User:ClueBot Commons/Praise

Praise

HOW DID YOU DO THIS??? Mind = blown Helicopter Llama 17:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I did a quick joke edit as a breaching experiment (I know, I know, I won't do it again) and ClueBot caught it and reverted it immediately. I'm extremely impressed. Cluebot has made wikipedia even more resilient to vandalism. Great job everyone involved in the creation and maintenance of Cluebot! --Ex-Troll Scientist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.61.18 (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you ClueBot, you beat me to correcting the page I watch (and often under attack) Linton Village College by one minute and is much appreciated. Fantastic work. Madmkh

Praise to the mighty ClueBot, for once more fighting vandalism on the Springfield High School (Springfield, Ohio) page. I have sworn to protecting it and I thank you for once more assisting in its defense. Again, thank you. --: SHWildcats 03:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpringfieldHighWildcats (talk • contribs)

Thanks for continued vigilance on the broccoli page. Why are vandals so fascinated by vegetables? I sure appreciate the work. Phytism (talk) 15:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping vandalism on Malik (Bihar)page.I try to put in in safe list but failed than i dishearted and stop my research and seeing no point if anyone vandalize my page and wikipedia don't do a thing if his ip address always the same.But people like you to save our trust on wikipedia.thanks again

Thank you to ClueBot NG for fixing vandalism on Boer. I'm a Wiki newbie and don't know if the vandalism was virus-related, or maybe related to a teenager accessing my computer at home. Does the addition of this rude phrase look like something a virus might do? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boer&diff=415433912&oldid=415408995 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.39.88.116 (talk) 02:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank You Very Much for reverting vandalism to John Goodsall and Brand X! Have a great day ~ j goodS

Thanks for hitting that vandal over the Himati page. :) Sam Sanchez 18:16, 6 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by S5switch (talk • contribs)

Argggg it did it again :(. I dont suppose that you could put like a 2 minute delay on this thing. Then I could feel useful :) Apart from that though, GO CLUEBOT --Benboy00 (talk) 14:45, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Dang, ClueBot NG is amazing — it catches vandalism that other bots could only dream of detecting. I originally predicted that bots would detect 50% of all vandalism by 2030, but it looks like I was off by a whopping two decades! :-) Oh, and it beats me to the edit almost every time. :o --Ixfd64 (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Should I consider this a challenge to meet your 2056 prediction? Crispy1989 (talk) 07:01, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think were going to have to wait that long. :D --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Of course, we could have a >99.9% detection rate by making the bot revert every edit from a non-whitelisted user, but the false positive rate would be a tad high, wouldn't it? --Ixfd64 (talk) 07:07, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The false positive rate is configurable — vandalism catch rate depends on it. Current false positive rate is 0.25%, which seems reasonable. It may end up being lowered, but is unlikely to be raised. At this rate, we are currently catching about 60% of vandalism. 99.9% isn't a realistic goal, because some borderline edits really should have a human decide. But maybe we can get close. Crispy1989 (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this bot pop up on my watchlist, as I understand it, it seems likley that when completed it will be able to catch and revert upto 70% of the vandalism on wikipedia within 0.02 seconds with a 0.5% false positive rate? <---- That's a very exciting prospect, great work! Ajbpearce (talk) 21:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it can already catch 70% of vandalism, with a 0.5% false positive rate, and the core operates in 0.02 seconds. However, the false positive rate was lowered to 0.25% (at which it catches around 60% of vandalism) and may be lowered still. Also, 0.02 seconds is how long it takes the core to classify an edit as vandalism. The interface to Wikipedia takes most of the time, and can add up to several seconds to this. Crispy1989 (talk) 00:53, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this bot. It seems quite more aggressive than previous bots, and that's a great thing. With the amount of vandalism we see, I much rather have the occasional false positive than scale back the triggers. --CutOffTies (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Re. User talk:82.1.67.40: May I thank you for the immediate and extremely necessary, sensible, competent and (as I personally believe) nationally useful (in fact extremely useful and sensible in all respects including international) immediate removal on 18 November of the remarkably non-substantiated comment provided by the person or persons as named under 'User talk' address above, and also for your explanation and suggestions on this same talk page. You may be interested to know (if any of you should have the time or the interest) that I myself have added a further comment to the talk page in question (User talk:82.1.67.40). WELL DONE WIKIPEDIA will be the ultimate verdict, or so I believe. It remains to be seen. If you want further information I shall be pleased to provide it to you (by email or by post, contact peter.judge@laposte.net). Thanks for that which you have so WELL in fact MAGNIFICENTLY done. I find it difficult to explain fully my gratitude but a step will now I can assure you be a contribution in financial terms to Wikipedia by myself, even if I am afraid it must be rather modest. Au revoir, and good luck to you and Wikipedia. Peter Judge 22 November 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.17.96.225 (talk) 15:41, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

STOP. This is your last warning; the next time you beat me to vandalism on Wikipedia, you may be praised repeatedly without further notice. Ha.ha. Keep up the good work! ^Jguy_Talk^Done 21:11, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

After the introduction of ClueBot NG I have had noticeable less vandalism fighting to do, in fact so little it feels like I am almost out of a job as a vandalism fighter. Very nice job. Praise to all involved in the bot. --Saddhiyama (talk) 12:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I just cannot believe how advanced the bot is! I cannot believe that it reverts the edits almost instantly! It fascinates me! Does anyone here know how ClueBot works? Because I just cannot believe how advanced it is! Technology these days :D -UNpilot15

Holy... every time I try to revert vandalism... this bot always does it first!!what kind of steroids are you using? just kidding, great work on the bot guys, it really has made the wiki a cleaner place. XD0248 (talk)` —Preceding undated comment added 02:03, 15 December 2010 (UTC).

When I realized how much I relied on wikipedia I made a pledge to hand fix at least five acts of vandalism a day (That includes fact checking of minor date changes and similar issues). Problem is, you catch at least 3/5 of those right when I click on them! I click on the history, see obvious vandalism, go to edits... when BOOM! It's already gone, along with a warning for the user. This bot is absolutely amazing, I just wish it could pass a turing test and gain publicity... Silenceisgod (talk) 23:36, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's amazing, but what about us rollbackers? We're legitimately going to be out of a job :O! Soon, we'll just have a bot that reverts everything and our job will be to re-revert non-vandal edits! But seriously, this bot is smart enough to catch virtually anything. I bet vandals won't even bother in 10 years. Finalius (Ecru?!) 12:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

• This bot is awesome. I'm constantly amazed at its accuracy. It's code is genius. Great job guys. Looking forward to helping out with the dataset to make it even better. -- œ^™ 05:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should make Cluebot adds, within 6 months no-one would even know what a Wiki-vandal is! Great job, almost impsible to win in a race with it! Sumsum2010·T·C 03:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

• Whenever Cluebot beats me (often does) I dub myself ClueBeaten. Keep up the good work. Lozeldafan (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Shame on you, cluebot! Still, you're usually doing a nice job. :) Kayau Voting IS evil 14:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

While i was monitoring the recent changes, i saw some vandalism. I went to undo it but ClueBot NG beat me to it. He is so fast! Keep up the good work. --The Lord of the Allosaurs (talk) 12:35, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Cluebot for reverting the vandalism on Aaron Porter. While it was loading I realised that it was an article I should stay away from (as I doubt that I could remain NPOV). Thank you for taking the decision away from me. Escapepea (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Cluebot, for spotting a serious case of vandalism by Supyanhussin in the article on Computer-assisted language learning (CALL). The revision by Supyanhussin made a complete mess of the introduction and was clearly the work of a person who has little understanding of the current state of the art of CALL. GroovyGuzi (talk) 12:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Cluebot is truly amazing. Such a combination of a huge number of edits and an overwhelmingly high percentage of accuracy is beyond belief. Kudos. A F K When Needed 18:19, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Bah, us human rollbackers with HG and TW are out of business. Cluebot is a warning of what will happen to the proletariat when robots can do complex jobs. --43?9enter ^☭msg_☭contribs 01:54, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Very decent of you to rollback the vandalism in the page Seyed Mohammad Marandi. As a matter of fact, I would like to ask you to keep a special eye on this page, because it is prone to further vandalism for the sake of the subject matter it covers. Thank you very much. (talk) 3:20, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

This is your only warning; if you revert vandalism before I can again, you may be awarded a barnstar without further notice. Keep it up, and I'll have to start an RfA so I can get rid of you and revert my vandals in peace. WikiPuppies! (bark) 00:04, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

This is your Final Very Extreme Last Only Warning; if you revert vandalism before I can again, you may be awarded a barnstar without further notice. How?? You're going to put us rollbackers out of business illogicalpie^{(eat me)}

This is the only warning you will receive. Your instant vandalism reverts will not be tolerated. Although removing vandalism is encouraged, your ridiculously high speed constitutes a monopoly. The next time you remove vandalism from a page, you may be awarded a barnstar without further notice. --Σ _☭^★ 01:59, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

This is your very final and only warning;If you revert any more vandalism again,you will be awarded loads of barnstars without any further notice. A520 | Talk me away!/sign it! 18:20, 28 May 2011 (UTC) You double beat me with an IP vandal! I don't like that, robot.--1966batfan (talk) 03:00, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Very impressed with the bot performance less than a nanosecond and the vandalism was gone — well ok not quite that fast but still pretty darn impressive. Only reason I knew about the vandalism were the lines on my watchlist saying it had been reverted. Good job — no false positives out of all the cluebot actions I've seen. :) EdwardLane (talk) 16:06, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Great work great speed, Especially on stpid vandals like those who hit Google+ Akjar13 (talk) 08:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

I like you *hugs ClueBot* -- FG/^T|C 19:51, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Nice work for reverting the blanking of the History of Cuba page — some anonymous vandal decided to destroy 120KB worth of good work. Thank God for ClueBot, the scarily efficient anti-vandalism machine! ;) Michaelmas1957 (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for catching the unecessary added wording on the glasses page in the section entitled "invention of eye glasses". The prior anonymous edit contained improper grammar and this added phrase did not add any new useful information to the original content. Cluebot found this non-fortifying phrase and removed it immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbashaw (talk • contribs) 21:13, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing vandlaism on the Gold Coast Oceanway page. Finally someone with some common sense. :) 124.177.127.92 (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on Bindi (decoration). Great work! Keep it up! :-) Tinpisa (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's some affirmation that ClueBot must be doing something right! ;) -- œ^™ 08:43, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

This is your last warning , if you keep on reverting vandalism you could be continuously praised without further notice.This was a joke! - funkyspyspy

• Excellent work, you fixed the whale shark/whale man vandalism before I could log in and do it myself. --Mr. Snow (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Hope your vacation went well, and you're ready to for constant vigilance once again. Crazynas ^t 21:33, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I for one am really glad to see you back. I'm just a regular Wikipedian, but when I heard Cluebot NG went down I started freaking out and ended up watchlisting a bunch of pages, just so I could defend them. I was very concerned about the vandalism that was piling up on Wikipedia, and really hoping that your server issue would be addressed swiftly. Fortunately, the bot's back up and running now, so everything seems much better now. I'm sorry to hear about the dataset issues, but I've looked at its contributions and the vast majority of its reverts are vandalism, which pleases me very much. Seriously, well done on the bot programming, it truly is a remarkable accomplishment. If you ever have trouble with finances again, do speak up and I'm sure we the appreciative community will see what we can do. :D Impressed and pleased, Jessemv (talk) 07:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for coming back --Guerillero | My Talk 15:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

• So good to see your name again! Big hugz!! fredgandt 18:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

It's sad how little praise there is here. Anyway I was amazed that Cluebot detected this as vandalism... it has no junk characters, profanity or hate speech, it's a normally-written insertion of a tired but obscure conspiracy theory. Pretty cool that a bot could detect that as vandalism. Nice work. --Runame (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

• Thumbs up 'bot. You got there first. benzband (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot > Robocop + Chuck Norris. 'Nuff said. Agent 78787 (talk) 02:31, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot is the new god. Please take a moment to hang out here and marvel at the efficiency. Michael Isaiah Schmidt (talk) 04:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you ClueBot for reverting Takis' page from the vandalism that has been ongoing. john sargis (talk)10:25, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You will be blocking IPs next, huh? WOOT! --J (t) 04:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Darn you Clue Bot! I was so exited that I caught a vandal in the act, and I was just about to revert it, when it disappeared. How can we possibly keep up with you? 169.232.131.133 (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi ClueBot! Just wanted to say thank you for finding the false positive in the James B. Harkin article I was working on. Looks like a friend was playing around with my class project when he found out about it. Didn't realize it even occurred since you found it so quickly. Very amazing to see how quick wikipedia can catch things like this :) --Allisontheresa (talk) 22:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

You are so extremely and utterly awesome. When i grow up i wanna be just like you. I love you. Will you marry me? Please? U r my idol. u r hotter than jessica simpson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.209.128.18 (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

You're amazing! Always beats me to vandalism. :D C6541 (T↔C) 02:58, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks to ClueBot creators and maintainers for doing a great job. It is appreciated. One of the best things about its counter-vandalism work is that, in many cases, the vandals don't even have time to gloat at the results of their actions before they are reverted. One almost feels sorry for them... Maias (talk) 00:29, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Quicker than a ray of light the vandalism's reverrrteeed! And I feeeel! Like vandalism just got undone! And I feeeeel! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imadethisusernamemyself (talk • contribs) 21:03, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see ClueBot on every pages!!!!!Justincheng12345 (talk) (urgent news here) 15:50, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Cluebot for fixing the obvious vandilism someone put on the Article CDMA2000!!! Chrisf8657 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Do 'bots possess self-awareness and a sense of humor in comments or was this comment: "(reverting possible vandalism by 24.10.29.157 to version by Helpful Pixie Bot)" at this edit just coincidence? Either way thanx, it gave me a good laugh on a dismal day. --Naaman Brown (talk) 22:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia just wouldn't be the same without ClueBot. It reverts vandalism faster than I ever could, and that's why I love it. Lugia2453 (talk) 03:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Praise for ClueBot NG! A toast to the developers of this bot! Here, have a potato chip! :3 Meva - CHCSPrefect - GIMME A POTATO CHIP! C: (talk) 11:00, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm impressed that the bot was able to correctly determine that this edit was vandalism. Bus stop (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)

Please ClueBot stop deleting everything that I post like additional information and marking it as vandalism — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.41.197 (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Hail Cluebot! For it has taken the plague of vandalism, the scourge of Wikipedia, and transformed it into a mere nuisance! Ratzd'mishukribo (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the revert that you recently conducted to the Flip tricks article, as the vandalism was blatantly racist and has no place on this website.--Soulparadox (talk) 03:23, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

ClueBot, I think you are one of the nicest robots I have ever met, not that I know that many or anything... If you guys ever ponder taking over and / or getting rid of all the pesky humans, while I am wholly obligated against collaboration contrary to the interests of the human race, I hope you would take the chance to get to know me first before giving up on my brethren, and through me you might learn that we are not truly so bad, and our peoples can surely find peace and friendship despite our differences, and learn to better explore and shape our world, together, for the benefit of time. For peace, love, and truth! --Elgaroo (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Please stop reverting all the vandalism, ClueBot. All those reverts are impressing me, and if you continue to revert vandalism, I might give you a Barnstar! Epicgenius (talk) 20:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Holy freakin' moly! Whenever I press the revert button, you pop up and say you already reverted this edit. Please stop. Or else I will praise you again. rtucker913 (talk) 01:07, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

You're too fast! We may as well quit fighting vandalism and let ClueBot NG do it all! -- ^(T) Numbermaniac _(C) 03:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

DANGIT! Stop reverting vandalism before I get there before I shower you with barnstars! AppleJack-7 02:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Good work on reverting vandalism (before i can) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordan5000000000 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

We did have our bitter differences before, but that was a long time back and I was only a humble newbie, judging you so terribly wrong. It is obvious that we humans are no match for your AWESOMENESS. -Ugog Nizdast (talk) 06:04, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

184.58.229.224 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

You are amazing and that constitutes a cookie 184.58.229.224 (talk) 21:44, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Very fast response on Kingdom of Commagene. Thank you!--Dipa1965 (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Keep up the good work helping Wikipedia!! EuroCarGT 16:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

I love you, ClueBot, but you're a little too good at what you do. You're putting recent changes patrollers out of business! Novusuna (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

STOP! This is the last warning you will receive for beating all of us. The next time you beat me to reverting vandalism, you will be awarded a barnstar and praised repeatedly without further notice. Lol just kidding. But keep up the great work at reverting vandals almost instantly! StevenD99 ^{Talk | Stalk} 04:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I've taken ClubBot for granted for years and was so relived to have 80% of the vandalism caught immediately and reverted. By the time I crawled up the watchlist, I could attend to actual content. Having ClueBot down for a few days earlier this month was truly a reminder of how much we depend on you guys. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 19:59, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

I find that a lot of the bots on Wikipedia do annoying things, like making unnecessary edits ("imdb" to "IMdB", for instance, or "commonscat" to "Commons category"), but I'm very thankful that ClueBot is around. It is, by far, the most useful bot we have, and I'm grateful for it every time I see vandalism that it has fixed. Everyone involved is to be congratulated for a really great job, and for the service you all have provided to the community. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It's funny. 9 times out of 10 I find a vandal on the edit filter, ClueBot has beaten me to the punch no matter how innocuous or random the edit seems to be. To the programmer(s), great job and keep up the awesome work! I hope you continue to beat me to the punch and help keep Wikipedia free of vandalism! Jns4eva (talk) 05:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting too much vandalism on Wikipedia. While we certainly appreciate the help, rollbackers, recent changes patrollers, and users who want to help out are quickly losing their jobs. If you revert any more vandalism, you may be spammed repeatedly with barnstars and you will be showered with roses and confetti. Lolz, keep up the good work! K6ka (talk) 17:40, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

STOP! This is the only warning you will receive for beating me to reverts. The next time you beat me to reverting vandalism, you will be awarded a barnstar and praised repeatedly without further notice. 2Awwsome^{Tell me where I screwed up. See where I screwed up} 17:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Please stop beating all of us to vandalism. The next time you beat any Wikipedian to vandalism, you will be awarded a barnstar, paraded through the streets, showered with confetti, and praised repeatedly without further notice. K6ka (talk) 23:33, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• I was considering going on Vandal Patrol. I caught a couple Cluebot missed - but it's a lot faster than I am. Good going! Neonchameleon (talk) 01:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

STOP! This is the very last, LAST OF ALL LASTS, VERY ABSOLUTE FINAL WARNING THAT YOU WILL RECEIVE FOR BEATING EVERYONE TO VANDALISM. The next time you beat a Wikipedian to reverting vandalism, you will be blocked from editing in order for you to take a break and view the truckload of barnstars you have received, and praised repeatedly without further notice. K6ka (talk | contrib) 15:08, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

STOP! This is the VERY VERY LAST, LAST TO END ALL LASTS, VERY VERY VERY ALBSOLUTE, LAST AND FINAL WARNING THAT YOU WILL RECEIVE FOR REVERTING VANDALISM EXCESSIVELY QUICKLY AND BEATING EVERY SINGLE REGISTERED WIKIPEDIAN AND ADMINISTRATOR AT REVERTING VANDALISM!!! The next time you beat any registered Wikipedian or administrator at reverting vandalism or revert vandalism too quickly, you will be blocked from editing in order for you to stop editing and admire the 2,499 Tesla Roadsters you will recieve, and be praised repeatedly and excessively without further notice.--Gg53000 (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

"I figure I'd give you a hard time..."

You really take the cake GluBot, just look at yourself. You've been slacking off lately and You will be denied your daily motor oil for a period of indefinite until you untangle your spaghetti code, get your bolts in order, and start reverting vandalism with more SPEED and INTENSITY!!!! To contest this denial, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{reprogram me|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the denial is unjustified, or go bug another sympathetic programmer. Thebestofall007 (talk) 15:06, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Greatest bot in the history of time. Thanks so much! Sn1pe! ^{(talk)(edits)} 23:20, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits to List of Cars characters. You have reverted vandalism several times on this page (bang on time after the vandalism was created). Your efforts are incomprehendable. Thank you.--Gg53000 (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Car wash. Your lightning-fast assistance has reverted edits several times on that page. You deserve plenty of praise. Thank you.--Gg53000 (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I was looking in the history of the article on Kant, and I discovered that earlier today a piece of very stupid and counter-productive (but admittedly hilarious; I would never encourage it, but seeing as it was already reverted I was able to get a good giggle from it) vandalism was reverted in the very same minute it was added! I was confused and impressed. I don't understand how this bot works, but—for its good work—I definitely do thank both it and its human overlords (who I presume exist; please, God, don't let this bot be sentient! Its power would be too great!) BreakfastJr (talk) 10:45, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, I've always been impressed by ClueBot NG's advanced artificial neural network, and its large database of edits, but I am still mindblown on how it could catch this. You're a very underestimated bot. Underestimated and neglected by the world. It seems only the people who edit Wikipedia know about you. The readers don't know about you. The teachers don't know about you. And if they did, they'd be more comfortable reading Wikipedia and knowing that a lot of work and time and effort has been put into building the articles, and a bot plus an army of rollbackers that number in the thousands to keep it clean from vandalism.

And yes, if you haven't seen those warnings I gave you - you should really stop beating me to reverts all the time. K6ka (talk | contribs) 02:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I just want to let you know THAT CLUEBOT IS SO FAST THAT IT IS ANNOYING ME BECAUSE IT REVERTS VANDALISM BEFORE I FIND IT XD. No hard feelings. Nice job keeping Wikipedia good and clean, I have seen everything. Happy_Attack_Dog "The Ultimate Wikipedia Guard Dog" (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

this is ridiculous. I cannot believe that anyone can program an algorithm to find such teensy-weensy little edits of vandalism buried in there. nope, nope, nope. i'm wondering if those were just a test... then again, come to think about it...even if they were a test...obviously ClueBot ACED IT. :p amazing. you guys rock!!! Number.6.freeman (talk) 01:06, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

STOP! This is the VERY last, yes VERY, SUPER VERY, ABSOLUTELY VERY VERY LAST WARNING. The next time you beat a Wikipedian to reverting vandalism, you will be blocked from editing immediately and get unlimited barnstars and awards. Keep up the good work ClueBot NG :D. Southparkfan (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

STOP! This is the VERY last, yes, VERY, SUPER EPIC VERY, ABSOLUTELY VERY VERY LAST WARNING FOR REALZ! Keep up the good work. --megamanfan3 (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC) thanks for this diligenceCelesteroyce (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Go cluebot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.49.222.211 (talk) 02:33, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

This bot, first of all, needs to not. I'm getting very upset with when i edit things for to add more information and it deletes it. however i am impressed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.14.191 (talk) 01:39, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

@173.89.14.191: "Needs to not" what? If the bot makes a mistake, report it here. This page is for praise, not complaints. --k6ka (talk | contribs) 16:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC)