Wikipedia talk:Edit filter/False positives/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archiving?

Are we archiving these somewhere? –xeno (talk) 02:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason to? Can't imagine why people would want to go through the archives of here. But no problem if we do either. Prodego ^talk 02:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Would help people trying to learn to edit the filters identify common false positive characteristics. –xeno (talk) 02:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Archiving this would be a good idea, IMHO, to easily find out which filters hit false positives quite often, as Xeno said. Also, can the users see which filter they triggered? If so, they probably should note that in their false positive report. --Conti|✉ 12:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, users can go to the abuse log and enter their name in the user field. An example. -- kenb215 talk 00:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Created archive one for false positives. We'd need this for requested filters too. Cenarium (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it filters or rules?

I see "rule 58" mentioned then I see "filter 30". What's the proper terminology? More importantly, what's rule 34? Are you ready for IPv6? (talk) 06:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Either works. Usually they're referred to as filters, but since each filter contains a series of logical rules, the terminology can be mixed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Both terms appear in the documentation, so I don't think that is sorted. #34 stops a new user/IP from deleting large amounts of content from a user page or user talk page other than their own. Dragons flight (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Format changes

I've made a new template to make the format a little more compact; the template will also provide a direct link to a user's filter log, so we don't have to go look it up the hard way. I've also rearranged things so that there's a definite chronological order; when we start archiving these, we can just knock off the oldest reports from the bottom. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 07:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Template:Falsepositive

Shouldn't Template:Falsepositive include the filter that triggered the action, and not the article? That kinda seems more useful to me, especially since it would quickly let us see which filters cause a lot of false positives. --Conti|✉ 12:05, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd say the whole system should be redesigned: adding a new complain should be generated directly by URL in the warning message, with &section=new&editintro=... while &preloadtitle (section header) is automatically filled with filter number and page name. — AlexSm 19:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia

in formation on this site is a missunderstanding, people come on here and put st —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.252.69.75 (talk) 21:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox problems

I have no idea where to post this so I'm putting it here. Somebody put REALLY foul language on the Sandbox page.

Thanks for reading.

--TheGrandAmanin (talk) 23:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

"Fix this stupid machine"

Fix this stupid machine so you can undo it when it fails sheeesh! i know im trying to have a fun night. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.120.31.15 (talk) 10:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What exactly do you mean? If you don't provide any details, we can't "fix" anything. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 11:21, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Template fix

The "~~~~" needs removing from the "{{subst:Falsepositive | Your username or IP address (but NOT your signature) | What page you were editing/moving | What you were doing ~~~~ }}" template - 58.8.12.172 (talk) 05:24, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Why? Ruslik_Zero 17:22, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Because it's redundant - you end up with the exact same username/IP twice and the exact same time twice. Thus:

58.8.17.219

Username

58.8.17.219 (talk · contribs) (filter log)

Page you were editing (don't wikilink)

Wikipedia:Abuse filter/False positives

Description

What you were doing 58.8.17.219 (talk) 20:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Date and time

20:18, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Comments

It's not a bad idea to leave it there actually. It has been known for users to incorrectly capitalise their user name (not applicable to IPs) which means it breaks the user links in the first section. Keeping that signature bit in means we can correct any reports without having to look through the history. ~~ [ジャム]^[t - c] 20:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrectly used hyphen(s)

This project page has one or more incorrectly used hyphens, which editors can find by searching on the page for "ly-".
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens, sub-subsection 3, point 4. -- Wavelength (talk) 03:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Abusive edits or not

Why don't you not call it an abusive filter if it's not beta tested, if it's attached to editors' logs, and if it isn't abuse? I'll let you fix the 889 bad algae articles sitting on wikipedia that have as much as 2 billion years of evolution wrong since every time I try to fix one you've set up this lame program to tag my edits as vandalism and add them to the abusive log attached to my IP log pages. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Reporting on behalf of another editor?

32.171.25.240 (talk · contribs) correctly removed a non-encyclopedic section from the John F. Kennedy International Airport article, but tripped the filter in doing so. I can't see how to report this on their behalf in the instructions. Mjroots (talk) 05:29, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Template

The template used appears to be broken, but I cannot work out how it was supposed to be. Can someone please have a look? Thank you. Aiken's drum (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Preload

I revamped the false positives system. False positives are now recorded at WP:Edit filter/False positives/Reports and transcluded into WP:FALSEPOS. That allows us to use a preload template that will automatically record some of the information, helping out new users trying to report false positives. I think this is a good and necessary change for usability. Feel free to throw up any concerns. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:11, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I can't see my report!

I tried refreshing and purging a few times, but I can't see my report! I was trying to edit Template talk:Infobox Jews with the following text: "I added Judeo-Arabic to the languages section. Yiddish was historically the main language of Ashkenazi Jews, Ladino of Sephardic Jews, and Judeo-Arabic of Mizrahi Jews. It surely has a place among the main languages of the Jewish people. I guess it wasn't there beacuse people tend to confuse Sephardic and Mizrahi Jews." בן גרשון (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now I see it. בן גרשון (talk) 11:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Third party reports

Why is there no way to report a false positive that happened to another editor? Just saw and reported one, but the way you have the page laid out is misleading and implies that it happened to me. DuncanHill (talk) 15:34, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone watching? Anyone care? Any point in reporting false positives? DuncanHill (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Just make a note in the Comments section that you are reporting on the behalf of another user. Tim1357 ^talk 03:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

@

I'm not entirely sure what causes an edit to be tagged as adding e-mail address if it does not have the @ symbol in it. Unfortunately, the edit I'm referring to was for a page that was speedy deleted, so it appears only admins can see it. I did, however, add the link to Tim1357's talk page, so if he deleted it, check the history. mechamind90 17:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, it doesn't seem to be a false positive. The edits he were making were in fact adding the email address of the subject of the article to the page about him, and it did contain an @ sign. —Soap— 17:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Very well then. It must have been in the form of a link with custom wording. mechamind90 20:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

err_timeout

255.255.255.0 = 24 11111111.11111111.11111111 .00000000 Redefiningcommunity (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2017 (UTC)