![]() | 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. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit is worthless. I don't think I've ever seen an edit to mathematical notation by ClueBot that didn't make the article worse. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
My edit in Jessica is absolutely correct . Please take care of not making problematic situations ever after Rimi07032003 ( talk) 14:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@ K6ka: : I did report that false positive via the page to which you linked, and after that I commented here. I wasn't just reporting a false positive; I was identifying a general pattern. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
FYI, a vandal issued a physical threat against Oshwah and Cluebot in the comments of this edit here. I alerted Oshwah and the emergency email and they handled it by banning the IP address. I didn't think until today to alert the Cluebot crew, so here it is.
So, er, someone threatened ClueBot. The world's a weird place, no?
-- KNHaw (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I am fully realistic about the urgency of this.
Triggered by a steadily increasing level of intimidation by coralexiri (#meetoo) and specifically by the summary to
this reversion, I suggest to change the summary from this almost blatantly offensive allegation of vandalism, and the pretense of being able to judge "possibilities" when strictly acting to given rules, possibly changing in the course, to some more realistic description, nearer to the canting good faith assumption.
My suggestion is
Automatically reverted, even when written in good faith by <ID> ...
AI is not (yet?) up to assume something. Purgy ( talk) 08:11, 22 February 2018 (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. |
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This edit is worthless. I don't think I've ever seen an edit to mathematical notation by ClueBot that didn't make the article worse. Michael Hardy ( talk) 02:50, 3 February 2018 (UTC)
My edit in Jessica is absolutely correct . Please take care of not making problematic situations ever after Rimi07032003 ( talk) 14:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
@ K6ka: : I did report that false positive via the page to which you linked, and after that I commented here. I wasn't just reporting a false positive; I was identifying a general pattern. Michael Hardy ( talk) 03:51, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
FYI, a vandal issued a physical threat against Oshwah and Cluebot in the comments of this edit here. I alerted Oshwah and the emergency email and they handled it by banning the IP address. I didn't think until today to alert the Cluebot crew, so here it is.
So, er, someone threatened ClueBot. The world's a weird place, no?
-- KNHaw (talk) 18:05, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
I am fully realistic about the urgency of this.
Triggered by a steadily increasing level of intimidation by coralexiri (#meetoo) and specifically by the summary to
this reversion, I suggest to change the summary from this almost blatantly offensive allegation of vandalism, and the pretense of being able to judge "possibilities" when strictly acting to given rules, possibly changing in the course, to some more realistic description, nearer to the canting good faith assumption.
My suggestion is
Automatically reverted, even when written in good faith by <ID> ...
AI is not (yet?) up to assume something. Purgy ( talk) 08:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)