User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2015/December

Beat you to vandalism

Dude, how did cluebot miss this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Fens&diff=prev&oldid=693016167 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackhat999 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

December 2015

{{atop}} {{db-attack-notice}} Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

@Zppix: What page? None of the ClueBots ever create any articles in the mainspace. Could you please link me to that? --TL22 (talk) 03:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Probably referring to this CSD. He later reverted it. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 03:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

correct Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 14:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

could you please inform me as to what I either said /did wrong? if I did,I can assure you that it was completely unintentional.daveyladdy650.

{{atop}} PLEASE SEE ABOVE.. Daveyladdy650 (talk) 01:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi,

Yes @Daveyladdy650:, you asked a question on one of the main pages and broke the page in doing so. The correct place to ask the question would be Talk:December 12.--5 albert square (talk) 01:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ClueBot archiving error

I've noticed that ClueBot has been botching the archiving some of the "closed" (e.g. {{archive top}} closed) discussions over at WP:ORCP – e.g. this diff – where ClueBot has been adding a "tl|" in front of the "archive top" at the top of closed discussions that it's been moving to the Archive page. I just had to fix about four of these manually myself. Any ideas as to what's causing this?... Thanks in advance. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 23:07, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

@Cobi: @DamianZaremba: @Rich Smith: pinging you in, as you're the bots admins you're possibly best placed to answer this :)--5 albert square (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

This is the documented behaviour since 2008 - though I agree it doesn't seen helpful. -- John of Reading (talk) 07:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

type of the neural network

{{atop}} Hi, I guess your neural network is a multilayer perceptron trained with backpropagation with some special activations functions ? or is it a recurrent neural network, with convolutionnal layers and long short term memories ?

Thank you. 78.227.78.135 (talk) 23:30, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

I answer to myself : yes it is a multilayer perceptron trained with backpropagation (MLP can viewed as a way to learn and approximate any R^n --> R^m function). . Maybe a look to recurrent neural networks and long short-term memories could be a good idea : | look at this for example

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.227.78.135 (talk • contribs)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Reverted possible vandalism? What if not vandalism? How can a bot suspect abuse and vandalism now and get to act on it?

{{atop}} This: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bean_bag&action=history was .. --217.84.75.47 (talk) 12:22, 26 December 2015 (UTC) .. not anonymous vandalism.   Reported "false positive": http://tools.wmflabs.org/cluebot/?page=View&id=2483416. --RoNeunzig (talk) 12:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi @RoNeunzig:

Thanks for reporting the false positive.

ClueBot NG works on probability so there is something in that edit that has made it think that there is possible vandalism. This diagram probably is the best way to explain how ClueBot NG works:

--5 albert square (talk) 12:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ClueBot III archive box issue

{{atop}} Hi there, recently i added a ClueBot III archive box to my talk page, it was working fine, however for some reason the box has been clogged up with different articles and its making my talk page unnecessarily long and clogged up. Please can one of the operators look into this? Thanks Class455fan1 (talk to me) 20:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Articles appear to be getting this as well for some reason and I cannot figure out why. Talk:Louisa Johnson is one of them.--5 albert square (talk) 14:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

CBIII seems to be getting finicky recently. I used to have it archive my talk page, but it was so sporadic that soon my talk page looked like a garden gone wild, so I switched back to lowercase sigmabot III. I would suggest using that bot to archive pages until the kinks in CBIII get worked out. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 15:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

I emailed Rich last night and this is something that @Cobi: has to look into. Cobi was copied into the reply I received so hopefully it's something that will be fixed shortly. @Class455fan1: I notice that Cobi did edit your talk page the other night to alter CBIII's instructions but when I look at your talk page I'm still seeing all the disambiguation stuff. I tried tinkering about with the code on the Louisa Johnson talk page but it's made no difference. CBIII also archives my talk page, I'm getting no disambiguation stuff showing there so I tried copying and pasting the exact same template on my talk page to the article talk page but still no difference. Strange!--5 albert square (talk) 16:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

This is a bug with the template. If you do not configure archiveprefix correctly, it breaks. Use the proper name of the article, not the underscored/escaped name. I have corrected both instances listed here, and they will reflect correctly once the bot runs again. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 20:29, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.