User talk:ClueBot Commons

Praise should go on the praise page. Barnstars and other awards should go on the awards page.
Use the "new section" button at the top of this page to add a new section. Use the [edit] link above each header to edit that header.
This page is automatically archived by ClueBot III.
ClueBot's owner or someone else who knows the answer to your question will reply on this page.

Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back.

You made a big mistake

What's your problem? I did not Vandalize anything! You are by erasing traitor when Sentinel betrayed his allies over Cybertron. SHAME ON YOU!96.240.94.62 (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi IP.

OK first things first, ClueBot is not human and therefore can't respond to messages left on the talk page. ClueBot is in fact a robot designed to help combat vandalism on Wikipedia. As ClueBot is a robot it has no knowledge whatsoever about the article subject betraying allies. I am guessing that in your edit there was something that set off one of ClueBot's filters and that is why ClueBot reverted the edit as possible vandalism.

However, you might be interested to know that after you re-inserted your edit, it was then removed by a human editor.--5 albert square (talk) 23:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

light-hearted, but pointed, response to a very irritating revert to a minor page about a minor band, The Vandals, that was designed to sharpen it all up, encyclopedia-ise it (hey, sounds like a Dalek-type command), etc. May contain comments worth considering by a non-bot humanoid type thing in a quiet, relaxed moment; definitely contains nuts. Of course it could be ignored, because life's like that (is this microphone on?, oh, damn, I forgot to use capitals!!!!)

Oh, this one I've been breeding for a while. OK - bots I like. They tidy up and make Wikipedia nice and shiny in places (though they never quite get into those corner inhabited by nasty denizens), and one day, hopefully before I snuff it, they'll help clean up while being cute running round the floor. In the meantime - ClueBot NG (who looks in my head to be a bit tattoed and has trouble walking in a non-simian way at times) says it ""produces very few false positives" but seems to, on occasion, happily just wander about picking up loads of clearly relevant stuff and reverting it BECAUSE IT CAN, OH YES, MATEY. And WITH A WARNING, like that makes it more acceptable or, more correct, right. Now I'm all for auto-cleanups, but something that looks like it just picks up major rewrites for a good reason and nukes them at random, instead of a nice little letter saying 'hey, I'm just doing a job here, and I've come across something that looks a little like you've been walking your dog on someone else's lawn, not like I'm accusing you of trespass or anything, hut can we just have a teensy look back and either get the pooper scooper out or explain that actually the fertiliser is lovely for the grass and thank you very much'. And I'd like a bit of interaction before a complete wipeout of correct information, so it can be discussed in a nice, cup of tea type, human way (oh dear - there's the problem). Any response - nope I doubt it. Sometimes notacluebot needs a re-wire. Any chance we could re-wire it to clean my garage and sort the books out? :-)) Brieflysentient (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

The bot /does/ produce very few false positives. If you take the time to look at how much data it processes on a daily basis and the thousands of human reviewed edits that the ANN is checked against then you would probably see that. The bot states it is possible vandalism, vandalism comes in many forms. The bot then CLEARLY states that the revert MAY be a false positives and TELLS you to revert the edit and REPORT it if you believe it is. Reports are human verified then human reviewed and used to TRAIN the ANN. If you want the bot to improve then help the bot to improved. Do you have any contribution to improving the bot in any way? no. Please only use my time for positive contributions rather than just going on about something totally un-related. - DamianZaremba ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Apologies - I had already reported it the correct way, just my warped sense of humour got the best of me. Of course in a perfect world we wouldn't need to waste our time correcting stuff anyway, as it would be done to a t the first time, and I do understand how useful these bots can be. Sorry for wasting your time and probably irritating you. Brieflysentient (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Archiving Question

Hello could someone confirm I have setup the archive template correctly at Talk:Billboard_Hot_100_50th_Anniversary_Charts? I believe the syntax is correct, but the bot doesn't seem to have done anything yet. ~ Don4of4 ^[Talk] 21:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The bot will archive it soon. What worries me is that it hasn't done anything for four hours yet. --Σ _{^talkcontribs} 23:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

CLUEBOT YOU MOTHERFUKER

FUK YOU FUK YOU FUK YOU