User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2018/February

As usual, ClueBot is wrong

The following discussion 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.

---

This edit is worthless. I don't think I've ever seen an edit to mathematical notation by ClueBot that didn't make the article worse. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

My edit in Jessica is absolutely correct . Please take care of not making problematic situations ever after Rimi07032003 (talk) 14:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

@Michael Hardy and Rimi07032003: For the millionth time, please do not report false positives/mistakes made by the bot on this page. Report it here so it can go into the right venues. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 12:52, 11 February 2018 (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.

@K6ka: : I did report that false positive via the page to which you linked, and after that I commented here. I wasn't just reporting a false positive; I was identifying a general pattern. Michael Hardy (talk) 03:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

FYI, someone threatened Cluebot

FYI, a vandal issued a physical threat against Oshwah and Cluebot in the comments of this edit here. I alerted Oshwah and the emergency email and they handled it by banning the IP address. I didn't think until today to alert the Cluebot crew, so here it is.

So, er, someone threatened ClueBot. The world's a weird place, no?

--KNHaw ^(talk) 18:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@KNHaw: yup. The world has always been a weird place. We regularly get a glimpse of that weirdness on enwiki. That edit summary has been removed now btw. Thanks for pointing it out. :) —usernamekiran(talk) 18:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Edit summary

I am fully realistic about the urgency of this.
Triggered by a steadily increasing level of intimidation by coralexiri (#meetoo) and specifically by the summary to this reversion, I suggest to change the summary from this almost blatantly offensive allegation of vandalism, and the pretense of being able to judge "possibilities" when strictly acting to given rules, possibly changing in the course, to some more realistic description, nearer to the canting good faith assumption.

My suggestion is

Automatically reverted, even when written in good faith by <ID> ...

AI is not (yet?) up to assume something. Purgy (talk) 08:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

See User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2017/December#Proposed change to standard wording -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 10:15, 22 February 2018 (UTC)