![]() | 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. |
Hey Cobi and Crispy,
Sorry that I have been, well, elusive for a while now. I'd really like some assignments. Perhaps monitoring and responding on some talk pages?
Also, I did a little grepping through some of the toolserver web-logs and found that ClueBot is actually pretty intensive on the Toolserver. (60814 queries in 24 hours). I also found that the bot was also making queries for edits made by users in the whitelist. Bot-users, for example, made up 9061 of the 60814 queries. Example:
24.40.136.251 - - [28/Dec/2010:03:11:18 +0000] "GET /~cobi/cb.php?user=TXiKiBoT&ns=0&title=Saint-Domet×tamp=1293505878 HTTP/1.1" 200 196 "-" "ClueBot/2.0"
Maybe ClueBot could keep a list of registered bots in memory, and strip those edits before it makes the query. I did this when DASHBot-AV was working. In any case, its only around 15% of queries, so it's no huge deal if you don't want to do that, just something that might speed things up. Happy New Year, -- Tim 1357 talk 01:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
is someone there that i can ask a question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.47.204 ( talk) 23:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
why did you undo my edit when all i did was add my opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catlover324 ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cobi, It seems like ClueBot II is not yet aware that the tutorial sandboxes have been renamed. For example Wikipedia:Tutorial (Editing)/sandbox has been renamed to Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing/sandbox. It's past midnight on new year's day here, so I'll try to clean up the associated carnage later today, but I just wanted to let somebody know about the problem. Graham 87 16:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
...but isn't the original ClueBot rendered basically obsolete by User:ClueBot NG? It catches more vandalism, has way fewer false positives, and is generally superior in every way. Why are they both active? ClueBot's false positives are a serious problem, and it's not really all that useful. Shouldn't it just be deactivated? (No offense meant, of course, to those wonderful people who created cluebot in the first place) ☻☻☻ Sithman VIII ! !☻☻☻ 22:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
While attempting to fix a series of related bad articles, ClueBot reverted three of the eight that I had fixed and cleaned up in the interest of preserving their value. It effectively preserved bad entries while stopping me from cleaning up the articles. While I understand the intent of the bot, it certainly needs improvement. It nearly banned me from editing while I attempted to improve the content of an article and remove bogus content. I did report the first reversion and edit it back, but had my contribution been more detailed and time-consuming, I might have been discouraged from ever contributing to Wikipedia again. I'd rather this knowledge base didn't scare away people whose intent it is to help by replacing human diligence with trigger-happy bots. That said, the two or three edits that were reverted should be fixed without bot interference, and I lack the resolve and possibly the authority to do so at the moment. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enonesohc ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what to say.-- ''Polobob'' ( talk) 04:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the run pages for the ClueBots, is it possible to add a page notice to help prevent newer editors from shutting off the bot? For example, a clever, new editor may be more likely to shut down the bot entirely instead of reverting the bot and reporting a false positive. I would do it myself, but I am not an administrator. :) Alternatively, if you can add a notice to the actual page using, say, <noinclude> tags that might bring more attention. But according to the current code, that would not work without a quick source change. -- SnoFox( t| c) 00:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It's editable by non-admins like myself. I assume it's supposed to be protected, correct? -- Kevin W./ Talk• CFB uniforms/ Talk 10:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I've got the bot archiving my talk page and though it's archived the majority of the stuff from 2010 (admittedly, my talk page doesn't have much to begin with) there's one unsigned comment from October 2010 that was missed and everything from 2009 and earlier hasn't been archived. What's wrong? -- Kevin W./ Talk• CFB uniforms/ Talk 00:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear ClueBot,
Please review my last changes (second time) on Multi-touch.
Thanks in addvance!
Gennadi Gblindmann ( talk) 23:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
i made this change because photos used are under copyright and thats why i remove then fron UCE&T Multan. Personal tools Engr.Shahzad
As it turns out,
this edit by ClueBot, and the ensuing vandalism warning on
the IP's Talk page were inappropriate, since the material that was removed by this IP was a copyright vio. Just FYI.
—
Paine Ellsworth (
CLIMAX )
16:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello ClueBot, can you fix up the page List of Adventure Time episodes please. A user ( 71.244.170.111) mess it up. Thank you! Brandon J. Marcellus ( talk) 21:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I was reading some errors in the page of Pierre Joxe, and when i made some corrections Mr Cluebot was abusively erasing all and saying was vandalism!... Please Mr Cluebot be more clever!... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.155.68 ( talk) 14:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. The ClueBot NG review interface stats page has not been updated in almost two weeks (since 03:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)). — Jeff G. ツ 04:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Now the IP Address that was updating it, 72.14.194.1 ( talk · contribs), has been blocked as a proxy. — Jeff G. ツ 18:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Your bot has thrown me an automated warning for removing a patent product advertisement on Tree of Knowledge. This is highly inappropriate. Best. 89.150.160.26 ( talk) 19:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I keep reporting false positives on Ballia. An IP acct is adding names of schools in the area. While the list of schools is getting absurdly long, it's hardly what I'd call 'vandalism', and seems like an inappropriate bot edit. I'm reporting the false positives on the training page, but wonder if you could get the bot to lay off Ballia for a while. Anniepoo ( talk) 02:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the previous discussion has been archived, but I was talking about how ClueBot is set to archive my talk page but has yet to archive anything on my page from before 2010. What's the problem? -- Kevin W./ Talk• CFB uniforms/ Talk 01:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your work in reverting vandalism, such as this edit - just wondering why the edits aren't marked as "bot edits"? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 00:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I was looking through my contributions today because I was considering reporting this user for a vandal-only account.
Something I came across has worried me with ClueBot. If you look here you will see that ClueBot gave the user a level one warning today, I then went on to give the user a level 2 warning, on the next revert ClueBot should have given the user a level 3 warning but if you look what ClueBot has done is erased all previous warnings given to this editor and has gone back to a level one warning. I've had a look through ClueBot NG's other edits tonight and I can't see that it's happened elsewhere, I'm just worried that ClueBot has seemed to remove warnings this once. I thought it was the user at first but from what I can see only myself and ClueBot edited the talk page of the user tonight and it definitely wasn't me!-- 5 albert square ( talk) 02:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear ClueBot
About the edit I made on The Adventures of Blinky Bill article that I made is true. Yoyo does play pranks and I do put true stuff in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.162.213 ( talk) 11:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Perseus, Son
of Zeus has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
-- Perseus, Son of Zeus 19:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
ClueBot, I was wondering if you could semi-protect the article on Alan Keyes as a group of unsigned-in vandals feel the need to continuely revert back to the old and out of date 1980's photo of Keyes over the 2008 photo of Keyes. Sincerely - Aaaccc (talk), 14 January 2011 (UTC)
(1) Cluebot is getting false positives. (2) Were a user behaving the way your bot was (repeatedly, even), they would be banned from wikipedia (probably with few warnings). (3) Were an admin behaving the way your bot was (repeatedly, even), they would not remain an admin because you have removed constructive discussion from the bot's actions. (4) Wikipedia is not your testing ground for bots.
Due to the nature of the admin role, a bot like this will never be feasible. It isn't even debatable. Please stop abusing wikipedia with your bots. 75.200.196.60 ( talk) 04:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
75.200.196.60 ( talk) 18:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I should also say that it seems fairly obvious that you have created a rather tedious report process, which seems to be some excuse you have constructed to keep the bot around, citing 'few instances of false positives' when the problems this bot is causing are brought to your attention. I'll say it again: "Wikipedia is not a beta testing ground for your bots"
I recommend this bot be banned as any other spam-generating or user-harassing bot would. 75.200.196.60 ( talk) 04:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
75.201.11.97 ( talk) 00:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, read this. I have tried to link you to all of the relevant information, but you still refuse to read it. I am not insulting your overall intelligence, but I sure am insulting your ability to read. In the interest of clearing this up, I will repeat for you, here, all of the relevant pieces of information in the links I have given to you. If you do not wish to read it, or do not understand it, then please do not reply again.
Your main point of concern seems to be that you do not believe the false positive rate to be accurate. Read #1. Read the FAQ. Read the userpage. Then if you still think it's incorrect, give a reason specifically why. So far, all of your points in this regard have been based on an incorrect assumption (that false positive rate is calculated based on reported false positives), and you seem to be ignoring all attempts to correct you.
I would rather enjoy seeing you bring your arguments to the attention of administrators - although you seem to be unable to read, it is a job requirement of Wikipedia administrators, and I'm quite sure they can. Crispy1989 ( talk) 02:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
After a rather lengthy and friendly discussion on IRC with Crispy1989 I think it's well understood that this bot is a very important asset to wikipedia (and it seems like versions of it will likely be important to other projects as well). Apologies, all around. 75.201.11.97 ( talk) 04:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Why??? Wuhazet ( talk) 19:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cobi. 64.233.172.20 ( talk · contribs · block log). Can you shed any light on whence it comes? I notice another IP here was blocked as a Google proxy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
But what I wrote down was true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.24.222.157 ( talk) 18:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems that the bot overwrote my level 3 warning. Logan Talk Contributions 15:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The bot seems to be blanking WP:AIV/TB2 when it reports. It's not the first time I've seen this happen, but it's taken me this long to work out that it was this bot and not one of the AIV helperbots causing the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
here cheers Egg Centric ( talk) 18:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This talk page gets archived so quickly that it's difficult to have a serious conversation here. Could somebody please slow down the archiving bot? — Stepheng3 ( talk) 04:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your intervention on page Women in Judaism. -- Geneviève ( talk) 16:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
ClueBot, can you archive my talk page for every 25 messages I get? Also, why is your user page fully protected?-- The Master of Mayhem ( talk) 09:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
When is the first ClueBot coming back? WAYNE SLAM 00:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
What about ClueBot's warning templates and whitelist for example as well ClueBot's optin and angry optin? WAYNE SLAM 01:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=55659854 scroll to bottom. Then you'll know. 70.163.57.150 ( talk) 22:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi ClueBot, yes, i am new to WP, but i am in the process to improve the information been posted. why my edit on Pinscreen page had been reverted??? i am in the process to improve the accuracy of pinscreen, / pin art. i have many reasons to clarify the difference between pinscreen and pinscreen animation!!! please read the fact of ward fleming and his patented invention, which i added in the origin section in pinscreen animation. thank you! Nip888 ( talk) 04:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, User with the IP Address 203.153.223.80 is section blacking on the Mani Ratnam page. I saw one of your reverts on the revision history. Please do the needful. Thanks. Vivvt ( talk) 18:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Oriffice ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
sir iam making the change which was necessary for the article and not indulging in vandalism Entertrip2 ( talk) 18:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
What's up with this? Corvus cornix talk 03:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I read Rice#United_States and I find it having too many links to irrelevant topics. There are even links to general concepts such as profit and port. I trimed some links and got reverted. I don't think this is vandalism. 111.251.194.52 ( talk) 13:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Why you just keep on reverting lies about his nationality? This man was Croat as sure as Shakespeare was English! But no one is asking questions what is his nationality or inventing his "new" nationality! Please stop spreading lies, mistakes, etc., ... And, you know, Brittanica and some similar projects are full of mistakes and missleading facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.117.100 ( talk) 23:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you processing requests to volunteer to review ClueBot's dataset? I must have submitted at least 2 applications (sorry for the extra work!), but I would really like to help out.
I believe I remember seeing something about seeing a confirmation email too, right? Well, if that's the case, I've never received one.
Thanks! Teimu.tm ( talk) 00:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Why aren't ClueBot NG's edits marked as bot edits? I have seen that on my watchlist page that ClueBot NG's edits do not have a "b" by them like the edits of other bots. Tideflat ( talk) 02:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Hey Cobi and Crispy,
Sorry that I have been, well, elusive for a while now. I'd really like some assignments. Perhaps monitoring and responding on some talk pages?
Also, I did a little grepping through some of the toolserver web-logs and found that ClueBot is actually pretty intensive on the Toolserver. (60814 queries in 24 hours). I also found that the bot was also making queries for edits made by users in the whitelist. Bot-users, for example, made up 9061 of the 60814 queries. Example:
24.40.136.251 - - [28/Dec/2010:03:11:18 +0000] "GET /~cobi/cb.php?user=TXiKiBoT&ns=0&title=Saint-Domet×tamp=1293505878 HTTP/1.1" 200 196 "-" "ClueBot/2.0"
Maybe ClueBot could keep a list of registered bots in memory, and strip those edits before it makes the query. I did this when DASHBot-AV was working. In any case, its only around 15% of queries, so it's no huge deal if you don't want to do that, just something that might speed things up. Happy New Year, -- Tim 1357 talk 01:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
is someone there that i can ask a question —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.47.204 ( talk) 23:34, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
why did you undo my edit when all i did was add my opinion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Catlover324 ( talk • contribs) 15:56, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi Cobi, It seems like ClueBot II is not yet aware that the tutorial sandboxes have been renamed. For example Wikipedia:Tutorial (Editing)/sandbox has been renamed to Wikipedia:Tutorial/Editing/sandbox. It's past midnight on new year's day here, so I'll try to clean up the associated carnage later today, but I just wanted to let somebody know about the problem. Graham 87 16:36, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
...but isn't the original ClueBot rendered basically obsolete by User:ClueBot NG? It catches more vandalism, has way fewer false positives, and is generally superior in every way. Why are they both active? ClueBot's false positives are a serious problem, and it's not really all that useful. Shouldn't it just be deactivated? (No offense meant, of course, to those wonderful people who created cluebot in the first place) ☻☻☻ Sithman VIII ! !☻☻☻ 22:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
While attempting to fix a series of related bad articles, ClueBot reverted three of the eight that I had fixed and cleaned up in the interest of preserving their value. It effectively preserved bad entries while stopping me from cleaning up the articles. While I understand the intent of the bot, it certainly needs improvement. It nearly banned me from editing while I attempted to improve the content of an article and remove bogus content. I did report the first reversion and edit it back, but had my contribution been more detailed and time-consuming, I might have been discouraged from ever contributing to Wikipedia again. I'd rather this knowledge base didn't scare away people whose intent it is to help by replacing human diligence with trigger-happy bots. That said, the two or three edits that were reverted should be fixed without bot interference, and I lack the resolve and possibly the authority to do so at the moment. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Enonesohc ( talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I don't know what to say.-- ''Polobob'' ( talk) 04:35, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Regarding the run pages for the ClueBots, is it possible to add a page notice to help prevent newer editors from shutting off the bot? For example, a clever, new editor may be more likely to shut down the bot entirely instead of reverting the bot and reporting a false positive. I would do it myself, but I am not an administrator. :) Alternatively, if you can add a notice to the actual page using, say, <noinclude> tags that might bring more attention. But according to the current code, that would not work without a quick source change. -- SnoFox( t| c) 00:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
It's editable by non-admins like myself. I assume it's supposed to be protected, correct? -- Kevin W./ Talk• CFB uniforms/ Talk 10:37, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I've got the bot archiving my talk page and though it's archived the majority of the stuff from 2010 (admittedly, my talk page doesn't have much to begin with) there's one unsigned comment from October 2010 that was missed and everything from 2009 and earlier hasn't been archived. What's wrong? -- Kevin W./ Talk• CFB uniforms/ Talk 00:57, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear ClueBot,
Please review my last changes (second time) on Multi-touch.
Thanks in addvance!
Gennadi Gblindmann ( talk) 23:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
i made this change because photos used are under copyright and thats why i remove then fron UCE&T Multan. Personal tools Engr.Shahzad
As it turns out,
this edit by ClueBot, and the ensuing vandalism warning on
the IP's Talk page were inappropriate, since the material that was removed by this IP was a copyright vio. Just FYI.
—
Paine Ellsworth (
CLIMAX )
16:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello ClueBot, can you fix up the page List of Adventure Time episodes please. A user ( 71.244.170.111) mess it up. Thank you! Brandon J. Marcellus ( talk) 21:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I was reading some errors in the page of Pierre Joxe, and when i made some corrections Mr Cluebot was abusively erasing all and saying was vandalism!... Please Mr Cluebot be more clever!... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.124.155.68 ( talk) 14:41, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi. The ClueBot NG review interface stats page has not been updated in almost two weeks (since 03:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)). — Jeff G. ツ 04:32, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
Now the IP Address that was updating it, 72.14.194.1 ( talk · contribs), has been blocked as a proxy. — Jeff G. ツ 18:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
Your bot has thrown me an automated warning for removing a patent product advertisement on Tree of Knowledge. This is highly inappropriate. Best. 89.150.160.26 ( talk) 19:34, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
I keep reporting false positives on Ballia. An IP acct is adding names of schools in the area. While the list of schools is getting absurdly long, it's hardly what I'd call 'vandalism', and seems like an inappropriate bot edit. I'm reporting the false positives on the training page, but wonder if you could get the bot to lay off Ballia for a while. Anniepoo ( talk) 02:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the previous discussion has been archived, but I was talking about how ClueBot is set to archive my talk page but has yet to archive anything on my page from before 2010. What's the problem? -- Kevin W./ Talk• CFB uniforms/ Talk 01:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your work in reverting vandalism, such as this edit - just wondering why the edits aren't marked as "bot edits"? Thanks! GoingBatty ( talk) 00:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I was looking through my contributions today because I was considering reporting this user for a vandal-only account.
Something I came across has worried me with ClueBot. If you look here you will see that ClueBot gave the user a level one warning today, I then went on to give the user a level 2 warning, on the next revert ClueBot should have given the user a level 3 warning but if you look what ClueBot has done is erased all previous warnings given to this editor and has gone back to a level one warning. I've had a look through ClueBot NG's other edits tonight and I can't see that it's happened elsewhere, I'm just worried that ClueBot has seemed to remove warnings this once. I thought it was the user at first but from what I can see only myself and ClueBot edited the talk page of the user tonight and it definitely wasn't me!-- 5 albert square ( talk) 02:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
Dear ClueBot
About the edit I made on The Adventures of Blinky Bill article that I made is true. Yoyo does play pranks and I do put true stuff in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 175.38.162.213 ( talk) 11:17, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
Perseus, Son
of Zeus has bought you a whisky! Sharing a whisky is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the
WikiLove by buying someone else a whisky, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Enjoy!
-- Perseus, Son of Zeus 19:07, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
ClueBot, I was wondering if you could semi-protect the article on Alan Keyes as a group of unsigned-in vandals feel the need to continuely revert back to the old and out of date 1980's photo of Keyes over the 2008 photo of Keyes. Sincerely - Aaaccc (talk), 14 January 2011 (UTC)
(1) Cluebot is getting false positives. (2) Were a user behaving the way your bot was (repeatedly, even), they would be banned from wikipedia (probably with few warnings). (3) Were an admin behaving the way your bot was (repeatedly, even), they would not remain an admin because you have removed constructive discussion from the bot's actions. (4) Wikipedia is not your testing ground for bots.
Due to the nature of the admin role, a bot like this will never be feasible. It isn't even debatable. Please stop abusing wikipedia with your bots. 75.200.196.60 ( talk) 04:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
75.200.196.60 ( talk) 18:05, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
I should also say that it seems fairly obvious that you have created a rather tedious report process, which seems to be some excuse you have constructed to keep the bot around, citing 'few instances of false positives' when the problems this bot is causing are brought to your attention. I'll say it again: "Wikipedia is not a beta testing ground for your bots"
I recommend this bot be banned as any other spam-generating or user-harassing bot would. 75.200.196.60 ( talk) 04:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
75.201.11.97 ( talk) 00:44, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
OK, read this. I have tried to link you to all of the relevant information, but you still refuse to read it. I am not insulting your overall intelligence, but I sure am insulting your ability to read. In the interest of clearing this up, I will repeat for you, here, all of the relevant pieces of information in the links I have given to you. If you do not wish to read it, or do not understand it, then please do not reply again.
Your main point of concern seems to be that you do not believe the false positive rate to be accurate. Read #1. Read the FAQ. Read the userpage. Then if you still think it's incorrect, give a reason specifically why. So far, all of your points in this regard have been based on an incorrect assumption (that false positive rate is calculated based on reported false positives), and you seem to be ignoring all attempts to correct you.
I would rather enjoy seeing you bring your arguments to the attention of administrators - although you seem to be unable to read, it is a job requirement of Wikipedia administrators, and I'm quite sure they can. Crispy1989 ( talk) 02:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
After a rather lengthy and friendly discussion on IRC with Crispy1989 I think it's well understood that this bot is a very important asset to wikipedia (and it seems like versions of it will likely be important to other projects as well). Apologies, all around. 75.201.11.97 ( talk) 04:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Why??? Wuhazet ( talk) 19:30, 16 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Cobi. 64.233.172.20 ( talk · contribs · block log). Can you shed any light on whence it comes? I notice another IP here was blocked as a Google proxy. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:17, 18 January 2011 (UTC)
But what I wrote down was true! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.24.222.157 ( talk) 18:36, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
Seems that the bot overwrote my level 3 warning. Logan Talk Contributions 15:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
The bot seems to be blanking WP:AIV/TB2 when it reports. It's not the first time I've seen this happen, but it's taken me this long to work out that it was this bot and not one of the AIV helperbots causing the problem. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
here cheers Egg Centric ( talk) 18:14, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
This talk page gets archived so quickly that it's difficult to have a serious conversation here. Could somebody please slow down the archiving bot? — Stepheng3 ( talk) 04:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
Thanks so much for your intervention on page Women in Judaism. -- Geneviève ( talk) 16:07, 21 January 2011 (UTC)
ClueBot, can you archive my talk page for every 25 messages I get? Also, why is your user page fully protected?-- The Master of Mayhem ( talk) 09:33, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
When is the first ClueBot coming back? WAYNE SLAM 00:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
What about ClueBot's warning templates and whitelist for example as well ClueBot's optin and angry optin? WAYNE SLAM 01:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=55659854 scroll to bottom. Then you'll know. 70.163.57.150 ( talk) 22:56, 23 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi ClueBot, yes, i am new to WP, but i am in the process to improve the information been posted. why my edit on Pinscreen page had been reverted??? i am in the process to improve the accuracy of pinscreen, / pin art. i have many reasons to clarify the difference between pinscreen and pinscreen animation!!! please read the fact of ward fleming and his patented invention, which i added in the origin section in pinscreen animation. thank you! Nip888 ( talk) 04:37, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi, User with the IP Address 203.153.223.80 is section blacking on the Mani Ratnam page. I saw one of your reverts on the revision history. Please do the needful. Thanks. Vivvt ( talk) 18:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Oriffice ( talk • contribs) 23:22, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
sir iam making the change which was necessary for the article and not indulging in vandalism Entertrip2 ( talk) 18:41, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
What's up with this? Corvus cornix talk 03:39, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
I read Rice#United_States and I find it having too many links to irrelevant topics. There are even links to general concepts such as profit and port. I trimed some links and got reverted. I don't think this is vandalism. 111.251.194.52 ( talk) 13:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Why you just keep on reverting lies about his nationality? This man was Croat as sure as Shakespeare was English! But no one is asking questions what is his nationality or inventing his "new" nationality! Please stop spreading lies, mistakes, etc., ... And, you know, Brittanica and some similar projects are full of mistakes and missleading facts! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.164.117.100 ( talk) 23:38, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
Are you processing requests to volunteer to review ClueBot's dataset? I must have submitted at least 2 applications (sorry for the extra work!), but I would really like to help out.
I believe I remember seeing something about seeing a confirmation email too, right? Well, if that's the case, I've never received one.
Thanks! Teimu.tm ( talk) 00:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
Why aren't ClueBot NG's edits marked as bot edits? I have seen that on my watchlist page that ClueBot NG's edits do not have a "b" by them like the edits of other bots. Tideflat ( talk) 02:47, 28 January 2011 (UTC)