![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. 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. |
![]() | This edit request to User:ClueBot III/Run has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
It should be changed to "True" because the bot is currently running as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yoshi24517&diff=649060812&oldid=648909250 . Thanks. Yoshi24517Chat Online 16:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
There are a number of companies promoting this practice including this one [1]
The edit looks like this [2]. Not sure if this is something that cluebot could address? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:18, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Bobherry. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Practical because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Bobherry Userspace Talk to me! Stuff I have done 02:57, 1 March 2015 (UTC)
User:ClueBot III is archiving bot requests that haven't been dealt with. I have just had to reinstate one of these. — Smjg (talk) 13:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
|age=168
, so threads will be archived if 168 hours have elapsed since the last activity on the thread. --Redrose64 (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)Hi there! I saw that the Infobox was missing from "Bovril", so, I decided to add it. FYI, the other additions by 160.5.96.130 are NOT by me. With kind regards. --Aristo Class (talk) 16:26, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
![]() | This edit request to User:ClueBot has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can we have a list full of Cluebots that say this...
Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 06:54, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
Remember my comment about the article My Singing Monsters with the blatant advertising of something petty, such as "Big Blue Bubble is giving away 20 diamonds as a seasonal offer. Enter code 15749013CH in the referral code menu. Offer expires 2/29/2015"? Why isn't ClueBot NG thinking about reverting this sort of vandalism? Qwertyxp2000 (talk) 03:31, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hello, I am discussing the "acts of vandalism" I made to the page The Critics. It is indeed true and I do not consider it an act of vandalism. Please elaborate on why you marked it as vandalism. Thank you.
Matthew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthewethanchowtoy (talk • contribs) 18:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
This user here is insulting your bot with the string Stupid. I reported it in UAA. -- Pikachu2568 (talk) 13:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi! I've tried to report a false positive (legitimate contribution reverted by your bot), but wasn't able to get the "revert ID" from the changelog because the log message was too long and was therefore truncated by the MediaWiki software: [3]
Please fix this bug, so the false positives can be reported. --MaSt (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2015 (UTC)
I would like to bring to your attention to block an unconfirmed user making disruptive edits with the above mentioned IP address. Here are all the disruptive unconstructive edits logged: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/69.172.85.34
The user has been warned multiple times on the talk page. Before it gets chaotic to undo the edits, please consider blocking the IP address.
Kapil.xerox (talk) 02:39, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
I recently saw ClueBot NG is ignoring warnings from tools other than Twinkle. I had issued a level 1 warning, but the bot issued again a level 1 warning. Could you please fix this? --ToonLucas22 (talk) 15:46, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
Removing internal links could be vandalism, but removing internal links to articles which do not exist is not. At this stage it seems that the bot does not make the difference. Ydecreux (talk) 08:40, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
Dear CBNG master (and best regards to CBNG itself): There's a user without a User page but with a Talk page User Talk:Clarkxwayne, who only (and after waiting out any block) edits the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God page (link to UCKG History). Their favourite trick is to replace all content with a glowing tribute, losing about 40,000 bytes. In the recent past ClueBot NG (ID 2154744) has instantly identified and reverted the sanitisation (1:46 10 March 2015, at the same minute as the original change was made). Virtually the same vandalic change as on 10 March was made at 01:50, 21 March 2015, but CBNG has not at the time of writing picked it up. It would seem that the CBNG filters have been altered to let this sort of thing through? It may not be possible reliably to catch this sort of thing, but I thought I had better notify you. (Losing 40,000 bytes should have some weight, though also happens with a few legitimate edits; maybe losing lots of bytes should be weighted according to the number of bytes deleted?) Congratulations and thanks for the good work. (By the time you see this the article may have been reverted by a human, though not yet.) Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
How do I know when the verdict is returned on the false positive ClueBot yielded? --Arise again, Arisedrew! (talk) 22:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1726 Hoffmeister is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1726 Hoffmeister until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 11:41, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1734 Zhongolovich is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1734 Zhongolovich until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 1796 Riga is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1796 Riga until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Boleyn (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2015 (UTC)