User talk:ClueBot Commons/Archives/2016/August

False positive reporting

Is false positive reporting working as intended? I tried to report 2718468 as a false positive and got stuck in a Captcha loop. Philip Trueman (talk) 15:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I also tried to report a false positive and got stuck in a Captcha loop. I was definitely entering correct captcha answers - confirmed with a second set of eyes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.34.90 (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

IP, your edit appears to be more personal opinion etc. In any case I can see why a non-human reverted it - and for the record I'd have done the same.--5 albert square (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

False negatives

I'm reporting a series of false negatives -- that is, edits that were not reverted but should have been. The edits go back several months and were completed by two IP users (possibly the same user) who added false edit summaries to their removal of content. The user(s) add edit summaries like "removed bias" and "removed anti-muslim content" when the actual changes are the removal of sourced content from various articles. I'm hoping that the bot can learn from these changes so as to reduce this type of vandalism in the future. One of the IPs is 173.174.203.95 (22 23 edits since June 2016) and the other is the now-blocked 69.112.166.30 (33 bad edits, 1 good edit, since June 2016). The IPs geolocate to different US states, but either or both may be proxies (or just wrong), and other IPs may have been used that I haven't noticed yet. The point is not the specific editor but the style of the edit which has a definite signature that (I'm hoping) the bot can learn to recognize. Thank you for your attention to this. (Note: Originally posted to ClueBot NG/FalsePositives, reposted here per the suggestion of Some Gadget Geek.) Etamni | ✉ | ✓  10:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Improving Article "Bruce Rioch"

Hi Clue Bot Team,

I am grateful for your hard work against Wikipedia vandalism, and the lengths you go to in order to stop it.

However, I was improving a poorly sourced section of the article, "Bruce Rioch", when my improvements were reverted by your Team over suspected vandalism!

I had added a picture of Rioch as a manager with a caption, which read: "Rioch as a manager." Added Rioch's height, his playing position and total goals and appearances to a Wikitable, and had included information about his arrival at Penryn in 2014. I do not know why this is seen as vandalism, as I did not add anything incriminating about Rioch, and made sure everything I added had a citation reference.

Thank you,

PolliticallyVeracius — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolliticallyVeracius (talk • contribs) 23:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@PolliticallyVeracius: Please read the message at the top of this page. ClueBot NG is a robot. Mistakes should be reported on this page, not here. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 02:35, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

References

 Comment: I suppose we need to make the point more clear about what this page is for. It is only to pose questions or concerns regarding the operations of the bots, and not to report false positives. We will need to educate users (particularly new users with a focus on vandal-fighters) more about understanding how ClueBot is meant to work. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 22:37, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@Some Gadget Geek: I agree with your point, but the irritable thing is people don't read signs and notices that are right in front of their nose. On some other place on the web I inserted a gigantic banner with size 50 text and people still missed it. It is pretty much a given that there will always be that one person who doesn't read the danger sign, wanders onto the railroad tracks, and gets hit by a train. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 23:30, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

request for better summary when archiving a single discussion

when the bot archives a single discussion (=section), it would be grand if the edit summary would actually include the section title.

peace - קיפודנחש (aka kipod) (talk) 22:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Casualty (series 31)

Hello there, I am writing to you to let you know that your automatic edit to Casualty (series 31) is incorrect. Episode 1 is a single episode, but has just been extended to celebrate the 30th Anniversary of the show, which does NOT make it a double episode. Episode 2 is at normal length and has been confirmed to be called 'The Heaven's Lieutenant'. I WILL add episode 2 back and will undo the edit you made to episode 1.

Pug05 (talk) 12:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

@Pug05: Please read the messages at the top of this page. ClueBot NG is a robot and is not a human. False positives with the bot should be reported here, not on this talk page. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)