User talk:ClueBot Commons: Difference between revisions
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
The Revision as of 08:43, 26 November 2010 was a constructive edit which undid vandalism. (ClueBot then redid the vandalism.) Is there anything I can/should do (besides the obvious read things correctly)? Thanks [[User:Jim1138|Jim1138]] ([[User talk:Jim1138|talk]]) 02:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC) |
The Revision as of 08:43, 26 November 2010 was a constructive edit which undid vandalism. (ClueBot then redid the vandalism.) Is there anything I can/should do (besides the obvious read things correctly)? Thanks [[User:Jim1138|Jim1138]] ([[User talk:Jim1138|talk]]) 02:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
:You can click the counter in the top right, then click on the diff ID of the one you misclassified and reclassify it. -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|[[User:ClueBot Commons/Bots|b]])</sup> 02:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC) |
:You can click the counter in the top right, then click on the diff ID of the one you misclassified and reclassify it. -- [[User:Cobi|Cobi]]<sup>([[User talk:Cobi|t]]|[[Special:Contributions/Cobi|c]]|[[User:ClueBot Commons/Bots|b]])</sup> 02:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC) |
||
COCk |
|||
== Reporting false positives == |
== Reporting false positives == |
||
Revision as of 19:30, 15 December 2010
This page is for comments on the bot or questions about the bot.
Report false positives on the false positives page, not here.
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 unless you request otherwise.
| ClueBots | |
|---|---|
| ClueBot NG/Anti-vandalism · ClueBot II/ClueBot Script |  |
| ClueBot III/Archive · Talk page for all ClueBots |
|
Poor Database Review
Not sure where to post this. ID 394524323 is a review of ClueBot-NG reverting blatant vandalism (use of derogatory terms toward a recently passed away individual). Someone marked this reversion as "vandalism." ialsoagree (talk) 18:58, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Four dataset reviewers have classified it as constructive. It must've been a tired reviewer looking at the diff backwards or something. Anyway, it should be classified as constructive in the dataset, so no worries. -- SnoFox(t|c) 21:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
- Another thing to note is when the data is pulled out of the review interface and into the bot for training there are "filters" in place to ensure that articles are only classified if a) they have enough votes on them and b) enough people agree. The system is designed so that even if a few "bad" entries end up in there, such as this one it will not affect the bot unless everyone agrees on it. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- I am aware of all that, I just wanted to bring it up in case the developers wanted to see if the user had made other incorrect judgments. ialsoagree (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
- Another thing to note is when the data is pulled out of the review interface and into the bot for training there are "filters" in place to ensure that articles are only classified if a) they have enough votes on them and b) enough people agree. The system is designed so that even if a few "bad" entries end up in there, such as this one it will not affect the bot unless everyone agrees on it. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 14:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
Data Set Error
I read the diffs backwards and marked a constructive edit as vandalism. Presidencies and provinces of British India The Revision as of 08:43, 26 November 2010 was a constructive edit which undid vandalism. (ClueBot then redid the vandalism.) Is there anything I can/should do (besides the obvious read things correctly)? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 02:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- You can click the counter in the top right, then click on the diff ID of the one you misclassified and reclassify it. -- Cobi(t|c|b) 02:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
COCk
Reporting false positives
Did I do it right? I reported a false positive, but I don't see any confirmation on User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives. Does anything show up here on Wikipedia noting these? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Yes the report was added correctly. The listing on User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives is no longer used due to the new integrated report interface. Report status and comments will be displayed in the report panel which is updated from the review interface. I have updated the text on User:ClueBot NG/FalsePositives to hopefully explain this better in the future. DamianZaremba (talk • contribs) 17:54, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:41, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
Bot user page should be in Category:Wikipedia_anti-vandal_bots?
Probably the bot's user page should be added to Category:Wikipedia_anti-vandal_bots. Thanks Rjwilmsi 14:07, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- You mean ClueBot NG? The original ClueBot's already in there and the other ClueBots don't deal with vandalism. Reach Out to the Truth 14:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- ClueBot NG is a separate bot. It should probably be added separately, but I'm not sure what the policy is regarding that. Crispy1989 (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- I don't think there's a policy for that. Just edit ClueBot NG's user page to add the category. Reach Out to the Truth 15:54, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
- ClueBot NG is a separate bot. It should probably be added separately, but I'm not sure what the policy is regarding that. Crispy1989 (talk) 15:49, 15 December 2010 (UTC)