| Revision as of 14:38, 18 January 2020 editK6ka (talk | contribs)Administrators115,386 edits →CBNG IRC relay is down: new section← Previous edit | Revision as of 07:58, 19 January 2020 edit undoSimult2018 (talk | contribs)14 edits →Automated Removal Of Tareq Salahi Posting, Reverting To Incorrect Content: new sectionTags: Mobile edit Mobile web editNext edit → | ||
| Line 44: | Line 44: | ||
| {{Ping|Rich Smith|DamianZaremba}} West.andrew.g ] that the ClueBot NG IRC relay has been down for two days, affecting tools that rely on it. Could you have a look? —] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> (] · ]) 14:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC) | {{Ping|Rich Smith|DamianZaremba}} West.andrew.g ] that the ClueBot NG IRC relay has been down for two days, affecting tools that rely on it. Could you have a look? —] <span title="Canadian!" style="color:red">🍁</span> (] · ]) 14:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC) | ||
| == Automated Removal Of Tareq Salahi Posting, Reverting To Incorrect Content == | |||
| My edit was not unencyclopedic. It was in line with the content on the Misplaced Pages article describing the breach that this person was involved in. It wasn’t loaded. It wasn’t particularly negative although it was factual. According to Misplaced Pages, this person was involved in the security breach. Whether that was good or bad was not something I alluded to. Only to mention they were involved. If there truly was a problem, why not indicate how to make the correct content fall within Misplaced Pages guidelines rather than just throwing stones? With certainty, what is there currently is not correct. | |||
| Also, you never spoke to the fact that this bot claims to do routine tedious edits. Deciding that something is “loaded” or “negative” is not a routine edit. I never said that it was bad that they were involved in the breach. It’s 100% factual and not negative. Do we need to go to the 2009 page covering the breach and remove the facts posted there? | |||
| Why does this bot describe itself is making routine/tedious edits when it does much more? ] (]) 07:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 07:58, 19 January 2020
| Skip to table of contents |
False positives and false negativesIf you believe that ClueBot NG has mistakenly identified a good edit as vandalism, please follow the directions in the warning it gave or click here. Please do not report it on this talk page. It takes less time to report the case to the correct location, and we can handle it more effectively there.If you believe that ClueBot NG has missed an edit that is vandalism, again do not report it here. ClueBot is unable to catch all vandalism. Just revert the edit and warn the editor. ClueBot NG Links!Report False Positives • Frequently Asked Questions Purpose of this PageThis page is for comments on or questions about the ClueBots.
The current status of ClueBot NG is: Running
The current status of ClueBot III is: Not running - last edit was User talk:Bgsu98 28701s ago
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 link above each section to edit that section.
This page is automatically archived by ClueBot III.
The ClueBots' owner or someone else who knows the answer to your question will reply on this page.
Template:Archive box collapsible
| ClueBots | |
|---|---|
| ClueBot NG/Anti-vandalism · ClueBot II/ClueBot Script |  |
| ClueBot III/Archive · Talk page for all ClueBots |
 | Beware! This user's talk page is monitored by talk page watchers. Some of them even talk back. |
CBNG IRC relay is down
@Rich Smith and DamianZaremba: West.andrew.g reports that the ClueBot NG IRC relay has been down for two days, affecting tools that rely on it. Could you have a look? —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 14:38, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Automated Removal Of Tareq Salahi Posting, Reverting To Incorrect Content
My edit was not unencyclopedic. It was in line with the content on the Misplaced Pages article describing the breach that this person was involved in. It wasn’t loaded. It wasn’t particularly negative although it was factual. According to Misplaced Pages, this person was involved in the security breach. Whether that was good or bad was not something I alluded to. Only to mention they were involved. If there truly was a problem, why not indicate how to make the correct content fall within Misplaced Pages guidelines rather than just throwing stones? With certainty, what is there currently is not correct.
Also, you never spoke to the fact that this bot claims to do routine tedious edits. Deciding that something is “loaded” or “negative” is not a routine edit. I never said that it was bad that they were involved in the breach. It’s 100% factual and not negative. Do we need to go to the 2009 page covering the breach and remove the facts posted there?
Why does this bot describe itself is making routine/tedious edits when it does much more? Simult2018 (talk) 07:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)