User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2014/August

False negative

How come ClueBot didn't jump on to this large-scale deletion? - The bot was working fine 8 minutes later: Noyster (talk), 10:38, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

ClueBot NG is very complicated, sometimes it doesn't revert vandalism due to its low false positive tolerance, other times it makes a false positive for no explainable reason. Or maybe the bot just didn't see the edit because it was down. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 11:18, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive failed, and now?

[1] and what happens now to the content to be archived? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Hi, I simply re-added the "lost" content to the archive, should be alright now. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 21:09, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Operator attention required

Cobi - Please check in at Wikipedia:Bot_owners'_noticeboard#ClueBots. — xaosflux ^Talk 23:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Archive gone awry

CB3 generated the index twice for Talk:Pratt & Whitney. The first attempt looks good, but the second attempt looks out of sorts. Any advice? -- DanielPenfield (talk) 00:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

this fixes it. The next time it generates an index, it should be correct. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 23:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Double archive

The bot archived the same two threads twice within a minute. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The bot again archived the same thread twice within two minutes. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Another case. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This is the case when Wikipedia's API returns errors for the second edit of the archival (the removal from the talk page), and then again when CB3 tries to undo the archive (to restore it to a good state). There isn't really a good fix for this, since the API is required to either "roll forward" or "roll back", and the bot tries both. -- Cobi^(t|c|b) 23:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Normally the bot copies the threads to the archive page first, then removes them from the original. Sometimes these two actions are followed by fixes of incoming section links, and an update to the archive index. In these cases the normal actions succeeded, and were then followed by a repeat of the first action. See bot edits of 17:31, 18 August; 08:44, 19 August; 08:08, 19 August. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

HELLOOOOOOO CLUEBOT NG!

Hi!

I'm Malmsimp, and I have been with Wikipedia since July 11, 2014.

I hope you are doing an EXCELLENT job at reverting persistent vandalism at Wikipedia.

GOOD LUCK OUT THERE AND STAY GOLD!!

JG

Malmsimp (talk) 20:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

This is the only warning you will receive. Your instant vandalism reverts will not be tolerated. Although removing vandalism is encouraged, your ridiculously high speed constitutes a monopoly. The next time you remove vandalism from a page, you may be awarded a barnstar without further notice. --Bobherry talk 17:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Napier

The college stats I worked really hard to make so I wanted to keep them because it took a long time I made it smaller so therefore it would be easier to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.102.238 (talk) 23:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Possible false positive on edit number 1935653

The report interface is down so I'll report it here. At Noel Fielding's Luxury Comedy, the IP editor also made an entry on the article talk page which suggests to me s/he is new and/or clumsy, not a vandal. Could ClueBot check if the same editor has also updated the same article's talk page at around the same time? --Northernhenge (talk) 13:30, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Added this as a report. - Damian Zaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Henry Miller portraits by Lena Hades

Hi! This is not vandalism I think, the author of portraits is famous and these portraits are excellent! I'm sure they are masterpices of drawing. And worthy of attention to Wikipedia readers. Sasha-Shen15:21, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I have looked at the edit that ClueBot NG reverted and ClueBot was correct to revert it. All the editors edits were only adding that link which is classed as spamming. I have checked the link and to me that link looks promotional as it appears to be promoting someone's work. Therefore it cannot be included 5 albert square (talk) 12:14, 31 August 2014 (UTC)