User talk:AntiVandalBot/Jan06

christina aguilera edit

My edit to the page Christina Aguilera was reverted because I was adding that the title of her song F.U.S.S. stands for "Fuck You Scott Storch." The page already said that the song was a rebuttal to animosity between Aguilera and Storch. So, yeah. It was legit. Thought I would let y'all know.

67.182.212.131 18:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Bot Mistake

Your bot undid the fix that I made to the page: "Mobitelea Ventures Limited"

Look at the page, and you will understand why your bot was incorrect to roll back my change.

BTW, your bot is slightly annoying, even if it does work for the "greater good." I don't like being second-guessed by simple rules like "IF anonymous user blanks page - UNDO," and I'll bet others feel the same way.

72.164.10.151 23:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

It may apear that the edit to "Daniel Easton" was a reposting of a legitimate article, but was just restoring a senseless article after my feeble attempt to delete the article without understanding how to do so. Might want to check that out the cheat 14:22, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Software as a Service

This edit by User:Tazz2 appears to be a legitimate edit. --Pkchan 03:12, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Khota Rairi Association

I edited the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khota_Rairi_Association with the words "bogus article. should be deleted." but the bot reverted it back The article in question is just plain nonsense and fabrication. It is not a controversial subject just a plain fabrication apparently meant to be humorous by the author. If you have any volunteers who understand Urdu, they will tell you the same. Look into it and delete the bogus article. It is a webpage about a fictional donkey rights association. Khota means donkey. Obviously talking about donkey divorces and all is just a joke, not something that should qualify as information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.81.199.50 (talk • contribs) 15:56, 27 December 2006.

The bot reacted to the comment in ALL CAPS which is usally a sure sign of vandalism in an article. I've added the proper maintenance tags and sent it to deletion. Femto 18:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

XBox Live Arcade

I changed the dates of releases to 2007, as there will be no more. AntiVandalBot changed it back.

71.234.113.189 16:31, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Borderline/a_Kiwi_temp

I was directed by a admin to create this page in order to have a page where editors can work on a mass Scheduled for Deletion. She (Zeraeph) put them all in in-line mode, hidden from view, so no one can find them to edit. She did this yesterday morning, they all will be deleted. She brooks no disagreement.

See Here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A_Kiwi#Following_things_from_VPT_post [quote]What you want on your article revision is a temporary page, which is usually created as a sub-page. So Borderline Personality Disorder (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) is cut out and copied into Borderline Personality Disorder/Kiwi's Temp. Everyone can edit it, talk about it, and such 'offline' from the main pages. - FrankB[/quote]

Thank you for setting your VandalBot from deleting this page, BUT since this will be happening regularly now, it will be named it ---- Borderline/POV_work_page —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Kiwi (talk • contribs) 20:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC).

My apologies for not getting back to you earlier. I apologize for forgetting to sign my submission. And I apologize for not realizing that my memory for how to create a new page was completely wrong. I had no intention whatsover to delete even the tiniest bit of the article - it was just a stupid blunder by a relative newbie.

As it is, the entire problem has been made moot by an admin deleting of all that problematic inlining (of a vast amount of mostly brand new edits). Before he left, he told us that this was an issue to be discussed on the Talk Page!!! HURRAY!!! --Kiwi 10:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Your edit to Coca-Cola

My edit to Coca-Cola was reverted by this bot. It was a good edit and was discussed on the talk page. However, I think it was reverted because my text replaced the entire page since it was developed on another page.--Natl1 21:42, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

False positive

AntiVandalBot reverted my revert of vandalism [1]. Just an FYI. --Brad Beattie (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Edit to Will Thatcher

The bot reverted my deletion of copyrighted material, as noted in the edit summary.--FreeKresge 06:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Mystery bot edit

Could you explain what AntiVandalBot was doing with this edit? I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms The last part of that is a link. Actual link: edit counter opt-in terms. Will (Talk - contribs) 07:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

RE: Your edit to Emma Watson

I removed a fair use image from her article and AntiVandalBot reverted it. Fair use images are not allowed to be used to identify living people. --Phoenix Hacker 07:47, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Category cleaning

Blanking a category page is not necessarily vandalism (I was just reverted) - see Category:Public relations companies and the spam I was removing. — RevRagnarok ^{Talk Contrib} 14:39, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: Suren-Pahlav Clan

A contributor (86.143.168.96) had deleted some section of the article since it was not suitable to his/her taste. Can you please revert the changes? Thanks Zoroastrian 09:36, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

I am quite suprised to see your message about the editing of "Solubility chart" since I have NEVER edited a English Wikipedia page including "Solubility chart", though I frequently view the pages here since I find myself too unprofessional compared to the users. I am actutally a Chinese from Hong Kong who is unfamiliar with "Solubility chart" and science. I think one very possible explanation is that I am sharing the same IP address with others, and if my guess is correct, I start to wonder if I need to bear the consequences of the other user(s) of this IP address's actions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.166.160.247 (talk • contribs)

You're using a shared IP, odds are someone else had the IP before you did and made the edit. No need to worry, you won't be blocked for an old vandalism :o -- Tawker 01:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

There's something wrong with your bot because I've never even _been_ to the page for Antoine Lavoisier. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.196.168.96 (talk • contribs)

You're using a shared IP, odds are someone else had the IP before you did and made the edit -- Tawker 01:28, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

re:Holy Hell

This redirect is pointless and I see no reason for it, I deleted it to create a page about the Rob Rock album Holy Hell. --E tac 01:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

You're better off putting in the content on the first edit (w/ no blanking edit). The bot doesn't know what you're going to do in the future, it only knows that the page was blanked. Thanks for the message though :) -- Tawker 03:44, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Ultra kids series

This page was added for no apparent purpose. No content that appears on it is legitimate.

I edited it and cleared all its content, as I was in the process of flagging it for deletion--but before I could do so, my edit was reverted by the bot. I'm not going to try again and risk being banned, so someone else can take care of this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.145.255.2 (talk) 00:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC).

Oops?

AntiVandalBot incorrectly reverted my edit to Stephen Colbert after I reverted a vandal. Please look into this, and let me know? Thanks, --Tlim7882 02:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning vandals

Isn't your bot supposed to warn after reverting vandalism? It didn't after this revert. VegaDark 08:40, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. It fixed itself :) -- Tawker 09:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot "error"

Probably a hard thing to avoid, but this diff (replacing "-"s with "v"s for stylistic reasons) got caught. Sam Vimes | Address me 17:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I didn't do any vandalism as I was only trying to get an article deleted. Why do you people call edits vandalism?--Beguiled 21:17, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Very Sorry

Please accept my deepest apologies for blanking the page The Chariot of Queen Zara. I did not intend it to be vandalism. I worked hard on the article, and if you look at its history page, you will see I was the one who created it. Perhaps it is my computer, as it is quite old, but sometimes I am automatically logged out of my User Name, especially when I am in the middle of editing pages. I merely wanted my hard work on the page to show on my contributions and the page's history page, and its history page displayed my IP address, thus motivating me copy my hard work, deleting the page, and pasting my work back onto the page, then saving it in order for the work I have done for hours to show on its history page and my contributions. Again, I am sorry. Aidoflight 21:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

List of cities and towns in Trinidad and Tobago

This was a revert of a series of good edits by a non-logged in editor. Guettarda 22:28, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

CITATION NEEDED

This was obviously just someone who has seen {{fact}} around but didn't know the wikisyntax. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow

I'm sure others have more substantive comments to offer, but I have to say that pic of the AntiVandalBot firing is the most shock and awe-inspiring thing I have never seen. Even my *neighbors* will never think about vandalism as a result. :-)

Keep up the good work!

71.56.11.184 20:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Revert of edit to Killer Mike

This edit which I made, was apparently reverted as vandalism. It wasn't, as the edit summary will hopefully show.

There was in fact another edit immediately after mine. Both edits were rolled back but the edit summary claims only I was reverted. --TheParanoidOne 13:41, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Tawker? This one needs looking at. He's right. The bot warned not the vandal, but the editor previous to the vandal, and reverted both the vandal and the previous editor. Definitely not good bot behaviour. - TexasAndroid 17:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. 86.129.218.103 17:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Cute - TexasAndroid 17:17, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

North-West Rebellion

I was removing some images that had been deleted due to copyright concerns. Not sure why the bot would pick that up.Geni 18:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Like the Killer Mike one above, the bot again triggered on one edit, but reverted the previous two edits, and warned the wrong person. The bot is definitely misfiring at times here folks. - TexasAndroid 22:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

reversion

I got a message saying that my "recent edit to Dance song (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles"; however, I've never even heard of this page, never mind edited it. I understand that since I'm an anonymous user that my IP may be shared with others, so obviously this is just FYI. 64.228.222.52 22:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. An old reversion and an old edit (October 2006). This IP did indeed edit that page. Almost certainly a shared IP of some sort, now with a different user. - TexasAndroid 22:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Warning: Bots at Wookiepedia appear to have been hacked!!!!

I suggest you read Wikia:StarWars:User talk:C-3PO#Bot is vandalising User:Sikon and Wikia:StarWars:User talk:R2-D2#Bot is vandalising User:Sikon. (The two posts may look identical, but they list different edits.)

I figure you should take precautions if you can. Will (Talk - contribs) 23:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, its on the toolserver, a pretty secure box -- Tawker 09:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Any tips you could provide the owner of the problem bots? I can pass them on. Will (Talk - contribs) 09:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Severe weather terminology

Note: My edit to Severe weather terminology was NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT vandalism!!!!!!!!!!!!! If you don't like the edit, feel free to change it. However, automatically accusing someone of vandalism is WRONG and violates Wikipedia's policy to ASSUME GOOD FAITH. Wikipedia:Assume good faith 24.214.57.91 02:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Err, tiz a bot. Bots are stupid (ok, sorry AVB) - please feel free to fix it. It's because your edit was repetition filling in the table, most of the time it's vandalism and the bot auto reverts it. The bot does issue a little apology :) -- Tawker 09:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for undoing it. Sorry I sounded agitated. I'm a big supporter of Wikipedia. I look at vandalism as the electronic equivalent of rape, so when I felt I was unjustly accused of vandalism I was naturally upset. I understand vandalism is a serious problem on Wikipedia. However, I'm not sure a bot is the best approach to reverting vandalism. It has too much opportunity for making a mistake, which is tantamount to accusing an innocent editor of vandalism. Just the accusation can hurt an editor's reputation (even though I choose to edit anonymously.) Also, it takes the "editor" our of editing. Wikipedia is supposed to be self-correcting because editors are reviewing edits. As you state yourself, bots are stupid. Even though it takes more time, the Wikipedia way is for other editors to review edits. I'm also concerned that this puts the burden of proof on the wrong person. The bot doesn't ask before reverting edits. It takes a "guilty until proven innocent" approach. Even though an editor can "appeal" a revert by using this talk page, editors shouldn't have to defend their good faith edits in such a manner. It should be up to the person making the revert to do so only when edits are clearly vandalism. Perhaps a method of automatically flagging pages for review by other editors would be a kinder, gentler approach instead of automatic reverts. A review by a real editor prior to making a revert would improve accuracy and fairness. In the long run, accuracy and fairness are more important than the time saved by using a bot.

24.214.57.91 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

AVB Code

I wish to make a weasle words bot and i would like to base it off of AVB bots code and which programing language does AVB bot use. Cocoaguy_contribs^talk 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Optical DPSK demodulator

Bad revert on Optical DPSK demodulator. This is page should be a redirect to main on phase shift keying article. At the moment it is a a commercial pitch by a company making these devices. Dtneilson 04:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the regular false positives. The bot catches examples where the page is mostly deleted. It is specifically programmed to not trigger if the page is converted to a proper redirect. But the bot is not, and cannot, be programmed to trigger on conversions to mal-formed redirects. It would need to anticipate all the ways that someone could mal-form a redirect, and there are potentially a huge number of those ways. It does, however, look like you got it all straightened out. - TexasAndroid 14:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Random reversion

Is this where we report reversion of legitimate edits? Because I just got a warning for something that was not only a legitimate edit, but I also made the edit a month ago. What gives? Dac 21:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the third complaint about this in two days. Occasionally the bot is seeing a vandalism, and is reverting back two edits instead of one, and then warning the innocent editer from the older edit. Tawker? This really needs attention. I'm having to resist hard hitting the big red button over this. I don't want us to be running without AVB, but this really should not be happening. - TexasAndroid 21:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the bot go back further in the history, when it finds certain trigger words? Agathoclea 22:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem rollback

Not sure why, but AVB tried to revert me at Deletion review; summary was left, forms were observed, etc.[2] Cheers. -- nae'blis 21:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Really not sure what happened here. If you diff the actual edits, the bot did not actually revert you. Not really sure who it did revert, but it was definitely not the edit you had just made. - TexasAndroid 21:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the bot did revert Nae'blis. See this diff. Rossami (talk) 22:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Article on Greg Rupp

The article on Greg Rupp needs to be deleted. I wrote it myself, and he personally asked me to remove it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.202.35.92 (talk) 06:24, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

Real world denver

Hello, new to wikipedia, tried to make an edit to the real world denver page to fix some spelling errors and uniformaly remove censored language that is used earlier in the same section. 71.231.74.27 06:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Ref tags and VBot.

I was just adding unreferenced tags to those sections with no citations or very long ones with only 1 or 2 citations. Why is this picked up by the bot as vandalism? -- Kevin Browning 07:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fuck!

Hi, I know it is difficult to see the difference between a good faith fuck and an insult, but you might want to look at this: [3] Bryan 12:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

You shot me by accident :(

Hey - I was trying to clean up some vandalism and ad posts where a company had created 2 ad pages for themselves under both Aleda and aLeda. But you shot me when I moved them and redirected to one master page :( --Mrtobacco 00:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

In recognition

		The Purple Star
		Given in recognition for having one of the most vandalised user pages. Timrollpickering 03:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Legit edit

I made an edit to Angels and Airwaves and your bot reverted it. I was changing "stuff" to "shit" because according to WP:NOT, Wikipedia is not censored, and that word (shit) is the one used originally.

Check your bot,

--200.70.100.28 08:08, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing it, the bot has a few issues w/ profanity to say the least :o -- Tawker 02:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot mistake

Hi bot, or whoever operates you.

The bot made an error in reversion on Guestbook. The page had been vandalised twice in a row by two different IPs -- the first diff shows some text in Cyrillic and a lot of links, and then the second version deleted all that, but added a new spam link. But the bot reverted back to the original Cyrillic spam version, instead of going to the last actual version of the page, which was just before the first spam.

...Did that make sense? You'll see it if you look at Guestbook's history. Switchercat ^talk_cont 23:07, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, known issue w/ the bot w/ 2 ip vandalizing - thanks for pointing it out. Fix should be soon (ish) -- Tawker 02:07, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

All I did was add in a few missing radio stations to the list of radio stations and it got reverted.

Just 2 stations that I felt were missing in the listings for Buffalo. Jesus. 128.205.164.64 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Technically, you made an all-caps post, a *very* common thing for vandals to do. No problem. It happens, and someone else has already reverted the bot. :) - TexasAndroid 15:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, that might explain the CITATION NEEDED thing too. I don't know a whole lot about this, but maybe this pattern is worth refining or reconsidering. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 16:39, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Yep. This is one of several cases where the vast majority of the time the pattern is met, it is indeed vandalism. (I suspect something like 99% or better, but have no actual data behind that, so it's really just a guestimate.) There are a small number of cases on this and some other of the bot's criteria that are actually false positives. The error matches a vandalistic pattern, but is actually not vandalism. In general it has been decided that this is a small enough price to pay for the good that the bot does in rapidly reverting the rest that are indeed vandalism. In general the bot is supposed to run in Friendly mode, where it will not edit war. This means that if you get hit by a false positive, just make the edit again and remove the warning from your talk page. The bot should not revert a second time on the same edit.

As for refining, that's tricky. What was there about those two edits that a bot, a computer program, could have used to identify them as not vandalism? Sure, the bot could be programmed with the very specific examples of those two edits, but the next time won't be exactly the same. If we told it that "CITATION NEEDED" was not vandalism, then the next time they used "NEED CITATION", or "CITATION REQUIRED" or "FACT CHECK", then the bot would not catch it. We cannot anticipate every single way someone might make this mistake. The radio station edit is even more tricky. And what about the edits that have nothing to do with citations or radio stations? We would need solid criteria that would allow the bot to tell that one all-cap edit is vandalism while another is not. And I for one have no idea what we could use. New ideas for improving the bot are welcome, but in this case we need very specific ideas for rules that will help a bot tell the difference. The bot is stupid, and only does what it is programmed to do, nothing more. It cannot make judgement calls edit by edit. - TexasAndroid 17:11, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Well explained. Couple of questions, then.

• Are we sure about this, i.e. when an edit matches this pattern it's 99% vandalism? (This pattern and no other pattern, so e.g. FUCK YOU presumably matches something else and so doesn't count towards this statistic.) I don't know much about it, but it seems awfully high, especially since all-caps seems like it's a typical newbie thing, and not just a malicious thing. I would expect that other patterns (like say, FUCK) to really be inappropriate 99.9% of the time.
• The point about words is good, but another distinguish characteristic is markup, or attempted markup. Again, not knowing much about it, I might guess that all-caps vandalism edits (again, those that don't match any other pattern) look like NO WAY LINUX ROOOLS!!!! Might it be worthwhile looking for [ or something approximating markup or punctuation like that? (other than !?).

These cases aside, this is great stuff here. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 17:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I think that the caps check is just for edits all in caps. There is a separate check for profanity that has it's own occasional false positives. You will need to debate more with the programmers as to the specifics of certain checks. I'm just an observing party myself. AVB also has a whitelisting ability, such that certain editors should never trigger the bot (admins, for instance).

As for the 99% numbers, those really are guestimates. Not really sure how we would get the real figures. The number of times that AVB acted on any specific criteria would likely be easy for the bot to track, if it's not already doing so. But the cooresponding number of false positives... I really don't know. I'm guestimating based on what I have seen of false positive complaints versus the number of vandalisms I can see AVB revert in it's contributions list. But no hard numbers.

As for newbie vs malicious, they are still vandalism. For the bot, either an edit is vandalism, or it is not. There are no shades of grey. Grey comes in a bit in the wording of the first warning message, which is intended to avoid WP:BITEing newbies, etc. But the bot itself is a stupid computer program, and cannot make such judgements. So it does not even try. Typeing in all caps == vandalism == revert and warning. We would really need much better criteria to make any sort of judgement between newbies and malicious vandalism. And really, I'm not sure what we would gain even if we were able to make that distinction. We still want both reverted. And we still want both warned. It's the truely false positives that are the problem. And again, to improve on those we need to have exact criteria for telling the bot what is and is not vandalism. It's a computer program, and is only as good as the logic that we humans give it.

A lot of all-cap vandalism is random characters. Some of it is profanity. Some of it is just wierd comments. Or "BUSH IS A HORRID PRESIDENT" added to a political page. Or "I LOVE YOU PAUL MCCARTNEY" or other random junk. Any new criteria would really need to catch as much of this stuff as possible, while avoiding the false positives. And I just do not see how such could be done, given the infinite possibilities of vandalistic edits, and similarly infinite possibilities of all-caps, but good intentioned, edits. - TexasAndroid 21:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

This assumes newbie edits are destructive and should be reverted. Some should, of course, but I'm not talking about those. I'm talking about positive edits that are just badly formatted. (Or even correctly formatted, as in this example.) I suggested looking for markup like brackets to distinguish them from I LOVE YOU PAUL. Without anything concrete, there's not even a way to tell how much of an issue this really is, and so I don't know what more to say. I assume the programmers are looking at this page. Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 19:26, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word "f***" on Wikipedia

An anonymous user, accessing the internet by HughesNet has been deleting content in what he describes as an attempt to "protect Wikipedia from lawsuits". See Talk:Red diaper baby#Vandalism or "protecting Wikipedia from lawsuits"?. I have been reverting some of his deletions.

On the article Leet he had replaced the word "fuck" with "f***". I reverted the edit, but was reverted by User:AntiVandalBot. diffWikipedia is not censored. In this case your bot is working for censorship. -- Petri Krohn 18:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• It probably was a mistake. Usually the bot is able to recognize legitamate content on profanity articles and I rarily see the bot incorrectly revert additions that were good faith on those types of articles. Leet is probably not one of those articles that the bot recognizes in such a way.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, but you might be able to add into the bot reverts from "F***", "F*ck", etc to "Fuck" as being, OK, as that is what is stated under Wikipedia:Profanity "In original Wikipedia content, a profanity should either appear in its full form or not at all; words should never be bowdlerized by replacing letters in the word with dashes, asterisks, or other symbols." Huadpe 19:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot Error

this edit is in error - not sure what has gone wrong. SFC9394 20:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

and another

this was a failure. obviously a new user, seeing this very poor and highly libellous edit blanked the page, and the bot just restored the bad edit which was far worse and graver than a blanked page. Hope you can iron out this type of mistake, SqueakBox 22:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a passing comment. What should have been done was to point the redirect to somewhere more relevant, or point it at a non-existent page and then list it up for deletion. Ariedartin JECJY ^Talk 13:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Kate Musker

I found her e-mail address when I was researching it, and she asked me to take down the article, even though it's all public domain information. She isn't happy with it. She essentially said I was indifferent to her feelings if I didn't take it down. I certainly don't want to be insulting to a member of my favorite band. See also the talk page. Th anti-vandalbot took it to an earlier version of the article as it is. --Scottandrewhutchins 00:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Alexander the Great

Hello AntiVandalBot! When you reverted the edits in Alexander the Great, you didn't put a warning on his/her talk page so I did it. Kamope | userpage | talk | contributions 01:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV/AVB summary "four times"? and please use IPvandal template

Please update the string you use to post to WP:AIV/AVB. Not all of the vandals listed there have indeed vandalized four times, yet deserve to be blocked. Also, could the bot use {{IPvandal}} instead of {{vandal}} when appropriate to allow easy access to whois links? Thank you, Kusma (討論) 14:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nomination of a logo

Instead of the USS ship, why not have a logo? (Wikimachine 01:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC))

Thanks a lot! (Wikimachine 22:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC))

Development Request - Remove headers from the userpage warnings

Your bot is increased use in the campaign against vandalism. Given its apparent success, I fully support its use. I am, however, having difficulty with one aspect of it. The bot leaves a notice on the offender's userpage (which is well-written for a first-time vandal but far more polite than the repeat vandal deserves - but better to err on the side of caution). The notice includes a link and timestamp to the vandalized page. That's very helpful when trying to scrub the vandal's recent contributions and to make sure that everything's been cleaned up. The problem is that the notice also includes a header and makes its own section. The header makes it harder to scan the vandal's Talk page to determine if the problem has escalated, if a higher level of warning is appropriate (such as {{test3}} or {{test4}} or if the vandal should be blocked.

1. Would you consider removing the header from the notice created by the bot? Leave the same paragraph notice but do it in-line with all the other notices being made on the vandal's page. Don't break up the flow and readability for the admins who have to decide if a block is appropriate.
2. In future development, could the bot read the level of the last warning and automatically recommend escalation?

Thanks for your consideration. Rossami (talk) 20:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

1. 1 Done
2. 2 The problem is the 50 trillion warning templates, I can't code em all in. It should get the standard t1-t4's -- Tawker 23:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

New form of vandalism gets protected by your bot

This article is supposed to be on the Chumbawamba Album, but someone copy-pasted Studio 360's page into it. Now I can't frikkin' replace said vandalism without your bot killing my revisions. I suspect this is a growing methodology of vandalism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Rebel_Songs_1381-1984 --71.236.203.157 03:43, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Miami Palmetto Senior High

The change I did to Miami Palmetto Senior High was a legitimate change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.144.125.145 (talk • contribs)

Not from what I saw. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:01, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad reversion

I made an edit to Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Schedule/Archive1 (diff), which I suppose the bot saw as blanking the page, but I was just simplifying the code for the archive by subst'ing each subpage (as my edit summary says). Just bringing this to your attention in case it's a problem. --Tewy 05:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

• While I'm hear, why doesn't the warning on the talk page include its own heading and section? It was just added to the bottom on my talk page under the previous heading. Unless there's some technical problem, I don't see why this hasn't already been implemented. --Tewy 03:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
• Note. The archive page was moved to Wikipedia:Motto of the day/Schedule/Archive/2006 after I posted this comment. --Tewy 04:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot caught one vandal edit, missed the previous one - suggestion for improvement

Just notifying you in case you can improve the code as a result, the bot caught this vandal edit but missed this vandal edit, which was the immediately previous edit by a different vandal.

The vandalism in this case was "mmmmmph".

Not sure what the current heuristics are but perhaps the bot could also watch for edits where a certain percentage of the letters in the edit are consecutive instances of the same letter, espeically from unregistered users. ie I would imagine that "ggggaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyy" and "hhhhhhhhhhsddddddddddjjjjjjjjjjj" etc are quite frequent and this is not something that appears often in legitimate edits, so there would be few false-positives. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 17:26, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Note re. bots

In the ProtectionBot fiasco, AVB's history of reverting other bots ([4], [5]) was noted somewhat humorously. I was curious- have you coded it into AVB not to revert any edits by a user with a bot flag? If not, could you? Ral315 (talk) 17:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Erroneous Report

[6] - User had only vandalised once in the last week. Something is messed up. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:43, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Will look, thanks -- Tawker 22:53, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The letter B

Actually, the revert I made was to the vandalism of the article B. FrozenPurpleCube 19:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Your bot is retarded.

Stop reverting the redirect of Liouciou, Pingtung to Hsiao Liuchiu. The latter is a more common, more accepted romanization system. The former is a politically biased, NPOV romanization choice no-one actually uses.--61.30.11.130 08:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Dear 61.30 - you are in error. Liouciou Pingtung is pinyin, the official romanisation system adopted by the People's Republic of China and thus the romanisation of 1.3bn users. Hardly a system no-one uses. Hsiao Liuchiu is Wade Giles, a system of romanisation for Chinese which was created in the era of western imperialism. Few people in the west use this system as it's more difficult to use than Pinyin and is not recognised in the PRC. The island in question, Hsiao Liuchiu, is part of the Republic of China in Taiwan where Wade Giles is still in use. I don't know what wikipedia's view on using Wade Giles over pinyin is, but there must surely be an argument for using WG in this instance as it is the name used by the government which owns the island. Xue hanyu 16:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)xue_hanyu

David Elliot (Illustrator)

I think I need help. I created a new page entitled David Elliot (he is an established illustrator). This is fine, except there are many other David Elliots or Elliotts listed on Wikipedia. When I searched, it seemed that I should have headed the page David Elliot (Illustrator) to distinguish this David Elliot from the others. I couldn't seem to be able to change the title, so I created a new page. I'm sure this isn't right, but I don't know how to get rid of the duplicate page. If you can help, I'd be most grateful. Also, can you explain why a search on Google for 'David Elliot'wikipedia takes you to David Elliott (with two 't's) and not to David Elliot. This is all getting quite confusing.

My apologies if I have created confusion.

regards, Gillian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Snarkart (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

I have dealt with the issue somewhat by making David Elliott (Illustrator) a redirect. This is probably the best that can be done, perhaps an admin could merge the two edit histories, but it is my present understanding that this can't be done. No content has been lost, the edit history for the srticle is just seperated now. It should probably be fine. --Matthew 03:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Umm, I don't see the Illustrator page in deleted history or anything.... I can try a history merge but.... -- Tawker 05:09, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I tried to redirect a page (Fareed armaly) as I had made a mistake in the page title (missing capital). I could not find the correct operation to move (could not find the described 'move' page button, even with skin change in preferences). As I am fairly new I would appreciate to be told to do it correctly. Please correct this. Thank you. Muja 12:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Fixed -- Tawker 20:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Possible Error

AntiVandalBot is currently not warning users when it reverts them. Well, actually, it's warning only some of them, it's letting most of them go. Iced Kola 18:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Should be fixed now -- Tawker 20:23, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandal at large

Hi Bot, take a look at the record of this reprobate 212.219.252.241, he or she needs a second opinion (blanked the Bible, Sharon Osbourne and Gordon Brown.....) 88.111.113.2 20:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In the article for Sailor Mouth there is a passage that refers to the word "fuck" as a word, and was censored by your bot to be "@#%&" (or something like that)and I changed it, but your bot re-edited it. Please correct this.69.203.4.85 23:03, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Princess Elise III of Soleanna Edit

Sorry, I wasn't trying to vandalize. I was just redirecting the page to Princess Elise. My bad. ChromeWulf ZX 03:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

January 2007 archives

I am sorry for interfering with your archives, but I created User talk:AntiVandalBot/Jan07, a redirect to User talk:AntiVandalBot/Jan06. It seems your automatic arhiver is archiving 2007's comments under 2006. Also, the issue discussed here User talk:AntiVandalBot/Jan07#Use of the word "f***" on Wikipedia is still open. -- Petri Krohn 09:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

apology

im really sorry this will never happen again i was just passing by and i couldnt resist.i love wikkipidia so p;ease forgive me—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.104.52.243 (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC).

Legitimate edit reverted the bot

[7]

Thanks

20:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

A Request

I have started a wikipedia vandalism notice IRC channel #wp-vandalism on the freenode network, I would appricate it if you could setup AVB to connect to freenode with a specific name, ident itself, then join my channel and post info to it about pages it has reverted for those who watch the channel for vandalism. The info it posts should include article name, URL, diff URL, and the username who made the edit the bot reverted. Thank you.--RyanB88 21:04, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

what's wrong

Is there some reason why AVB has only been editing the Introduction for the last couple days? Academic Challenger 10:16, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Can You Please Help Me?

VandalBot,

My name is Joe Rossi. In late 2005 I arrogently posted an article about myself, thinking one day I may run again for public office. Since then, a former co-worker has taken this opportunity to attack me with slanderous edits. I've asked the wiki help desk to delete the article entirely to save me from checking the article everyday and re-editing it. Can you please help me? My email address is josephprossi@yahoo.com if you need to contact me. Thanks in advance.

Joe Rossi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.107.152.37 (talk) 20:29, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Your request being processed. Thanks! P.S. VandalBot is not a user. I just happened to stop by. (Wikimachine 01:14, 19 January 2007 (UTC))

Hello

Regarding the article Ash (near Salway) - you have edited, have you got any green idea about the origin of the name Ash?

Eliko 00:32, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

nycd & yonkers, ny

The nycd is factual, I am apart of that agency. The edit in yonkers, ny is true. 216.220.208.237 08:53, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not double post, ty. 82.173.146.175 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Bad AntiVandalBot

I just received this messagge:

User talk:64.180.95.201 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit]Your edit to Alliance: The Silent War

Your recent edit to Alliance: The Silent War (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 19:28, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

This is weird because I have never edited anyting on Wikipedia or even visited the Alliance: The Silent War article 64.180.95.201 (talk) 09:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC).

Well, sure you did! Look: [8]. And if you didn't someone with your IP-adress did. 82.173.146.175 22:26, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

unhappy

i are dum —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sat liverpool (talk • contribs) 08:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Can you add an article to your list?

Hi, The ASU athletics article is consistently vandalized by someone without an account (but it's always the same IP address) and I have to constantly revert vandalism. It's become rather annoying and was wondering if you can put this on yout Bot's watch list or something. here is the URL. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arizona_State_University_Athletics

Alexdragon 18:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)