User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2024/November
 | This is an archive of past discussions with User:ClueBot Commons. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Duplicate month heading
I may be the last to notice this, but I'm looking at a user talk page where ClueBot NG created a month heading identical to the heading of the previous section. Is there an obscure rule at work here? David Brooks (talk) 03:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
- @DavidBrooks: No obscure rules here: the month heading is added by the warning template the bot uses, so it's always added whenever the bot issues a level one warning (cf. User_talk:ClueBot_Commons/Archives/2022/November#Bug_with_warnings) —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
Maine Medical Center
I see you reverted an edit by another user and selected "possible vandalism". Their edit was accurate. MaineHealth (the organization that owns Maine Medical Center) renamed Southern Maine Health Care in Biddeford and Sanford to Maine Medical Center Biddeford Campus and Maine Medical Center Sanford campus and there's the Portland campus. https://www.mainehealth.org/mainehealth-announces-unified-identity-across-its-health-care-system GamerKlim9716 (talk) 11:35, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
- @GamerKlim9716: ClueBot NG is a bot and not a human. Please report false positives using the specified instructions and not on this talk page. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 20:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
- It seems pretty poor at correctly identifying vandalism. This should be left to humans. Bryan Krippner (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bryan Krippner: Can you provide any evidence as to how it's "pretty poor" at its job? As explained by the bot's developers, mistakes can and do happen, the same way email spam filters occasionally classify legitimate emails as spam. However, the general consensus is that the bot is a net positive in helping with recent changes patrolling; as a whole, the few mistakes it does make (and the ones people overemphasize and blow out of proportion) are worth the many more correct vandalism reversions it does. The bot was never intended to replace human patrollers, but rather to help them (speaking as a patroller myself). Feel free to complain, but unhelpful complaints with no supporting evidence or no suggestions to improve are an unproductive use of time. Presently, you two are complaining about one edit (without even providing any diffs to the edit in question!) and saying the bot is terrible because of it, seemingly ignoring the 14 years of service it's provided. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 10:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- I am not complaining about the same edit. I am complaining about the latest one here:
- https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elisha_Netanyahu&action=history
- What "evidence" did you use to arrive at that conclusion?
- Could YOU provide evidence for YOUR claim that there aren't many errors. How do you find out whether a reversion has been made in error? Do you rely on people reporting it? That would be a tiny fraction of the total.
- And how would I be able to make a suggestion for improvement? That would require me to understand how it works. I guess next time I want to complain about a power outage I will have to provide suggestions for improving the engineering of the power grid. Bryan Krippner (talk) 12:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- @Bryan Krippner: Can you provide any evidence as to how it's "pretty poor" at its job? As explained by the bot's developers, mistakes can and do happen, the same way email spam filters occasionally classify legitimate emails as spam. However, the general consensus is that the bot is a net positive in helping with recent changes patrolling; as a whole, the few mistakes it does make (and the ones people overemphasize and blow out of proportion) are worth the many more correct vandalism reversions it does. The bot was never intended to replace human patrollers, but rather to help them (speaking as a patroller myself). Feel free to complain, but unhelpful complaints with no supporting evidence or no suggestions to improve are an unproductive use of time. Presently, you two are complaining about one edit (without even providing any diffs to the edit in question!) and saying the bot is terrible because of it, seemingly ignoring the 14 years of service it's provided. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 10:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
- It seems pretty poor at correctly identifying vandalism. This should be left to humans. Bryan Krippner (talk) 10:50, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
ClueBot III
What does | age = correspond to? JacktheBrown (talk) 11:56, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
Talk:Continuum hypothesis
Please check whether I set up the archiving of Talk:Continuum hypothesis correctly. It seems to me that the bot should have archived it by now. JRSpriggs (talk) 14:31, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
- @JRSpriggs: I've fixed an error. The bot should see the instructions now. -- John of Reading (talk) 17:45, 22 November 2024 (UTC)