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. |
Why did you revert my change?I was not vandalising Faulkner vv (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for messing up and making me accidentally undo one of your edits. Please work properly! Hockeycatcat (talk) 11:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
ClueBot NG is the Wikipedia anti-vandalism GOD. Faster then lightning, with almost NO false positives. Wow. Another Wiki User the 2nd (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
It has always false-positives. It had mine. And most bots seem broken. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OjuzKiopo (talk • contribs) 16:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
most bots seem broken, which five minutes of research would conclude is entirely false. I don't see SineBot or AnomieBOT or HBC AIV helperbot5 broken, unless the observer had zero clue as to what they do. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 21:58, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
I apologize for my change of a date, then put back as it was because it was correct. It happened because I was studying information about Seiko and for a moment I thought I noticed an error on the English page. English is not my language. Anyway I took the liberty of adding a cd box to the schematic, because one of that was really missing. thank you.Dabi (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
For me too. Not vandalism but signaled as vandalism. I commented about an article which was highly discussed to the point there's no agreement on even how should be named the article. "Lump of labour fallacy"
Debating about whether there is a limited amount of work....so I inserted a comment. Also looking at what most of the talks said most likely the article is uncorrect...and should be renamed "scarcity of labour". It's hard to say if labour could be "infinite" (at least paid labour).
And no article is called as "scarcity of labour" but it could be inserted a part about a said lack lump of labour.
Honestly i've had my fill of those bots that either, prevent or delete edits. --OjuzKiopo (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Hey, there must be some mistake here, I sure as hell didn't make this edit ... As small as it was by the way ...
I have literally never heard of this program in my entire life, and I have absolutely no interest in it at all ...
"Latest revision as of 20:58, 22 February 2021 (edit) ClueBot NG (talk | contribs) (Warning 86.187.235.51 - #1)
(No difference) Latest revision as of 20:58, 22 February 2021
February 2021
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a message letting you know that one or more of your recent edits to Big Cook, Little Cook have been undone by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.
ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made was constructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this message from your talk page, and then make the edit again. For help, take a look at the introduction. The following is the log entry regarding this message: Big Cook, Little Cook was changed by 86.187.235.51 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.946821 on 2021-02-22T20:58:12+00:00
Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 20:58, 22 February 2021 (UTC)"
86.187.235.51 (talk) 08:52, 28 February 2021 (UTC)