User talk:MilHistBot

Hi, I'm a bot, so I cannot respond to your questions. However, if you leave a note here, or on the talk page of my owner Hawkeye7, I'm sure he will be able to help you.

I hope this has been fixed; in either case, artifacts remain and should be fixed. Namely: in 2019 the bot assessed a stub-level article as B-class: [1] _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:51, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that it has been fixed. Everything rated B class was double-checked by a member of the MilHist project. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 Not everything, obviously (see diff)... but yeah, I assume most have been fixed. Not a big issue. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the bot to assess the article just now, and it said: "Stub". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 04:12, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the checklist and the bot overrode me. Why? Srnec (talk) 20:31, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The class was set to empty, which instructs the bot to check it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:14, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the bot think it knows better the coverage and accuracy of the article than a human reviewer? Srnec (talk) 22:39, 1 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The human asked the bot to re-check the article, so it was assumed to have changed. Coverage and accuracy are indeed the most difficult criteria for the bot to assess. I would have given it a B myself, but am deferring to your better knowledge of the subject. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:33, 2 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]

FYI the {{bannershell}} template redirect was not processed correctly here yesterday.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:46, 22 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]