User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2021/February

Hey

Why did you revert my change?I was not vandalising Faulkner vv (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you

I would like to thank you for messing up and making me accidentally undo one of your edits. Please work properly! Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Praise

ClueBot NG is the Wikipedia anti-vandalism GOD. Faster then lightning, with almost NO false positives. Wow. Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Another Wiki User the 2nd, I agree, although I have caught a few false positives before. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 02:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Can we get rid of this bot?

It has always false-positives. It had mine. And most bots seem broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OjuzKiopo (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I can see why it reverted this edit and warned you. It doesn't always have false positives. At it's BRFA, if my memory serves me right, it's false positive rate was 0.1%.-- 5 albert square (talk) 18:30, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I think we can ignore comments on how the bot "always has false positives" because they always have the same characteristics:

1. They cite no sources and point to no statistics;
2. If they do cite sources, they're always cherrypicked diffs that ignore correctly classified edits, or blow known false positives way out of proportion;
3. They are either made by brand new users who don't know how things work around Wikipedia, or are made by editors completely unfamiliar with how anti-vandalism works;
4. They fail to recognize the net positive of ClueBot NG and do not recognize the challenges of reverting actual vandalism on Wikipedia (or recognize the amount of damage and harm it can cause); and
5. They are typically filed out of rage rather than reason, and identify the right problem but call for the wrong solution.

I have yet to see a credible argument made to suggest that ClueBot NG should be decommissioned. Additionally, this user claimed that most bots seem broken, which five minutes of research would conclude is entirely false. I don't see SineBot or AnomieBOT or HBC AIV helperbot5 broken, unless the observer had zero clue as to what they do. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Not vandalism by me sorry

I apologize for my change of a date, then put back as it was because it was correct. It happened because I was studying information about Seiko and for a moment I thought I noticed an error on the English page. English is not my language. Anyway I took the liberty of adding a cd box to the schematic, because one of that was really missing. thank you.Dabi (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Dabi if it's not vandalism then please follow the instructions the bot has given you and report it here as a false positive.-- 5 albert square (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

it does not work --> "BAD CAPTCHA! TRY AGAIN!" sorry--Dabi (talk) 18:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It's working fine for me so I've reported it.-- 5 albert square (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

For me too. Not vandalism but signaled as vandalism. I commented about an article which was highly discussed to the point there's no agreement on even how should be named the article. "Lump of labour fallacy"

Debating about whether there is a limited amount of work....so I inserted a comment. Also looking at what most of the talks said most likely the article is uncorrect...and should be renamed "scarcity of labour". It's hard to say if labour could be "infinite" (at least paid labour).

And no article is called as "scarcity of labour" but it could be inserted a part about a said lack lump of labour.

Honestly i've had my fill of those bots that either, prevent or delete edits. --OjuzKiopo (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

@OjuzKiopo: Looking at this edit, commentary does not belong on Wikipedia articles. See What Wikipedia is not § Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Discussion relating to how to improve the article is, however, welcome on the article's talk page. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:50, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was not edited by me ...

Hey, there must be some mistake here, I sure as hell didn't make this edit ... As small as it was by the way ...

I have literally never heard of this program in my entire life, and I have absolutely no interest in it at all ...

"Latest revision as of 20:58, 22 February 2021 (edit) ClueBot NG (talk | contribs) (Warning 86.187.235.51 - #1)

(No difference) Latest revision as of 20:58, 22 February 2021

February 2021

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Big Cook, Little Cook have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

   ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
   For help, take a look at the introduction.
   The following is the log entry regarding this message: Big Cook, Little Cook was changed by 86.187.235.51 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.946821 on 2021-02-22T20:58:12+00:00

Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)"

86.187.235.51 (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

If you did not make the edit, you can safely ignore the message. At the bottom of User talk:86.187.235.51 is a box (this one) explaining why you saw the message and how you can avoid receiving such messages in future. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:16, 28 February 2021 (UTC)