Jump to content

User:ClueBot/FalsePositives/IPReports

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 142.177.78.210 (talk) at 04:27, 26 November 2007 (→‎142.177.78.210: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

IP False Positives

(talk) (contributions)

Warning

What happened

Discussion

(talk) (contributions)

Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to NWA, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: NWA was changed by 76.232.156.227 (c) (t) making a minor change with obscenities on 2007-11-25T18:07:11+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 18:07, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What happened

The change was made to the disambiguation page for the acronym NWA. One of the more prominent users of this acronym is the rap group Niggers With Attitude. This is how they spell their name, and how the rap group's page spells it. However, for some reason, the disambiguation page refers to them as "Niggaz With Attitude". As is mentioned on the Discussion page, Wikipedia is not censored, and in the interests of accuracy the correct name should be used.

Discussion

about pokemon

Headline text

hi somone wrote that pokemon is the most boring show ever. that is a opinion, not a fact, and should be removed imedeatly.

(talk) (contributions)

Warning


November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Open source, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Open source was changed by 142.177.78.210 (c) (t) deleting 18928 characters on 2007-11-26T04:16:34+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 04:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

What happened

The bot reverted a valid edit that tags on the page explicitly called for.

The article clearly did not meet the standards of Wikipedia and contained a large and totally unreferenced section on what is called open content not open source. I made two edits to correct this situation and provide more useful links.

I am not a bot and no bot could possibly have known how to rewrite pre-existing sentences or introduce valid links to Lawrence Lessig, Creative Commons, share-alike, etc.. Pleaes undo this false positive and correct the bot to recognize signs of a valid human edit.

Thanks.

Discussion

If the bot was in fact implementing some wrongheaded policy, it should say explicitly what the policy is rather than pretend to be undoing some bot.

Please correct this problem quickly as it violates the be bold rule.

It may well be that a human would not like my extensive edit, or would point at some alternative solution to the same problems being discussed on the talk page. However, pre-empting that the bot prevents that discussion which belongs between humans, with none of them (anonymous or not) being disadvantaged by having to file reports like this.

I found this report difficult to file - it needs to fill in more fields on its own. Certainly there's no reason for an end user to be having to back up to grab text that the bot, itself, put on a talk page, or enter their own IP number twice.

Using this form, I am sure you are getting far far more false positives than are being reported.