This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference. AFT5 was removed from all Wikimedia wikis on March 3, 2014.

This is the page for discussing any comment issues related to the Article Feedback Tool v5.

If your feedback submission was rejected by the edit filter, this is not the place to go. You may file a false positive report by clicking here.

You may post here if:

Your comment was hidden and you believe it was unjustly hidden,
Your comment was un-featured for an unjust reason, or
Your comment was oversighted and you feel it was for an unjust reason.

Click Here to Create a New Request

Noticeboard Requests

68.97.11.126 (talk · contribs · logs)

Please correct Stephen Colbert's page so that is is incorrect once more. --68.97.11.126 (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a comment to Talk:Stephen Colbert saying exavtly what is wrong and why it is wrong. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:23, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

203.12.172.254 (talk · contribs · logs)

I attempted to provide some feedback on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Kindle. It was instantly rejected: "Your post has been rejected by a software filter that suggests it may have violated Wikipedia's feedback guidelines. Please revise your post and try again." I read the feedback guidelines and could not even guess why it was rejected. My feedback was: I wanted more information about the Kindle AZW format, and the info here was contradicted by another wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_e-book_formats) --203.12.172.254 (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That filter prevents IPs from adding...any links? Seriously? IPs cannot add links in feedback? Well, that filter was created by an actual Wikimedia staffer, so I doubt anyone is going to fix it. I'll bug him about it and see if this is really necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That said, unless and until this is changed, you can add links to other Wikipedia articles using brackets, as in [[Link title]]. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:31, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boobytrap (talk · contribs · logs)

--Boobytrap (talk) 16:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC) I thought that an article I wrote some years ago as boobytrap had been deleted long ago because that was what I was informed. Now I want to post a new article in my own name (no pseudonyms) and I want to make a new account for that purpose, but find it impossible. What do I do to solve this problem?[reply]

If you want to make a new account, just log out of this one and register a new one. Alternatively, request a name change at WP:CHU. Or are you asking, can you create a new article about yourself? Someguy1221 (talk) 08:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

24.60.8.82 (talk · contribs · logs)

My comments about the article on The Phantom of Liberty was not to be published. It was a sort of "Letter to the Editors." The text was "I wrote before about this article and re-read it to make sure my suggestions were right. They are. I love the fact that it "is written like a personal reflection or essay rather than an encyclopedic description of the subject." I do not know what the editors mean by that, but I just like it the way it is. As a matter of fact, I do not agree with the suggestions of the editors: the plot is carefully described and is not too long. If a reader wants to skip it, he/she can do it easily enough (I have done with the plot descriptions of other movies). The style is fine, the research has been properly conducted, it offers opinions of critics and other reviewers which are efficient since they provide different perspectives of the film. For my classes on this movie I used basically the same sources. Besides, in the Reference section it offers the reader the opportunity to read the complete reviews cited. To tell my truth, the only thing wrong with this excellent article are the calls from the editors to make the plot more "concise" (which does not mean better) or to change the style to make it more "encyclopedic" (for me that's means more cold and boring). There is no need to lead the potential editors in any way. Just leave the door open with the simple word "Edit" like is done in most articles. If this article were presented as a paper in my university course I would grade it "A" (since in my University we do not have the grade "A+") and I would return it to the author with my congratulations and my encouragement to keep on writing good reviews of hard films to study, like Le Fantôme de la liberté (El fantasma de la libertad) truly is. Alberto Méndez (Harvard University PH.D), Professor of Spanish Cinema in Boston MA."

--24.60.8.82 (talk) 07:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking to have your feedback hidden? --No unique names 18:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

174.49.19.112 (talk · contribs · logs)

I found it unfair. I was just giving suggestions. --174.49.19.112 (talk) 22:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done The only hidden feedback from your IP address is blank. Blank feedback is hidden because it doesn't help us improve the article. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

169.139.19.135 (talk · contribs · logs)

--169.139.19.135 (talk) 16:49, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done I've had a look at the feedback which was hidden and one was nonsense text, two contained an email address (which he hide for primarily privacy reasons) and and I just hid three which were blank (which we hid die to the sheer amount of feedback we recieve - blank feedback doesn't help us to improve the article). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 02:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

64.85.254.161 (talk · contribs · logs)

-- 64.85.254.161 (talk) 15:03, 1 December 2012 (UTC) I felt that the climax of Abner Hales mission in Hawaii was when he confessed to his wife Jerusha "I love you more than God". I have no clue as to why my suggestion was rejected by your software. Is it that Word thinks Jerusha is misspelled? Does it not like quotation marks? This was my first attempt ever to post something here. I see no policy violations in my comments and none of my amended trials were accepted.[reply]

Sorry, looking through both hidden and unhidden feedback I could find nothing from your IP address on this article (or any related). Is it possible that you might have done it while logged in, on a different device (such as a mobile phone), or from a public place? If so, and you know the IP address of the public place, I'd be happy to look into this for you. As far as I know, the feedback tool we use has no prejudice against misspellings or quotation marks. However, I can't really provide much feedback without being able to see the actual response you gave to the article, and like I said if you know of a different account/IP you used to submit it I'd be happy to look. gwickwire^talk_edits 17:58, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Rejected by your software" leads me to think they're referring to the feedback filter... which, I don't know, I think it might be worth discussing the necessity for: I did some rough math -

(Rollbackers\cupReviewers)\capSysops

- about how many people have the monitor bit, and it came out to about 10,000... and considering the relatively low visibility of feedback, it seems to me like it may be doing more harm than help to reject submissions that 10,000 people have the ability to quickly hide. Even for the really bad stuff, I believe the Oversighters have a pretty quick response time, right?

More importantly and relevantly, though, you can see the feedback submissions for 64.85 here. Right now, I'm going to 1) boldly update the default "New request" form to include a "filter log" link, 2) address this specific submission at WP:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, since it was indeed not vandalism, 3) ask at WT:Edit filter that some EFMs watchlist this page, and 4) put up a notice at the top of the page saying that rejected feedback complaints should be taken up at False positives, not here... if people still keep on doing it, I might also ask someone to put up an editnotice. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 22:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gil Zweig (talk · contribs · logs · filter log)

-- Gil Zweig (talk) 18:23, 27 December 2012 (UTC) I wish to appeal the removal of a comment I added to the topic of "Fluoroscopy" on December 26, 2012, which described a new, patented fluoscopic development: "high resoluton low dose magnification fluoroscopy" Gil Zweig[reply]

Not done It appears your comment contained an email address, resulting in it being automatically disallowed. You can resubmit it without the email address. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

41.107.36.156 (talk · contribs · logs · filter log)

HI MY IS HY

-- 41.107.36.156 (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Your feedback to Windows Registry was correctly disallowed by the edit filter because it was non-constructive. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

180.234.250.37 (talk · contribs · logs · filter log)

-- 180.234.250.37 (talk) 17:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What article did you post the feedback to? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

74.216.91.179 (talk · contribs · logs · filter log)

Mr. John Nettles...THANK YOU for your fantastic role playing CE Barnaby...am watching the last one you made ....again...will always watch YOUR Midsomer Murders shows...."almost (but close)" as good as Poirot! -- 74.216.91.179 (talk) 18:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want done? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

14.139.160.4 (talk · contribs · logs · filter log)

-- 14.139.160.4 (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2013 (UTC) KINDLY PROVIDE THE STANDARD PROCEDURE FOR THE NORMALIZATION OF THE DATASET[reply]

Which page is this referring to? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

208.54.90.204 (talk · contribs · logs · filter log)

-- 208.54.90.204 (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC) I came to find a reference that I could use for a paper that I am now writing, where I am showing how Einstein using the series expansion (power of -1/2) to derive various equations of special relativity. Unfortunately, I don't find a nice reference that I can give by citing this page. Thanks. Hope this helps.[reply]

Which page is this referring to? Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Forever19454 (talk · contribs · logs · filter log)

-- Forever19454 (talk) 14:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC) when participating in a petanque tounament and a complete team does not show up do the competers who are present have to share their points or do they win the game by default. thank you for your response email removed by Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not done Your feedback was disallowed because it contained an email address. You may re-post it without an email address if you wish. Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ошибка

Ваш ресурс оставил неприятное впечатление. Вы называете страну неправильно. Постоянно читаю статьи где Вы пишите Белоруссия. Вы же Википидия, нет такой страны. Будьте грамотней)