not unconstructive edits. Granted some reverts are silly are are in fact just broken markup - we are working towards resolving these issues with a dedicated parser etc. The bot isin't biting the newcomers as the talk page entry for at least the first warning spells out that this is a bot and they can report a false positive/revert and go on with their life. - DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 02:52, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I mostly watch teen/tween articles and many of the edits are newbies who insert fancruft and unsourced content into articles. They have no bad intentions. When they see the word "vandalism" in the edit summary, they feel that's what they have done and are scared away. They don't know our policies yet. They may become good editors as they become a little older, so we should try not to bite by calling their good faith edits "vandalism." --Confession0791 talk 03:10, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Most of the IPs who get hit by CBNG don't even know what edit summaries are, and it's easier to follow the eye-catching Great Orange Box than to search the page history. --The Σ talkcontribs 03:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

False +ve (yes I have read the comment)

Gave up trying to use the automatic system, as it just kept throwing more captchas at me. See [2] for the edit in question - an old one, but it preceded a run of vandalism, but this one didn't get picked up.—Optimist on the run (the admin formerly known as Tivedshambo) (talk) 21:57, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I hope that in a few more years when CBNG learns more, Cobi will remove the 1RR for it... and save the CVU. --The Σ talkcontribs 01:09, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
[22:52:32] <CBNG-RC> [[report:419920]] new http://report.cluebot.cluenet.org/index.php?page=View&id=419920 * Optimist on the run * New Report <br /> [22:52:32] <CBNG-RC> [[report:419920]] comment http://report.cluebot.cluenet.org/index.php?page=View&id=419920 * Optimist on the run * Rather an old one, but it stayed in there till it was fixed tonight.
It got there fine - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 01:25, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

excuse me but

I have a important question, Why Is Tha Aron Erlichman Page Keep Bein Removed/Deleted?!?!?! please answer thank you --A saiyan warrior (talk) 16:04, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi
ClueBot can't answer your query because it's a bot not a human :)
The article isn't being deleted, it's being redirected to Hollywood Undead for some reason. I've no idea why as I know nothing of the subjects involved, I suggest you ask at Talk:Aron Erlichman or Talk:Hollywood Undead, maybe someone there will know.--5 albert square (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

CB3

It seems to have stopped archiving... will it be back? --The Σ talkcontribs 07:13, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, my bad, forgot to restart it after the server broke... - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 14:14, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

listen idiot

stop reverting what I am writing — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.219.188.103 (talk) 21:21, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

You got reverted once then once again by a human. How about you don't vandalise. - DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 21:24, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm - How about you read the top of the page? --The Σ talkcontribs 02:46, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Too many false positives

Cluebot NG really needs to be rewritten. It produces way too many false positives. So many that "CluelessBot" might be a better name for it. Seriously, fix the bot, otherwise the ArbCom could decide to block it for constantly reverting good-faith edits. Nothing in WP:AGF says that only humans need to follow it. Please do something about this. --Nat682 (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) at  05:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to see you write your own self-sufficient-artificial-neural-network-bot with -500 false positives... Don't ask for the nonexistent. Wait for it to be invented first. And please change your signature, it takes 4 whole lines in the edit box. --The Σ talkcontribs 05:25, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
CBNG false positives are within a range which was agreed by the community. See the BRFA for details. The fp rate is continually checked by human verified edits being compared against what the bot thinks - if you have a better rate to suggest then feel free to raise it. - DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 16:50, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
When you say "It produces way too many false positives," please cite some examples. Have you reported them on the false positives page? — Safety Cap (talk) 18:43, 12 June 2011 (UTC)
There's a giant backlog here, where all the false positive reports go. --The Σ talkcontribs 18:46, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

June 2011

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing. You don't get special treatment for being a computer. This is what would be on your talk page if you were a human, and you are not exempt from it just because you are not a human --Nat682 (talk • contribs • count • logs • email) at  06:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

You want the false positives to fall, right? {{uw-sofixit}}!!! And this is a second request for you to please change your signature - It takes 4 whole lines in the editing box. --The Σ talkcontribs 06:36, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

::Says the guy with the flashy sig (visually) disrupting[citation needed] talk pages ... - 82.155.76.135 (talk) 09:09, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. --Confession0791 talk 09:50, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
Personal attacks?! I commented on a signature, not on the person.
If the IP thinks my sig is flashy, then he or she will go blind upon going here. --The Σ talkcontribs 22:59, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
That there are flashier sigs (and surely there are) it does not make yours a plain one. Looks like you have not seen the irony, or failed to express it.
It should be pointed out that your signature, Nat682, is almost three times as long as Σ's. Though you may personally find his to be disruptive, yours is the only one that actually violates the guideline. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 01:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Note that Nat682 did no comment on anyone's signature - certainly not in here. I, the IP, did, so there is no point in attacking him.
I'm going to assume that in an attempt to save it's eyesight, the IP has avoided signing its posts. I guess even the default signature is too flashy for itself. --The Σ talkcontribs 01:30, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
I, "the IP" am not avoiding to sign anything. I am not signing because I have a dynamic IP so it would look like I was impersonating several users having the same opinion. Assume good faith instead of going for personal attacks. - signed: the-same-person-behind-an-IP-that-has-been-commenting-here-so-far
PS: I don't log in and use my WP name and signature for years, when I did I used the standard signature, you should stand out of the crowd for your work, not for having a show-off sig, I think. I'm out because WP is too much of a battleground, not as much an encyclopaedia. Worse, it is a bot's battleground, with some bots - like this clueless bot - reverting legitimate human generated content. Maybe by driving away good faith human users bot's are actually helping vandals? - signed: still-the-same-human-using-an-IP
For my observations on RC patrol, ClueBot is actually very accurate. I know that it can make errors (I've had 1 false positive out of >250 edits), but the error rate is decent, and the neural network should get better with time. ProtoFire→talk 19:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
IP, {{subst:uw-sofixit}}, go help with the false positive reports - It's highly backlogged, so email Rich (MTCD) and be bold. --The Σ talkcontribs 20:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, if you want to help with the false positives, create an account here then e-mail me and you can then get them sorted out! - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 00:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
(adding) And you can't throw my advice back at me, I'm already helping with it. --The Σ talkcontribs 20:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
And in general, this one message is directed to everyone: Stop thinking of insults for CBNG, it's beginning to spread to my talk page. --The Σ talkcontribs 23:37, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

I have struck out the off-topic stuff about my signature, which I have now changed. Please stick to the point. I would be very happy to {{subst:uw-sofixit}}. Is the code for Cluebot NG publicly available? If so, I will gladly look at it and fix it. --Nat682 (talk) 21:04, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

The code is publicly available but there is nothing to fix. The false positive reports and review entries need reviewing so they can be used to train the ANN which will improve the FP rate. However the FP rate is well within the boundary at the moment. - DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 22:40, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

This page and others like it are rich opportunities for links for the benefit of readers needing more background to understand the discussion. Terms like "Bayesian" "neural network," even "vandalism" itself could be made into links for convenience without too much trouble. I wouldn't consider "going boldly" and editing a page like this myself; just a suggestion.

BTW, I just thought of a term for this, which I'll mention before I have enough time to think it over and realize how stupid it probably is: "enlinkening" Synthesis of "enlightening" by "linking".

Rhsimard (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea - I'll look at implementing it later. - DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 20:46, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Warning levels

Hi,

I have noticed that ClueBot sometimes doesn't elevate warnings correctly. Here is an example from today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:14.201.67.164&oldid=434205791

ClueBot's first warning was a level 1, even though a level 1 was already present — though this one may be debatable, as the level 1 was from a couple of months ago, and this is an IP address. More importantly, though, I then gave a level 2, and minutes later ClueBot gave another level 2. I'm pretty sure the last one should have been level 3.

—Tommyjb Talk! (09:37, 14 June 2011)

I have a strange feeling that someone has changed the templates and hence ClueBot isn't picking them up... I'll have a look soon - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 20:50, 14 June 2011 (UTC)
I casually looked into this once. Not digging into CBNG source code, but I think there are issues when Huggle style vandalism warnings are used, instead of the Wikipedia standard ones. Thanks, West.andrew.g (talk) 04:51, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
I think it has something to do with <!— Template:uw-cluebotwarning —> being present or not, so I've edited the uw-vandalism and uw-huggle/warn series. --The Σ talkcontribs 05:06, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
It just requires <!-- Template:uw-*[1234] --> -- Cobi(t|c|b) 05:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi

I'm a new user and I need advice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.91.111 (talk) 15:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC) ClueBot, there is a Hotswap feature in BF2: MC. Didn't you even play the game at all. And you don't play as a soldier who fights for either NATO or China, you play as a soldier in the USMC fighting against the PLA, and that edit was to fix some mistakes after watching some Youtube videos and reading the Battlefield Wiki. RANT OVER! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.91.67 (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

ClueBot isn't a human. --The Σ talkcontribs 02:13, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

What Lies Beneath

The edits in WLB are VERY constructive, since the article used to have a lot o grammar and formats troubles, and i've fixed them.201.89.190.37 (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

As was seen on AN/I, a vandal plastered images of (Redacted) on a highly visible template redirect. Does CBNG detect image-vandalism? Is there any way it can be implemented to search for words in the file name like "swastika" or "4chan" and instantly revert its addition? --The Σ talkcontribs 00:48, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

The bot doesn't currently do any form of image->text translation to run though the ANN. This would be awesome however I am not sure how reliable it OCR would be. I would suggest it would require separate entries in the ANN as well as article content and image content will most likely vary. While this could be implemented into the review/training/production stuff It would probably need BAG approval and a lot of training/testing. I would be interested to hear others view on it though as I'm not really aware of that much vandalism by inserting images. Another thought could be CBNG checking the image summary stuff however most images uploaded for the purposes of vandalism probably would not have this completed to a level that it would contain anything "catchable" by the bot. - DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 06:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
Might this and this convince you? Both are very high visible templates. The rev-deleted one was vandalized with swastikas and fecal material, as stated by the admin who removed the vandalism. The names of the files are good enough, and especially because they're put on templates! --The Σ talkcontribs 06:35, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

CluelessBot! Just undid a valid change I made to an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.80.75 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm 'ClueBot isn't a human', so why are you telling us? --The Σ talkcontribs 19:10, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

Your bot failed

[3]. There are no vandalism in my edits, please restore them. --91.76.178.24 (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Look at the header on the talk page - go here: User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives for false positives ProtoFire→talk 19:05, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

...

Cluebot fails.

I was going to revert this... but it can stay for lols - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 10:09, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
With an extra Facepalm Facepalm to go with it - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 10:10, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm 'Supreme facepalm of destiny' When a regular facepalm just isn't enough... --The Σ talkcontribs 21:08, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Cluebot, I was fixing some grammatical mistakes in Barnyard (video game). Why did you turn it back to the way it used to be? You must be a dumb robot to not know to press space after commas and end punctuations, unless it was you who did it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.91.67 (talk) 20:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Hello IP, if this was a false positive then please report it here so the Bot can be trained on it. Thanks.--5 albert square (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Mind if I add an extra Facepalm Facepalm for the big flashing message saying CBNG isn't human? --The Σ talkcontribs 20:35, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm 'Supreme facepalm of destiny' Sorry but the regular facepalm just isn't enough there! IP it's more than likely that you set off one of ClueBot's filters which the Bot would then automatically revert. As ClueBot is not human it doesn't understand things like grammar and spelling. Just what it perceives to be possible vandalism.--5 albert square (talk) 20:55, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

STOP!!!!!!!

STOP INSTA-REVERTING THESE EDITS!!! Born4destruction1 (talk) 14:43, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Erm.... no? - DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 14:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
You're funny. Why should it? ClueBot was designed to destroy whatever crap comes up on Recent changes. Most of it's by vandalism-only accounts like yourself. --The Σ talkcontribs 20:28, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Tried to report a false positive

On the Colocasia page, id 476418, but the process seems to be in an endless loop. Nadiatalent (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

worked fine. - DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 12:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
Marked as a false positive. --The Σ talkcontribs 01:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

On the Various False Positives made by ClueBot NG and How They Will Never Vanish Completely

CBNG might have a problem with Dr. Seuss's style of writing. Unless CBNG can detect the general context of the article and whether the edit is out of context or not, false positives will prevail. --The Σ talkcontribs 20:49, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Agreed - Unfortunate as it may be, this is the case, unless someone attempts to code in something to do this... (and no, staring at me won't do any good...) - 92.40.253.207 (talk) 13:02, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing you're not talking about the Dr Seuss article itself, since from what I can see it's been 100% accurate on that article. Could one of you post the diffs you're talking about? I'm not a developer, I'm just curious because I saw this message and couldn't find what the problem was. —Soap— 13:20, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I don't really see how "SO HORNEY THAT THE SHIP SUNK WHEN HE HAD INTER CURCE SO HE THEN SWAM AND" or "He was a stupid man with no life. He was worse than this kid named Bob the Builder... He never learned to GET A LIFE!!!!!!!!!!" etc fit into the article so the bot is working fine. - DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 15:32, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
I mean if I were editing as an IP and added a list of books by Dr Seuss, the arbitrary titles might trigger something in CBNG to revert. So it's impossible for CBNG to be perfect, because all the false positives regarding out-of-context stuff that get fed to CBNG will be balanced out by real vandalism, thus producing no change in accuracy of CBNG's reverts. --The Σ talkcontribs 01:53, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
And sorry to break this to you, Damian, but some vandals actually try to vandalise inconspicuously. --The Σ talkcontribs 01:55, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
I totally agree that vandals sometimes do it not so obviously however I disagree on other fronts - my previous point was taken from the past couple of reverts I saw on that article. CBNG will never be totally FP free due to the nature of how it works, lets face it even humans make mistakes and we learn. The concept of ANNs are no different hence the mass of training that is done but they will _never_ be perfect, only improving constantly. As far as arbitrary titles triggering the bot - this is possible however not so straight forward to comment on as it totally depends on the content within the ANN at the time of processing. Assuming that we are directly talking about Dr. Seuss and how the bot rates edits here is some rough data (wooow I get to test my API code):

damian@delta:~$ php dump_data.php 53/501 looked like vandalism Edits: 0.870677 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=435762815&oldid=435762386 0.983137 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=433566693&oldid=433276226 0.949409 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=433188016&oldid=433040918 0.871432 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=431750606&oldid=431695522 0.86669 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=430117058&oldid=430115389 0.946448 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=429622452&oldid=429497227 0.968177 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=429283945&oldid=429148857 0.971704 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=427612107&oldid=427610453 0.975748 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=427610228&oldid=427609955 0.914017 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=427609913&oldid=427320922 0.888028 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=425667989&oldid=425661158 0.958345 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=424828523&oldid=424707136 0.959081 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=424705861&oldid=424702869 0.957813 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=424702837&oldid=424644634 0.973378 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=424644448&oldid=424607681 0.96589 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=424590207&oldid=424589356 0.95953 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=424589356&oldid=424532573 0.886386 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=423906580&oldid=423756135 0.895471 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=423755266&oldid=423686796 0.968356 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=423685718&oldid=423685487 0.912909 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=423685461&oldid=423119887 0.958739 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=422785665&oldid=422025099 0.958313 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=421703375&oldid=421703212 0.955873 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=421703187&oldid=421696284 0.95867 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=421353179&oldid=421088763 0.892207 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=420789831&oldid=420434535 0.953752 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=419712539&oldid=419124578 0.853091 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=418958820&oldid=418707025 0.951797 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=418659181&oldid=418155946 0.869491 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=417115899&oldid=417115774 0.920615 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=416841364&oldid=416820049 0.902263 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=416766308&oldid=416754725 0.859271 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=416742945&oldid=416740460 0.927998 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=416207111&oldid=416106804 0.982579 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=413325902&oldid=413324501 0.918564 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=411852095&oldid=411851494 0.89901 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=411202991&oldid=411202772 0.950187 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=411202431&oldid=411201466 0.91624 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=411201466&oldid=411201164 0.953759 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=411201164&oldid=411200836 0.957821 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=411200836&oldid=411200471 0.953234 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=411200471&oldid=411200033 0.954439 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=410691786&oldid=410461549 0.952834 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=410461526&oldid=410448600 0.912866 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=408811949&oldid=408811821 0.960199 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=407266624&oldid=407183028 0.870906 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=407181505&oldid=407180246 0.929115 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=407070023&oldid=407018376 0.942493 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=406372604&oldid=406368729 0.855392 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=406170882&oldid=406170434 0.959969 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=405995055&oldid=405510623 0.952506 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=405510599&oldid=405496352 0.963454 -> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dr._Seuss&action=historysubmit&diff=404764346&oldid=404499050

A whole bunch wouldn't even get reverted due to the score threshold but a random pick I looked over all appear to be vandalism so I don't see any specific issue with this article. - DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 03:36, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd classify each of those as vandalism, too. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 08:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
But there could be a real edit like "He received the Something Award for writing Pie Says Hi in the Sky", and the addition of randomness might make CB revert, even though the randomness was placed in a context of randomness. --The Σ talkcontribs 20:32, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:ClueBot/PossibleVandalism

User:ClueBot/PossibleVandalism, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:ClueBot/PossibleVandalism and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:ClueBot/PossibleVandalism during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. mechamind90 23:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Not a Clue

Cluebot you don't have a clue do you? Didn't think so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.88.172.13 (talk) 00:23, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Supreme facepalm of destiny --The Σ talkcontribs 00:34, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
Facepalm Facepalm--Jcaraballo enwiki eswiki 20:33, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

OBJECTION

OBJECTION! - Sorry... had to be done! - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 13:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

You dun goofed

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Whatever the heck my page was, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by ClueBot NG.

Fricking robots, I'mma let my friend Dan magnetize you.

Facepalm Supreme facepalm of destiny. You're funny. Actually, you can't magnetise ClueBot unless you break into ClueNet where the servers are. And in any case, you should be thanking ClueBot for cleaning up half the crap that makes it to Recent Changes with little reward. Most of it's by IPs like yourself, 141.215.108.165. --The Σ talkcontribs 19:53, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
You are quite welcome to try and get into my server... where ClueBot is hosted... but you will probally find yourself inside the ban file very quickly - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 00:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

vandalism

hey friend I had problems with anonymous users, who continue to remove images of the items, and is not first time through. The image is File: Jade West.jpg. --Killingme (talk) 02:07, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

ClueBot cannot help you here, sorry. - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 11:33, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
Hey Killingme, if you're having problems with people removing stuff from articles, I suggest that you either take this up with the editor on their talk page or start a thread on the relevant talk page of the article. Rich is right though, ClueBot cannot help with this because ClueBot is not human. Sorry.--5 albert square (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Dumbhead

YOU ARE A FREAKY DUMBHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DumbHead456 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm Supreme facepalm of destiny Oh. Your point? --The Σ talkcontribs 01:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

False Positive - Report page not working

The page for reporting false positives was returning error messages, so I'll post this one here. The bot reverted two constructive edits of mine on the page 'University College London Union'. The reference number is 487559. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.10.110.97 (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It got there, and will be reviewed soon :) - Rich(MTCD)T|C|E-Mail 11:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2011/June&oldid=1145814974"