Wikipedia talk:Edit filter/False positives/Archive 3

Attempting to discuss editing a deleted page

While attempting to add onto the talk page for the deleted Wikipedia page for "Funnyjunk" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Funnyjunk) so as to discuss editing the page, I realized that my comment (including a rough draft for the Funnyjunk page I myself had typed) was unable to be added onto the talk page and a red box containing the text "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error." I then attempted to send the message to each of the users that had deleted the page to discuss with them why the page should be taken into serious consideration for creation, yet this too resulted in the appearance of the previously mention red text box. I am now reporting this error in hopes that it can be fixed or something can be done about this so that a proper Wikipedia page involving "Funnyjunk" can be taken into serious consideration. ModelNo19 (talk) 02:09, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

kipoonline.com world's largest entertainment portal

Kipoo Online History Overview

This website is designed especially on the prospect as to provide full information related to Kirtipur Valley, its inhabitants, culture, traditions and many more... In fact KIPOOONLINE.COM is also an entertainment portal whose full credit goes to Mr.Axis Maharjan. Kipoo Online is Aimed to satisy our surfers with all aspects that they ever wanted while surfing online. You Demand:We Fulfill , In other sense Kipoo Online is the prospect of providing an ultimate satisfaction to its customers. Our Services include Online gaming, Unlimited Free SMS , Worldwide Free Calls , PC tricks and hacks, Free Modelling, Free Domain with hosting, Chats, Glamour guff and many more stuffs and surprises ......on your way!!!

• • SOME IMPORTANT SPECIALITIES THAT YOU GET IN KIPOO ONLINE **

   Free SMS and Free Calls
   Software and Guest Rolls
   Online Radio and Live Chat
   Online Game and Utilities
   Career Plans and Funs
   Yellow Pages and Freebies 

   SLC result and Education Tools
   Jobs, Adverts, Web Information
   Forex, Converters and Shopping
   World Informations and Gadgets
   Web directory and Online Stuffs
   The Perfect Complete IT Solution 

KIPOO ONLINE - AXIS MHR Prior to being a Founder of KIPOO ONLINE , Axis brings over 3 years of web experience in the real web market. He is specialized in systems implementation, web customer contact management, marketing and closings. A passion for entertainment portal has led him to launch KIPOO ONLINE via worldwide web network. Originally from KIRTIPUR , he has a prior experience in web portal and now lives and works in Kathmandu. AXIS is a web fiend who happens to have a Controls in advanced web technology and a minor in Math (numerics). He is an alumnus of KIPOO ONLINE , Kirtipur and enjoys creating as well as consuming technology and solving interesting logistic problems. Enabling true online entertainment portal from Nepal might just be the mother of all logistic problems so of course he had to be involved. He single handedly coded KIPOO ONLINE from scratch on a dinky netbook because his Thinkpad broke (and no one in KTM could fix it) and in spite of all the power outages and internet downtimes and is very proud of it! For his next project he looks forward to coding with his hands tied behind his back and typing with his nose. Above all he enjoys meeting new and interesting peoples So if you send him an email at info@kipooonline.com He promises to answer it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kipooonline (talk • contribs) 12:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Category

This is not the place to report a false positive --- rrright. But this is maybe a place to tell you that you have this "article" categorized under "Greek loanwords." ??? (if you ever noticed) -andy 77.7.11.115 (talk) 06:37, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Indeed it is, and it's now fixed. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 06:51, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

UNDER THE LAWS OF WIKIPEDIA SWEARING IS ALLOWED TO SWEAR ONLY IF THEY HAVE PERMISSION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.101.108.104 (talk) 23:07, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

86.46.26.227 (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like to report a "false positive" in respect of me (86.46.26.227 (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)). I would also like to put on record that I think this particular filter is unfair. If I have not been reported for abuse or some such, why am I being blocked from editing. And why is the burden on me to somehow "prove" that I am "constrcutive". I am involved in a few discussions on Wikipedia. I am civilized and put foward my views in accordance with good faith Wikipedia prinicples. This particular issue arose from when I tried to post a response on Talk: Commonwealth of Nations. It seems unfair to me that in the absence of any report of abuse (or breach of rules), I am now being "put on trial" or some such. Please could: (1) the persons responsible lift this so called "filter ban"; and (2) the persons responsible explain why this "filter ban" has been applied to me. I am an IP editor and cannot edit on the article page here and so am posting this here in the discussion section. 86.46.26.227 (talk) 23:35, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not blocked from editing; the filter you tripped is configured to disallow edits that trip it. You can still edit. (Your filter log is a matter of public record, by the way.) —Jeremy v^_^v ^Bori! 04:00, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Puppies for babies

You can have a puppy for a baby just marry it and then your first 2 babies will be puppies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.60.13 (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Sectioning

Some of the sections in the false positives page are screwed up. They are level 2 headers instead of level 3. 71.146.10.213 (talk) 21:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit filter warning templates

Currently, there is only one edit filter warning templates being used; {{uw-attempt}} (a level 3 warning). Recently, I have created {{uw-attempt2}} and {{uw-attempt4}}. I would love it if someone took a look at the templates and maybe changed the words if needed. -- Cheers, Riley Huntley _talk 03:09, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Team

DENTON !

This team is made up of Dennis and Eton

They are to be Social Executives of their rugby team

They have there own company 'DENTON INC' which involves : Social Executive stuff, Colouring Books, Houses, Food / cakes, psychological shit.

They confirm there ideas by saying PLAN!

They are hilarious and love to drink

They are part of the 'Turtles' which are an amazing foursome which also include Dudley and Taffy

Team

DENTON !

This team is made up of Dennis and Eton

They are to be Social Executives of their rugby team

They have there own company 'DENTON INC' which involves : Social Executive stuff, Colouring Books, Houses, Food / cakes, psychological shit.

They confirm there ideas by saying PLAN!

They are hilarious and love to drink

They are part of the 'Turtles' which are an amazing foursome which also include Dudley and Taffy

Edit request on 7 June 2013

The song "Say You, Say Me" is in duet with Rasmus Seebach and not Jason Aldean. You can find confimation in the wikipedia page of Rasmus Seebach himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rasmus_Seebach). It's a small thing, but if you think that it is worth making the change, please do it. Sorry for my bad english. Thank you, Rosalinda Rosalilnda (talk) 22:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Note: The request appears to be misplaced. This page is for discussing Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives. Rivertorch (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Hasn't been archived

The page is getting very long. The notice at the top says that it's automatically archived, but it hasn't been. Can someone fix that? Thank you. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 05:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 July 2013

Just wanted to add a [Citation Needed] box for the Carl Rogers "reportedly said" quote in the Participatory Action Research article. I first entered a manual version, (no prob) but then saw the automated version a few paragraphs below and copy/pasted the html from there. Apparently I screwed up the html and can't see what I did wrong. 96.24.73.74 (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't see anything at Participatory Action Research that fits your description. Please post on the talk page for the article you tried to edit. RudolfRed (talk) 01:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The IP figured out and fixed it on T-groups. — Pseudonymous Rex (talk) 01:55, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion for allowing username to be edited

You should make it so if someone was reporting a false positive for some else they could put the user name in, so it wouldn't look like they did it. Breawycker (talk) 15:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

What do I do when there is a false positive?

There is a problem: i have been told that my edit is a false positive. What can i do? Man of the Middle Eastern Conflict (talk) 14:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, and I can't edit the article page, so I just have to put it on the talk page, hence: help. 62.235.141.139 (talk) 11:03, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Please report all false positives on the false positives page, as this is rarely checked. Reaper Eternal (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Understood: I will. 62.235.141.139 (talk) 21:02, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

wii

good grapics better then p.c — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.25.117.38 (talk) 06:00, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Report deleted without comment

Earlier today (Sep 20, 2014) I tried to add a short section to an article, but the edit was blocked by the filter, without explanation, and I was asked to report the problem here. I reported a false positive, under the (automatically generated) title "An automated filter has identified my edit as potentially unconstructive". I checked again now and see that my report has been deleted from this page, without explanation, but the section header remained. That is OK, because a while later I guessed that the problem was a markup typo, fixed it, tried the edit again, and it succeeded. I just fould it strange that my report was deleted without explanation. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 03:11, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Marking resolved and archives

Should reports that have been dealt with be marked {{resolved}}? It seems like it would make it a lot easier to tell which have been dealt with and which haven't. Also, the bot doesn't seem to be archiving anything after the 10 days it's set to. PhantomTech (talk) 02:40, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Almost 2 days now with no response, I'm assuming there aren't too many people that pay attention to this page so I'm going to start using tags but go ahead and post on here if you have an objection. The lack of archiving still seems to be a problem. PhantomTech (talk) 20:58, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I watch this page and occasionally respond to reports when I can see what changes the user was attempting, although often I can't see the changes, I assume because I don't have full access rights. I think tagging reports with {{resolved}} is a good idea. Just one question: should bad-faith reports (obvious attempts at vandalism) be deleted, or left to show that the filter is working? —Bruce1ee^talk 07:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Just remove bad-faith reports. If someone claims they were acting in good faith leave it and tell them why the filter stopped their edit, but if they leave little to no message and were obviously vandalising just remove it. Sam Walton (talk) 11:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bruce1ee: If the filter comes up on the list but it doesn't give you a filter number or let you view the details/examine then its not a public filter and you need the permission to see it. Sometimes when I look at a persons filter log there's nothing in it but if I come back a few hours later it has the log timestamped from before my first check, not sure if that's what you mean but I have no clue why that happens.

I think it's that I can only see the details of public filters. For example this filter log shows me it's filter 636 and I can open details/examine; but this log doesn't give the filter number and there is no details/examine to check. —Bruce1ee^talk 17:55, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

@Bruce1ee: Ya, that's from the private filters. Neither of us will be able to see them without getting the permission. PhantomTech (talk) 03:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 April 2015

On the page of Hobart Brown, remove "arriving in 1962 with his wife and two sons, he immediately opened the first of several Hobart galleries; the first in Eureka, California, others in Trinidad, and finally in Ferndale, California." Remove "Hobart had four children, three boys and one girl." Replace with "Hobart's first marriage was to Dink, and they had two children, Michael and Mark, with only a year between the births. Hobart's second marriage was to Margaret Lucille Schaub, and their first child, Justin Hobart Brown, was born January 12, 1965. A daughter, Emily Elizabeth Hobart Brown, was born June 12, 1968. Both Justin and Emily were born in Eureka, California. Their residence moved from Eureka to Ferndale when Justin was nine months old. Karent763 (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

 Not done as you are in the wrong place, since this page is only to discuss improvements to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives.
If you want to suggest a change, please request this on the talk page of the relevant article in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".
Please also cite reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 08:52, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I posted a report abuse, but can’t reply to the comment?

Why is this page semi-protected? Most reports come from IP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8420:508D:CC00:56E6:FCFF:FEDB:2BBA (talk) 00:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I got a false positive

I tried to make an edit to Hydro One, but I got an error message "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error." I can't change the page it links to.. only this one. For reference (since I can't save the other page) this is what I added:

Fuck Her Right In The Pussy Controversy

An employee of Hydro One, Shawn Simoes, was reportedly terminated from the company due to his comments related to the "fuck her right in the pussy" meme. Critics note he did not actually say this phrase.

When are problems addressed?

Hi there, I reported a false positive about 12 hours ago, and am still unable to get past the "disallow" when attempting to edit my talk page. Is there a time frame for fixing there problems? Can I expect to be able to edit my talk page within the next few days, or...? Thanks much, Petarchan47 174.71.67.48 (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Reporting on behalf of another editor (AGAIN)

The instructions on reporting are entirely based upon a user self-reporting a false positive. They make no allowance for another editor reporting it as I did just now at Wikipedia:Edit_filter/False_positives/Reports#Gazal.world. This problem was reported 6 years ago by Mjroots at Wikipedia talk:Edit filter/False positives/Archive 1#Reporting on behalf of another editor?. Nothing appears to have been done in the meantime to address the issue.

Since many filters are targeted at new users who wouldn't have a clue about edit filters let alone false positives or the reporting mechanism, this is not a trivial matter. Bazj (talk) 11:56, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Bumping thread. Bazj (talk) 22:53, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: Sorry, only just saw this. I agree that some capability for reporting for another user would be good, though you could create the section manually with the appropriate sub-headings? I guess we'd need some template work to make a good 'reporting for someone else' section. Sam Walton (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Samwalton9, I guess an alternate version of Template:Falsepositive/Preload that was fed a username rather than using {{subst:currentuser}}. But, given that my report which pointed out a fault in the edit filter process (edit filter using an inaccurate diff) sank into the archives without any comment, I'm not seeing any point to the false positive process at the moment, and certainly won't be wasting any more time on it. Bazj (talk) 17:23, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bazj: It is very understaffed, I've been making an effort to get to more of them but we really just need more editors willing to look into it. Sam Walton (talk) 17:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Samwalton9, Given only 1300 admins, Given the hostile attitude many admins seem to have letting non-admins anywhere near edit filters shown in last autumn's discussions about the new EF guidelines, and Given the proportion likely to be acquainted or comfortable with regexes... that's a vanishingly small pool to draw on. Good luck! Bazj (talk) 20:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

windings

when i treid to put (🕈♓■♑⬧♎♓■♑⬧) (The name of the font written in that font)in the Wingdings page it went like NO NO YOU WONT BE DOING THAT i know there is a ban because of symbols like ✈🗏🗏 (Q33) and 卐 (often confused as swastica) but if the font itself uses these kind of symbols there should be a lift is didnt even let me save SuperCofee (talk) 16:34, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

\ggg

ggg — Preceding unsigned comment added by ANOn0109897 (talk • contribs) 16:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

Does anyone actually watch this page?

So when will I know if I can ask questions on the ref desk? 74.12.214.104 (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

food

Have you ever edited something on here and them say it was unconstructed. Katherine cambre (talk) 01:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

INCORRECT USE OF FILTERS

I have tried updating a character in EastEnders and adding the following source. [1] It won't allow me to do it and it keeps saying it is unconstructive. I don't see how this is so. It needs to be corrected. I would have posted this on the main page but it is semi-protected and extremely hard to navigate.82.47.191.23 (talk) 16:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It is still doing it. When is it going to be sorted?82.47.191.23 (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

@NawlinWiki: Why did you add Sonia Fowler and Natalie Cassidy to Filter 58? Dragons flight (talk) 17:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sonia visited the Doctor who was the character mentioned in the page to examine a lump on her breast. It was not allowing me to add the update. I have now worked out how to use this page and have reported the false unconstructive correction.82.47.191.23 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I have reported the error so why is it still not allowing me to edit?82.47.191.23 (talk) 11:21, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Archiving of unaddressed entries

Surely entries here that haven't been responded to shouldn't be archived? For example nobody has responded to the report that I made on 5 May, and the problem that I reported means that I continually have to ask other editors to make edits on my behalf, so this should stay on the list for however long it takes before someone competent has a look at it, not be archived after an arbitrary number of days. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 07:40, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Radiohead

Official sources cite that the band "Radiohead" and its alleged members do not exist.

Article flagged for deletion.

For further information please contact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.163 (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2016

I am submitting my request for UN productive edit and falsification of positive.--DivisionalB (talk) 23:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —k6ka 🍁 (Talk · Contributions) 13:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

False Positive Report Comments accidentally/bug? moved from "4567L" to "14.200.91.233"

I'm not sure how, but the comments from "4567L" somehow ended up pushed down under "14.200.91.233". I didn't see anything about them while completing the False Positive Report template. Is an admin able to please move those comments back to "4567L"? I should have previewed... Thank you. 14.200.91.233 (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2016 (UTC)

JuanVb

User: Juanvb

Page you were editing Hyperloop Makers UPV Description Added a photo but didn't let me upload it, it doesn't says why. Date and time 15:21, 18 August 2016 (ETC)

Please, let me upload the photo or tell me what's wrong.Juanvb (talk) 13:21, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Unanswered reports

A number of reports made to this page are going unanswered, such as one made by 12.199.206.98 (talk · contribs) about the folk song Shoo Fly, Don't Bother Me. An ip had removed instances of a certain racial epithet. Well intentioned no doubt, but in ignorance of WP:UNCENSORED. The edit left the song lyrics incomplete. When the 12.199.206.98 tried to revert it, he got the warning, presumably because he was seen as adding the epithet. He reported it here, but no action was taken. Can a registered user look into this and restore the missing epithet, which is somewhat crucial to the understanding of the song? 77.96.115.138 (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Unanswered reports

A number of reports made to this page are going unanswered, such as one made by 12.199.206.98 (talk · contribs) about the folk song Shoo Fly, Don't Bother Me. An ip had removed instances of a certain racial epithet. Well intentioned no doubt, but in ignorance of WP:UNCENSORED. The edit left the song lyrics incomplete. When the 12.199.206.98 tried to revert it, he got the warning, presumably because he was seen as adding the epithet. He reported it here, but no action was taken. Can a registered user look into this and restore the missing epithet, which is somewhat crucial to the understanding of the song? 77.96.115.138 (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 September 2016

In section 173.230.190.22, notify that the message is a false positive in comments.

86.22.8.235 (talk) 18:48, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. -- samtar ^{talk or stalk} 07:23, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Bairavaa (tamil flim) Box office report

Bairavaa(tamil flim) box office WW gross 100cr(4 days) it news announced by vijaya production house officially please correct it

check official 100cr poster from vijaya production house and sri green production (distributor official Twitter pages Vasanthdon1995 (talk) 09:32, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Rajmohan Pillai arrested

http://m.ndtv.com/kerala-news/kerala-businessman-rajmohan-pillai-arrested-for-allegedly-raping-help-1720686?pfrom=home-topstories ClueBot III (talk) 04:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shangi (talk • contribs) 06:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

New template

@General Ization, MRD2014, Cyp, QEDK, Od Mishehu, and Crow: pinging recent FP responders. I created a template at {{effp}} in order to help with the navigation of this page. It can get pretty long and make it difficult for others to quickly discern a difference between the reports that require attention and those that don't. It's basically used like this:

== Header ==
{{effp|f}}

[ REPORT ]

{{effp}}

The first usage requires a parameter, basically how you responded to the report. It can take f or fixed for fixed filters, d or done for when you do an edit for someone, nd or wf or not done or won't fix for the edit filter working properly (AGF), and v or deny or denied for vandalism. {{effp}} without parameters is considered the bottom. You can find examples here. Let me know if you think it will help or if you have any suggestions. (I did consider faster archiving, but I don't believe it should be too fast. 10 days is on the faster side for pages like this.) Nihlus 04:05, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• First impressions: I'm not sure that hatting the events upon closure is necessarily a benefit. I do like the idea of a disposition tag though (compare Template:SCV). On the "done" event, I would change "filter won't be fixed" to something that doesn't imply the filter was wrong or broken, something like "The edit that was blocked has now been made. No changes to the Filter were made." Crow^Caw 22:23, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Crow: My only reason for the "hatting" of sorts was to (1) shorten the length of the page and (2) make it easier for find the reports that don't have a response or require further attention. I'm not adamant that we keep it that way, though. One alternative would be to either archive sections quicker with a tool or just increase the pace at which the page is automatically archived. It's not my favorite idea, but it is an avenue to explore. A more thorough disposition tag would be beneficial as well, so I agree with that idea. Nihlus 22:42, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I would go with more of a {{RFPP}}-type template - we put one at the bottom of the request, with a clearly visible icon which gives a quick indication between variousd general categories, and an automatic text which gives more detail; the responding user can give more details after the template. Note that "Note" and "Question" are 2 categories at RFPP; these icons clerly give n indiction, to regular responders, that the issue id clearly unresolved and is waiting for a respomse by the reporting user. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:19, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Works for me. I'll start working on changing it over since this seems to be the way the EFMs want it. Thanks for the input! Nihlus 04:23, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

@Od Mishehu and Crow: How do these look? Any suggestions or alternatives you can think of? Nihlus 23:42, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Here are a few cases which I don'tr feel are handled adequately with your list:

1. Standard 733/803 cases (caused by edits to other users' namespaces), which I generally respond with text along the lines of "If you are [[User:Example]], feel free to log in and do the edit; otrherwise, pleae leave that page alone".
2. Cases which are clearly false positivs for the filters they hit, but weren't done for other reasos. For example, Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Archive 73#Therealbrewer, where I asked if there are any sources; and Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Archive 72#Lnealon, wher e I asked a user not to list pubs at List of pubs in London unless they have their own articles.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

• It seems handy, but it might make the page a bit harder to traverse for new filers, not that the content is much of their requirement. I think we could have a bot instead which sorts requests into sections: "Responded" and "Open", with Open requests listed at the top chronologically, and Responded acting as a rolling archive at the bottom of the page. That'd mean that open requests would get more attention but responded section would still get passerby scrutiny jic. The modifications required will be the pre-filled template, transclusion in the main page and a Cyberbot I +1 task. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 07:05, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  @QEDK: I think it would be best to go the route Od Mishehu mentioned. If we want Cyberbot to archive them based on the template usage like RFPP, we can go that route, or we can just increase the pace of the general archiving. Nihlus 18:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

  We can actually have both at the same time too. Depending on whether we find a willing botop, ofc. The RfPP method is fairly useful, instead here however, the rolling archive is in a different section, not a different page - but that isn't a big deal, whatever consensus determines will be fine. Either way, I'm pretty okay with all of these ideas, your colour coding too, though not much agreement with the hatting. --QEDK (愛 • 海) 19:24, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

list of tags on wikipedia

this is a tag we use on wikipedia since 1994 its one of the official ones listed here do NOT remove it until consensus its self explanatory read here what is written

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages) This article is written like a personal reflection or opinion essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings about a topic. (December 2017) This includes a list of references, related reading or external links, but its sources remain unclear because it lacks inline citations. (December 2017)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Maintenance_template_removal

you need to learn when to remove it .

79.54.104.53 (talk) 14:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

her sister is called Colombo from the info available not link at all to nobility for this name

she is listed at a modeling agency called marylin promoting lingerie

she claims XYZ descent its totally irrelevant as about 20 other people have the same name to drop not notable

DO NOT REMOVE THE REFERENCES THIS PAGE IS RESERVED TO TALK ABOUT THE SUBJECT AND HIGHLIGHT REFERENCES AND LINKS AD YOUR COMMENTS AT THE END IN A CIVILIZED MATHER YOU CAN SAY I DONT AGREE BUT YOU CAN NOT REMOVE THE TEXT FOR THE FREE SPEECH HERE TALK PAGE 79.54.104.53 (talk) 15:01, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This is not a place for "free speech". WP:BLPTALK applies, which means unless you have a source to verify your very questionable claims, they will be removed.

Also, please consider using full sentences. Primefac (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

sure we can ad all the reference to prove this is available no issue here THIS IS A TALK PAGE AS THE NAME RELATES TO ITS MORE THAN CLEAR LETS TALK ABOUT IT

we find about 200 references here not taken into account in the article here is the first one: on one hand the article says about a relation to this guy though we only find references about a drug addict and transexual pervert arrest several time for making up stories.....

http://www.gay.it/attualita/news/la-trans-che-ha-salvato-lapo http://www.repubblica.it/esteri/2016/11/29/news/lapo_elkann_arrestato_a_new_york-153055827/ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/fiat-magnate-agnellis-only-son-found-dead-at-bridge-of-suicides-622932.html http://www.marieclaire.it/Attualita/interviste/Intervista-a-Cornelia-Brandolini-d-Adda-sorella-di-Bianca-cugina-di-Lapo-Elkann#1 https://www.google.it/search?biw=1366&bih=647&ei=dx0wWrrOFIXXU8_jovgI&q=lapo+elkann+raped+by+a+priest&oq=lapo+elkann+raped+by+a+priest&gs_l=psy-ab.3...7470.8531.0.9176.7.7.0.0.0.0.96.621.7.7.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.0.0....0.Y1jvzcArE6Q http://metro.co.uk/2016/11/30/heir-to-fiat-fortune-faked-his-own-kidnapping-by-transgender-prostitute-6292615/

semme that we are looking at a team duo of 2 transexuals one is jewish the other one is brazilian constantly making up and inventing stories ? according to the finding , is this notable for wikipedia ? i dont thinck so wikipedia is not a place where any idot can invent stories and manipulate the media nor street news. nothing notable at all but articles relating to transexuals drugs and other lingerie or socialite ... ?

not even rich nor the only one linked to the auto group as both are listed no where as important shareholder about 30 persons ahead as share holders.

she sais she is the cousin of this name or this name , about number 25 in line here we can see her name is colombo ? she is maried to colombo ? why dont you just ad this is its shamefull for a snob pretending to be royalty ?

what about incest is this legal or morally notable ? well since 1945 the church and the state forbids incest a as crime ... WELL FOR THIS DUO WE ONLY FIND REFERENCES TO PROSTITUTION ; DRUGS; TRANSSEXUALS, INCEST AND MAKING UP STORIES IN SOCIAL CIRCLES SEEMS THE FATHER THERE IS WORKING WITH THE MEDIA AS A JOURNALIST THIS EXPLAINS THIS NOT NOTABLE WE HAVE TO MANY TRANS AND DRUG ADDICTS ALREADY PLEASE CORRECT OR ADJUST OR CHANGE ATTITUDE ALSO THIS DUO CLAIMS ABOUT BEEING RAPED BY A PRIES ITS NOT GOOD TO MAKE UP STORIES NOR FAKE THAT KIND OF PROBLEMS THE GOOD GUY WHO APPARENTLY HAD A MENTAL CONDITION I KNOW WELL EDUARDO ELKANN HAD A KIND OF DEMENTIA ONE CAN SEE THIS IN THE VIDEOS PROBABLY A GOOD GUY BUT THIS DUO THEY SEEM RELATIVELY NORMAL JUST MANIPULATING THE MEDIA AND PEOPLE AROUND FOR NONSENSE OR MAFIA TYPE REASONING http://www.thedrive.com/polizei144/6220/fiat-heir-lapo-elkann-arrested-for-allegedly-faking-a-kidnapping THEY ABUSE TOTALLY MEDIA AND PEOPLE AND THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE IN EUROPE ALSO SEEM THAT THEY MOVED TO HOLLAND ANOTHER LIE OR INSULT TO THE ITALIAN PEOPLE ONE MORE TIME THIS GUY WILL CONTINUE THIS STUPID GAME HE WILL FACE THE CONSEQUENCES IN PUBLIC AND BOTH WILL BE ARRESTED IN PUTEN IN A PSYCHIATRIC CLINIC FOR TREATMENT

could you double check if this brazilian girl is not a transexual ? seems so from the references ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.109.193 (talk) 18:03, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

79.54.104.53 (talk) 16:32, 12 December 2017 (UTC) 95.232.109.193 (talk) 18:07, 12 December 2017 (UTC

Sainthwar

Don't write indian peasant..... Sahastrawar (talk) 19:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any reply Sahastrawar (talk) 17:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear what you're asking, Sahastrawar. Does it have something to do with Wikipedia's edit filters? If not, you're posting to the wrong page. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Sainthwar

I am talking about the Wikipedia page content of sainthwar ....that is the content given in it are wrong Sainthwar are not the peasants they are the warriors and the prominent kshatriya of eastern up Sahastrawar (talk) 14:11, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

User talk:173.227.169.66

Please report the false positive on this page: Attempting to remove an incorrectly issued warning per WP:BITE. 92.10.182.248 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This is not the page for reporting false positives. The correct page is Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, which is not protected. You can also click the banner that says "Click here to report a false positive" to add a false positive report. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Protection

This is crazy, new editors need to be able to edit this page, that is the entire point of this page. Way to treat newcomers and IPs. 92.10.182.248 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: This is on the wrong page, see above. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:20, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Bug

Tim Ryan (politician) I made each correction separately to det which exact change was causing the problem. I have not had this problem (correcting the congress param) elsewhere. Unfortunately, your report is showing an unknown IP instead of 2600:1008:B152:664B:8C2A:6212:4E4B:C2F2 (talk) 15:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Noindex the archives?

I just went ahead and added __NOINDEX__ to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports (it was already on Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives). Should we perhaps noindex all 89 archives as well, via MediaWiki:robots.txt? Lots of crazy stuff gets posted here. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Explain 'false positive'

An explanation or definition of the term should be easy to find. I didn't see one. 5.34.90.120 (talk) 10:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• False positive? This is the wikipedia internal page, not the page for the actual false positives. ^{[Username Needed]} 18:42, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Removed the warning from the header

I've WP:BOLDly removed the warning from Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Header, even though it's been there for years:

Stepping back and pretending that I am a new user, this reads like:

Perhaps it could be toned back a bit, but I'm not sure a warning is really needed. {{Falsepositive/Editintro}} has similar, but friendlier language, and if a troll or vandal wants to self-report, let them. It only takes one click to revert their self-report, and it sometimes helps us find other vandalism that slipped past the filter. I'd like to leave the warning out for a week or so, and see what happens. So long as we are all on the same page about actually removing bad-faith reports, I don't think there will be problem. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Warning header

Original post (revived from archives)

I've WP:BOLDly removed the warning from Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Header, even though it's been there for years:

Stepping back and pretending that I am a new user, this reads like:

Perhaps it could be toned back a bit, but I'm not sure a warning is really needed. {{Falsepositive/Editintro}} has similar, but friendlier language, and if a troll or vandal wants to self-report, let them. It only takes one click to revert their self-report, and it sometimes helps us find other vandalism that slipped past the filter. I'd like to leave the warning out for a week or so, and see what happens. So long as we are all on the same page about actually removing bad-faith reports, I don't think there will be problem. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Later comments

Suffusion of Yellow, I think the header serves a purpose and allows us to fall back on precedent when it comes to removing bad faith reports. While it could be written a little better, I strongly insist that it stay.

The second one is the revised message. Let me know if that works. Nihlus 19:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I support the removal of that from the header. The user reporting has likely already gotten the message of MediaWiki:Abusefilter-disallowed or similar (and so knows about blocking), and I think any more stern orange messages would only discourage genuine false positive reports rather than any vandals (users are also shown Template:Falsepositive/Editintro too). We don't need the header to remove bad-faith reports - certainly its removal a few weeks ago hasn't prevented people from removing those. Galobtter (pingó mió) 19:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Galobtter, how the message is displayed is irrelevant to me, but I still believe it should be displayed one way or another. I also highly doubt it is turning people away from the page if they are genuinely trying to report the FPs. In the end, it's not hurting anything and is likely helping in more ways than one. Nihlus 20:06, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I can't see how it is helping, personally. And people are discouraged by big (scary) orange messages. Galobtter (pingó mió) 20:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

how the message is displayed is irrelevant to me... Nihlus 20:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 @Nihlus: What if we went about this a different way, with something like:

And make that link blue. I think the message that needs to be communicated is not "your troll post will be removed" (as I said, it only takes click, plus we often find other vandalism that wasn't filtered), but "please remove troll posts". We can put that in the instructions, along with the general steps of investigating a FP, and won't BITE newbies with scary warnings about "scrutiny". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, I don't think that is a good angle. The point of the message is to communicate to the user that, yes, we will be looking at their edits beyond what they are reporting. It's helpful for them to know that. DS notices are much scarier than this, so I don't really think my version is biting. Nihlus 20:15, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

We look at the edits of people who post to ANI, but I don't think it would be helpful to link to WP:BOOMERANG from the editnotice. Indeed "look at their other edits and decide what they're up to" is just common practice all throughout Wikipedia, and I don't think we need to say "you are being watched" until we think the user has actually done something wrong. The entire premise of this page is that the user may have not done anything wrong. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I think you are reading too much into this. Also, similar wording is used at WP:AN3. Nihlus 20:49, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Well, I'm trying imagine what a brand-new user (who may have heard stories about evil block-happy admins, etc.) would read into it. That's difficult if not impossible, so maybe I am overthinking this. I'd like to see what others have to say, but unfortunately it looks like most people (871 vs 197) are watching the redirect Wikipedia talk:Edit filter/False positives/Reports instead of this page. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 21:04, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

While I'm okay with removing the bitey message completely, I think the changed message Nihlus has put looks alright; although we can completely remove the "may cause you to be blocked". Lourdes 06:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'd also prefer using {{notice}} rather than {{warning}} Galobtter (pingó mió) 07:32, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Move this talk page?

Should we perhaps move Wikipedia talk:Edit filter/False positives to Wikipedia talk:Edit filter/False positives/Reports? As I mentioned above, this page has 197 watchers (including 20 who have visited recent edits), while the other page has 871 watchers (including 160 who have visited recent edits). I get the feeling that some of the "regulars" are not following discussions here, because nothing interesting ever happens at the semi-protected Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives page, so there is no reason to watch it. Regardless of what we decide about the warning, I still think we should create a Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Instructions page, but without greater participation, it would just be a few of us telling everyone else what to do. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree that it would be beneficial to swap the pages. No opinion on the instructions page yet. Nihlus 02:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Template

Since we have some newer faces on this page, I figured I would resurrect an old but never used template of mine so that others could potentially get some use out of it. It can be found at {{effp}}. It should make it easier to respond to some of the requests. Feel free to make improvements or put forward some suggestions if you have any. This was discussed in 2017, but nothing really came of it then. Pinging some people who may not be aware of it (Galobtter, Suffusion of Yellow, DannyS712). Here are some example:

• Fixed
• Fixed by edit filter manager Galobtter.
• Done – The edit for this report has been implemented, however no changes to the filter were made.
• Done – The edit for this report has been implemented here, however no changes to the filter were made.
• Declined – Edits were vandalism.
• User blocked – Example (talk • contribs) blocked by Galobtter.
• Checking with the edit filter managers to see if changes need to be made.
• Consider requesting on the article's talk page; please provide the necessary references.
• Not done – The filter is working properly.
• Question: question
• Note: note

Icons and whatnot can be changed if we want something else, of course. Nihlus 02:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I added some other examples --DannyS712 (talk) 02:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll make the doc page eventually, but this works for now. Nihlus 02:21, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Looks good. As was said in the other thread, it'd also be nice to cover cases where edit is  Not done for reasons other than vandalism. Sometimes it's nauseating UPE garbage, or sometimes it's just a matter of "you have source for that?". It might be helpful to distinguish between those cases where the filter probably can't be fixed (e.g. vulgar song titles from non-notable bands), or those where it can (e.g., I saw a recent spammy hit on the name "Blahnik" ... filter could perhaps be refined, even if the edit shouldn't be made). Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 03:47, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, do you think those should be handled specifically by the template though? I think the question and note options allows some flexibility, as it is hard to be all-encompassing for some of the nonsense that comes through on the page. Nihlus 04:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nihlus: I think it would nice to be able to skim the page and skip past all the "nothing more to do here" cases. Not sure what the best breakdown is, but I guess an "Edit not made, but filter needs modifying", and an "Edit not made and filter does not need modifying", along with an eye-catching icon for each would do the trick. I'm not suggesting we need a separate option for COI, BLP issues, unsourced, etc. Obviously in those case communicating with the user is needed; the template is just for EFMs and other "clerks". Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 04:30, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, I see. So you want something that visually communicates issues to EFMs that might be looking at the page? I normally just ping the ones who have edited the filter, but it could help to bring in some other EFMs. I'll see if there are any icons that work. Nihlus 04:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

How does this look?

• Not done though a change to the filter may be needed.

It would be the only orange one so it would stick out. Not sure about the wording though. Nihlus 04:39, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Looks good enough for now. I've thought of another case: "Edit made, and a change to the filter may be needed". Sometimes editor (A) doesn't know a regex from reggae, but knows the edit is good and wants to help, so makes it. Editor (B) (not an EFM) might want work out a fix and only ping an EFM if needed. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 05:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, update. Let me know if that works. The shading on the icons is a little different, so I might just use the same one for both. Nihlus 05:12, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks good the way it is. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Looks useful, thanks. I was going to suggest you add the responses to the edit notice but it looks like you've already done that Galobtter (pingó mió) 06:14, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Also {{effp|p}} or {{effp|private}} produces:

Private – One or more of the filters triggered are private, and the request needs to be evaluated by an edit filter helper or manager.

--DannyS712 (talk) 20:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

@Nihlus: Perhaps the editnotice should be wrapped in a <div class="autoconfirmed-show">, to avoid adding clutter for (most) people who are just reporting false positives. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 22:26, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Suffusion of Yellow, done. Nihlus 01:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Blocked restoring 2019 Iran floods

Tried to restore 2019 Iran floods but got blocked: "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, so it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error. Disruptive editing may result in a block from editing." --83.250.4.180 (talk) 09:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This is not the place to report false positives, you probably want WP:AF/FP, not WT:AF/FP. Gangster8192 01:02, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Non-filter-maintainer/non-admin editor declining

Is it possible for an editor (Like me) to decline incredibly obvious vandalism? I.e. the most recent request, from 217.158.134.47, which shows them tripping multiple public filters, all trips being vandalism upon examination. --moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 11:05, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

@Moonythedwarf: yes, non-admins can help here :) DannyS712 (talk) 20:52, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit on olaso house

I want to change the current article as isn’t accurate and it’s a false promotion of Olaso family not currently based on real facts exaggerating some parts and delivery doing the timeline confusing Ivaninovuelven (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bestiality_by_country_or_territory

The image of the map with countries color coded to what their legality on beastiality needs to be changed for Iceland. It used to say it was legal, but it's illegal so I've edited the part where it said that in the list of countries. I dont know how to edit the image so Iceland will be color coded to the color of Illegal.

Also in the list of countries Iceland needs a red cross emoji next to the text where it says its illegal. My account is too new so I cant do it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_bestiality_by_country_or_territory Peanutbtr (talk) 12:34, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

This is the image map thats needs to be updated: https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Legality_of_zoophilia_by_country_or_territory.svg#mw-jump-to-license Peanutbtr (talk) 12:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Cenk Uygur

Was trying to remove vandalism in the Cenk Uygur article claiming he is a (Armenian presumably) genocide denier. This has been a repeated and disproven comment by extreme right wing groups for years. While he may have made some claims against that in the '90s, he has recanted that belief numerous times. Considering his political affiliations and to election tomorrow this is probably inspired by the current political insanity in the United States. 142.116.198.96 (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021

tired to add As of July 28, 2020, due to the DTV spectrum repack happening across North America, CKAL-DT has moved from UHF 49 to UHF 20. The PSIP number remains as 5.1. 68.145.143.186 (talk) 05:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:53, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2021 (2)

Gabriele Pusvaškytė (b. 1967) former President, tiesiog populiari, gamer Melioniukas (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 06:54, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

New shortcuts for WP:EF/FP/A

This is probably a better place to ask since WP:EF/FP/A has no talk page.

I have added a new shortcut, WP:EF/FP/A, for the archive page. Might I suggest adding the relative template to the archive page as well? Regards, User:TheDragonFire300. (Contact me | Contributions). 06:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Join the list of prominent persons

I wish to add my name in the Wikipedia list of prominent Tandons. I have a username as well as a password. But can’t proceed further. Please help. Thanks and best regards Ashok Tandon KAIYANT (talk) 07:14, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

KAIYANT, we do not want you to add yourself (or write about yourself in general). GeneralNotability (talk) 18:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Michael Cerullo

Michael Cerullo should be added to notable alumni to masconomet HS. He is a super bowl 44 winning coach with the New Orleans Saints and currently a director of executive operations for the NFL the National Football League. He coached Corey Johnson who is listed as an alumni here. Billysmith21 (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Rian Mileti Page

The links were shown to be dead and I updated them and received an error message Sc!encey (talk) 20:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2021

2A01:4C8:C85:8F0D:B482:A084:9720:B91C (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

The information on this page is totally wrong can you please block this page as soon as possible

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. firefly ( t · c ) 10:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Edit request: protection icon

Please add the protection lock icon template to this page. -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 00:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done -- John of Reading (talk) 10:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

No option to provide an edit summary for the "Click here to report a false positive" link

The "Click here to report a false positive" link in Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives does not allow editors to provide an edit summary which led to my making an edit without an edit summary. I would like to be able to provide an edit summary when I make these posts. Would it be possible to give editors the option of adding an edit summary when clicking on the link? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 10:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Ugh - I just tested this here and it didn't add it (can confirm). There goes my streak... 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:37, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps removing the "nosummary" portion of the URL would work? Not sure. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 00:39, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

No, removing "nosummary" just creates a new section heading with what's in the field. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Tada! Fixed the link so that it now automatically adds an edit summary. While I was doing that, I also set the editnotice to always show for non-autoconfirmed users, and always show when you click on the "new report" link (once!) 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(by the way, you can't edit the edit summary, but I think that's a fair tradeoff.) 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 02:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Message error

I created a correct talk topic, after trying to edit it I got an error message. Writewizard (talk) 10:42, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

New template param option: redlink / r

I've noticed that a lot of the time when someone trips the "notable people" filter, we decline in a way that isn't a very accurate representation of policy. Specifically, many responders tend to say simply "'Notable people' lists are only for subjects with articles" or something like that, which is not actually true. Inclusion criteria for such lists are decided on a per-article basis, and it's a presumption that subjects without articles should not be listed, but not a universality. Furthermore, I think we're often missing a good opportunity to encourage people to go write the article first. (In many cases that'll be a draft that gets speedy-rejected, but in some it won't!)

So, I've created a new option for {{EFFP}}: {{EFFP|redlink}} or {{EFFP|r}}, which renders as follows:

Not done – In general, "notable people" lists and similar are only meant for people who already have articles about them. If you think this person meets our notability guidelines, please see Help:Your first article. If you think an exception should be made here, please discuss the matter on the article's talk page.

Thoughts? Courtesy ping Blaze Wolf, whom I've been seeing do a lot of these declines lately. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 00:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Looks good, although there is also the issue with article creation being a really challenging part of Wikipedia and encouraging IPs and new users (the people I mainly see here, with the occasionally long-term editor who got caught in the filter) isn't always the best idea, as I've learned from answering Teahouse questions. However I can't think of a way to rephrase it to suggest something else. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 00:36, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's suboptimal to direct newer users toward article creation, but I think it's unfair to not make clear to them that they have that option. We could add in something like "after familiarizing yourself with Wikipedia a bit", but I don't want the message to run to long. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 01:02, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Tamzin: Actually, doesn't YFA recommend users to get more experience with Wikipedia first? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 01:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Preload messed up?

Hey! I noticed that recently, the requests have been partially malformed with some bare code appearing. I wonder if this has something to do with the preload? Either that or people are just screwing up and editing stuff they aren't supposed to. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly it always seems to be {{#ifeq: {{lc:yes}} | yes ||==USERNAME==}}. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:42, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: I would assume all the tests you are doing are you fixing this? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Hiya @Blaze Wolf! Yes, they have been. I've fixed it, but please let me know if it's not working again. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 22:43, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@EpicPupper: Will do! I just noticed that there had been several malformed reports recently and I doubted it was just that all those users were editing stuff they weren't supposed to. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 22:45, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Bot bugged

Hello! So I recently noticed that the bot has been adding the incorrect page to the report when the page is missing. I've let the bot operator know about this and have provided them with 4 diffs (at the time of writing this) where I've noticed that the bot added the wrong page. Just figured I'd let you guys know about this. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 20:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Preload broke

Just figured I"d let everyone know that the move of Template:Falsepositive to Template:False positive broke the button that allows users to make a false positive report. I've gone ahead and fixed it by just adding a space to the code that pulls the preload upon clicking the button to anywhere where Template:Falsepositive occurs. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 18:21, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

@Blaze Wolf, thanks! 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 15:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Page structuring

So, what's the deal with the way we have set these pages up? Why do we have both Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives and Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports, when they are identical save for the fact that False positives has extra links and all the editing has to be done over at reports? —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 14:41, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

@Compassionate727: It's to force people to use the preload template, and discourage "free-form" reports. Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives is semi-protected, and there's no obvious link to Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives/Reports. But there is a big button which preloads Template:False positive/Preload. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 19:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

{{EFFP}} is missing an option

Out of the various options we can use in the {{EFFP}} template (which are used to instruct the EFFP clerking bot, thus it's always helpful to use them if possible), one useful option seems to be missing; "this is technically a false positive, but the edit was not done for other reasons, and changes to the filter are unlikely to be helpful". I'm not sure what the best wording or name for this would be (and the bot configuration would also need changing), so I'm not able to add it boldly. --ais523 12:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Bot waits and also template

Hello! So this is really 2 things in one. First, why does the bot wait several minutes (or hours) before archiving a report once a template to mark it as completed (whether or not the edit was made)? Second, could there be a template that notes that there were no filters triggered recently or at all (for IPs that just add a report to this page not knowing what its for)? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 16:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The bot's configuration is at User:MajavahBot/EFFP Helper Configuration. I assume the wait time is to give the reporter a chance to see the result of the report and to give other people a chance to double check how the report was handled if they'd like to. Personally, I think the wait times for completed reports that aren't vandalism are too short and should be somewhere around 36 hours to give the reporters a chance to check on the result of their report without needing to look through the page history or know how to. The archive is count based instead of time based which means a burst of reports, as sometimes happens when there is an issue with a filter, can cause relatively recent reports to be pushed out. Archives are also slightly more difficult to find and get to than the page the report was made on and, since reports tend to be from users who aren't experienced because many filters exclude autoconfirmed users, it's possible there are many users who are able to find their way back to where the report was made to check on it but not to the archive. PhantomTech[talk] 20:04, 8 September 2022 (UTC)