User talk:AntiVandalBot/Jul06

Well done

Well done for stopping vandalism on the furry fandom article. ISD 20:19, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't vandalize leet

Hello, I tried uncensoring leet, but you saw it as vandalism and reverted it. I assure you, it was no vandalism, as Wikipedia is not censored. How can I get around this? Ragdoll 17:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Homosexuality and psychology

I reverted a POV introduction into the article. I do not know how your bot works but it doesn't seem to be doing so well for me. Ifnord 13:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh?

Is there a specific reason why this bot doesn't warn vandals like Tawerbot2? —Khoikhoi 00:04, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tawkerbot2 is broken to, so is Tawkerbot4, theres something screwed up right now :( -- 01:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I too came here after seeing that the anon wasn't warned after this reversion. Do let me know on my talkpage if I need to block any of the bots and for how long, if you think that they are broken badly. --Gurubrahma 17:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for vandalising.

Oh, and I've even been known to block TB2 on occasion too, but I rather not do it :o -- Tawker 16:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was legitimate

All I did was correct a formatting error on that page. Please do not revert me again. 69.117.4.237 18:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the travel with ferrets was a legit, though severe edit.

It was a merger into the ferret article (the result of an AFD discussion). After all of the contents had been copied over to their new home, I erased the old article replacing it with a link. It was not vandalism.JeffStickney 20:36, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol, that was reverted stupidly fast 82.21.150.24 12:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit in Error

The following edit removed profanity from an article where it appears to be appropriate [1]. Please check this out and respond on my talk page. Alphachimp ^talk 00:53, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know Cyde..

YOu never did tell me what Operation Enduring Encyclopedia was. You can reply on here/ 63.23.32.171 03:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Superman

My revert had a reason in the edit summary. Not sure why this was reverted. --Chris Griswold 21:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get a new name?

AntiVandalBot, how plain and boring. Yawn! Please get a new name at WP:CHU and keep up the good work. :) --Andeh 06:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Breast Implants

Thank you for reverting back! One editor has chosen to ignore all other editors and push his POV on this subject. I and the other editors on this appreciate your help!!jgwlaw 23:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, he reverted again. He is the only one who refuses to cooperate, and collaborate. It's a real problem.jgwlaw 18:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Run Like Hell

You reverted twice my edits while I was replacing the "F***" on the article per "wikipedia is not censored". --69.79.206.21 18:54, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human sexual behavior

Hi Cyde! Take a look at the edit history of Human sexual behavior. It seems that AntiVandalBot got into an edit war with a spammer, but the result was slightly odd - a blanked article. I think it's because an earlier vandal added a now hard-banned spamlink and that's thrown things. I don't imagine much can be done to the Tawkerbot software, but it's interesting to know about (and very hard to revert until you find the objectionale link... or remove all of the external links, which is what I did!). Cheers! ➨ ЯEDVERS 21:08, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FDA_(disambiguation)

[2] - NOT vandalism. I made the same mistake reverting it. Please stop reverting the page.--Konstable 14:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no article for it now, but user quoted [3] as evidence. So there may be an article coming.--Konstable 14:17, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kramer

I was reverting vandalism, not committing it. Someone took the existing Kramer article and made it a duplicate of the Cosmo Kramer article instead of the disambiguation page it's supposed to be.Raymondluxuryacht 16:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timbers Army

In the Timbers Army article I uncensored A**hole to Asshole. Hardly vandalism, right?213.243.181.212 20:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gotta tweak your bot

Yo. You gotta tweak your bot, he just reverted 3 good edits at System of a Down [4] [5] [6]. I guess changing "Motherf***er" to "Motherfucker" triggered it, but it was a perfectly good edit in this case. --Conti|✉ 20:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That seems like a recurring theme with this bot. Somebody should make a anti-censorship bot... 213.243.181.212 20:34, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know Wikipedia is not censored but you'd be pretty shocked to find the number of edits that add those words that ARE vandalism (something like 90% of the edits the bot does are) - it's a tricky call and I'd love a solution :) -- Tawker 00:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be possible to exclude changes like "f***" to "fuck"? So, when there's an asterisk in the changed word, don't revert. --Conti|✉ 00:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kramer

I was reverting vandalism, not committing it. Someone took the existing Kramer article and made it a duplicate of the Cosmo Kramer article instead of the disambiguation page it's supposed to be.Raymondluxuryacht 16:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timbers Army

In the Timbers Army article I uncensored A**hole to Asshole. Hardly vandalism, right?213.243.181.212 20:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forehand

An IP address editor was trying to add Andy Roddick to the Forehand page, and was reverted by AntiVandalBot several (5) times. (example edit, example reversion). It took me a while to figure out why it would be doing this, but I think it's probably due to the inclusion of the word "dick." Hopefully a code solution can be found to counter this, lest Andy Roddick (and other similar names) be banned from Wikipedia. ;o) EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 01:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Warnings for Category Page Vandalism

When AVB left a warning on a user's talk page, it propely linked (i.e. prefixed with ":") the name of the category in the paragraph portion of the warning, but not in the heading. This caused the category to be added to the page instead of displayed. See [7]. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 00:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cocktails with gin

Your bot reverted a good revert I made to Category:Cocktails with gin. 24.196.138.35 06:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot eats shit.

Revert on Cape Town

The bot's latest revert on Cape Town diff looks a bit weird. The edits referred to in the edit summary were some time ago. David Underdown 13:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or some such thing

The bot reverted my addition of curse words as vandalism. Tragically, the curse words are curse words that are in fact from the text of the Gospel and had been censored into asterisks by someone at some historical point. So I was reinstating correctitudinality to the article via the insertion of sheer cussedness (and cussingness). No big deal. Just thought I'd let you know why I was reverting back. I'm not all upset like 24.196.138.35 up there and I frankly think that your bot eats what most bots do. Bolts, depleted uranium and heavily buttered english muffins. 204.69.40.7 13:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Amarnath gowda

I think by mistake you reveryted to the wrong version. The current page is balnk, and the vandal in question was the author who blanked the page.Wildthing61476 17:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to be objective, I tried to enter one sentance in the "Greek strugle for Macedonia", but your bot deleted it. If you want to have referent article it should say at the beggining: "The article is greek biased and is not fully relevant source of information".

Thank you.

User: 70.28.243.171's edit to Crust punk

This bot recently reverted this edit by User:70.28.243.171. Although I can see why a bot would consider it vandalism, Anal Cunt is actually the name of a band. Their goal was to make an offensive name, and based on your reversion it looks like it worked ;) Anyway, I told the user they can delete your message on their page, and I also restored their edit. The Ungovernable Force 23:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dodge Van

Apolloboy and I are attempting to repair damage done by an improper consolidation of two articles that should remain separate. I understand how some of our procedures would trigger anti-vandalism bots, but if you'll kindly please follow the trail from here and take a careful look at what I'm doing, you'll see it's not vandalism. Thanks. Scheinwerfermann 03:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

brackets

In the article Verbatim Corp. I corrected a missing bracket in the section Products, but the AntiVandalBot recognized it as vandalism. -- 84.160.251.231 15:51, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - error on VP rollback. Sorry! --Bigtop (tk||cb|em|ea) 20:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bots

Hello. OK, up front, I don't know much about bots. I was wondering what criteria your bot used to revert an edit made at List of idioms in the English language, which I reverted. No harm, no foul. Thanks. --SigPig 20:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hide bots in watchlist doesnt work for this bot??

Basically what it says in the headline. When I click hidebots in my watchlist all are hidden except this bot..somewhat curious. Just letting you know if you didn't already. --WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 23:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It runs as a bot but does not have the bot flag set, for operational reasons. 'Hide bots' works only for bots which are explicitly flagged as bots by a bureaucrat. Kimchi.sg 15:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no way to have this flagged as a bot by a bereaucrat? --WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 17:05, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This bot shouldn't be bot-flagged as its edits should never be hidden. It does make some mistakes, and when dealing with fast-paced vandalism, the bot may only revert the most recent vandalism, rather than all of it. Thus, inspection by humans is still needed. --Cyde↔Weys 17:09, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I understand. Thanks for explaining it. --WikipedianProlific ^(Talk) 17:33, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I AM NOT VANDALISING!

Stop accusing me of it! Dr. Cash 00:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm stop blanking... -- Tawker 06:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leet

I have twice tried to revert to the un bowlderized version of this page...yet, AntiVandalBot keeps auto-reverting my reversions... I'm only trying to make the page comply with Wikipedia standards...yet, I'm risking an edit-ban on the 3-revert rule if I try to fix it again... A little help here? --KPWM_Spotter 03:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]