User talk:Tawkerbot2/apr2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Help 2 Tawker, I hope this was a joke 3 What was reverted? 4 Back to the drawing board! 5 Bad revert: Fall Out Boy 6 Tawkerbot2 error on Marriage 7 Austin I 8 PetPets 9 Bit prudish? 10 Blocked 11 The "redirects" issue 12 User talk:Dcandeto 13 Consider changing name to "Blankerbot2" 14 Bot warning 15 Aiee 16 Feature Request 17 Buffyverse tracklist 18 Reverted to edit by same user 19 Suggestion 20 Not fair 21 Tawkerbot2 Audit 22 I blocked the bot for bad talk messges 23 Which edit? 24 False positive 25 FAQ 26 Requset to look into automatic deletion 27 Re:Sorry 28 false positive on Chapelle's Show 29 Can we make it better, stronger, faster? 30 list of CW Network Affiliates 31 Harper Lee 32 *cough* 33 edit summary/. 34 CONGRATULATION!!111 35 Bot reverted an important edit to In the darkness 36 Nice one. 37 Sarah Chandler site 38 Bot messed up page 39 Edit by User talk? 40 Tawkerbot2 (what else?) 41 Your Bot is running Amok 42 Ajith 43 Extraterrestrial life 44 Bill Maas 45 Framework? 46 Missed re-vandal 47 "Last warning" vandals 48 reverts of anons 49 It's bad enough that editors want to delete Garcia Marquez, but now bots too !? 50 HE KILLED A GUY! (another false positive) 51 A note re reply times on this page 52 Regarding pages blanked by author 53 New feature 54 Mistake 55 Sorry 56 Edit 57 Neopet Revision 58 Bhrigu Samhita 59 Question & pattern request 60 Edit summary 61 Tawkerbot reverted to test edit 62 Stem cell 63 srsly 64 FIPS Place Codes deletion/ I am not vandalizing pages 65 A request 66 the legitimacy of only "positive" information 67 Faggot (epithet) 68 Stupid mistake...... 69 Deleted instead of moved, my bad! 70 Concern 71 Saddam Hussein 72 Non-causal edits 73 Just trying to help 74 Re: Glenn Branca entry 75 Just wondering 76 What articles does it scan? 77 Edit in the Article Mathrubhumi 78 Strange edit by Tawkerbot2 79 Friedrich Nietzsche revert 80 Stop this bot from undoing my improvements to the Arizona State University page 81 Deleted my work 82 Grass mania 2 83 Bug/feature 84 Mew 85 Eyeshield 21 edit reverted 86 Vandilism 87 Vandalism Warning on IP page 88 United States history section 89 not my fault 90 Remove "Jaradus Networks" arrticle 91 why did you do that? 92 On a more positive note 93 Buddha 94 Thank you 95 [[Media:Example.ogg]] 96 Accuracy 99,9% ? 97 ann coulter 98 Kayode Modupe-Ojo 99 Great Job 100 Suggestion for copyright violations without the template 101 Vandalism? 102 Trans Europ Express 103 Header 104 Jaetas 105 Book page deleted by bot 106 Battle of The Little Bighorn 107 Raaso 108 yeah i got a question 109 Links to "Insert text" 110 confused bot 111 The Jesus of Suburbia 112 Pakistan 113 Vandilism Warnings. 114 Wow 115 Can i take a look at the pattern? 116 Lance Diamond Edit 117 Deleting my edits 118 That was my friend. 119 Longroyd Bridge 120 If you get the chance... 121 Magna Carta/temp 122 edit that i have never done 123 Request for Wikipedia username changed

Help

Is there any way I can make a bot of my own? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by EKN (talk • contribs) 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawker, I hope this was a joke

I hope this was an April Fools' joke, or you have some explaining to do, my friend... NSLE _(T+C) at 00:13 UTC (2006-04-1)

What was reverted?

I got the reversion notice on my talk page. It doesn't tell me what I did or what it reverted. Please clue me in here. Yahnatan 00:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Joshbuddy replied on your talk page, it was a bug dealing with redirects, he's fixed it I think so it shouldn't happen again. Sorry about that -- Tawker 05:24, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Back to the drawing board!

In concept this bot is a great idea, but it still needs more work and should be turned off or at least tuned down until more bugs are worked out. Here is an example of an anonymous editor spending the better part of an hour making legitimate edits to an article, and along comes a bot that throws it all out the window, leaving a note, "thanks for experimenting, now frig off." To a human it is obvious that those were all good-faith edits.

I do a lot of vandalism reverts, and I take a lot more care than this to not alienate editors who are honestly trying to improve articles. --Kbh3^rdtalk 01:20, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Bad revert: Fall Out Boy

[1] Your bot needs a tuneup. —This unsigned comment was added by 75.0.170.76 (talk • contribs) .

Uh, "Fall Out Boy is a gay band from the suburbs of Chicago, Illinois that formed in 2001. While sucking each other off, the band asked the audience at a show what their band should be called?" It just didn't revert far enough. --Rory096 06:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2 error on Marriage

I'll provide the diffs to try and make it easy to sort out. Vandal edit, followed by my revert, followed by Tawkerbot2's revert of me. Thankfully when I reverted back it wasn't a problem again. Bot just confused, but I'll let you decide if it's random or systematic. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 01:55, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Must be a bug, tracking it down now, thanks for bringing it to my attention -- Tawker 06:07, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Austin I

This was definitely a false positive. GeorgeStepanek\^talk 08:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

PetPets

So was this. Listen, good sir. I praise you for running a bot that fights vandals, but PetPets needs to merge to Petpet, already a longer and more well-established article. Therefore, this was not vandalism. Some editors create articles before being made aware of another article of a different spelling, but essentially the same content. --Shultz IV 08:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Bit prudish?

[2] --pgk^(talk) 16:19, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Blocked

I've blocked the bot because it likes to warn editors when they make articles into redirects. It's warned a few people already, including me, so please fix it and I'll unblock. Thanks Naconkantari e|t||c|m 17:32, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

You know you can just go on IRC and say "ctawkbot norevert," right? It's a lot easier that way... --Rory096 17:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

@ Tawker -- Maybe you should modify the bot template in the user page to give info about the norevert mode from IRC instead of the current "Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning or causing harm, please block it." Good work btw. _└ ^VodkaJazz/_talk^┐ 22:00, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The "redirects" issue

The bot was using a slight code modification, it was using a regex to checking for all possibilities of #REDIRECT and apparently it screwed up in that attempt. The bot is stopped until I can figure out why its screwed up and fix it. Sorry about any problems caused by this bug, I think I've gone though and fixed them all / they were already fixed before I saw these messages. -- Tawker 18:42, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I got a revert when turning Egypt at the 1896 Summer Olympics to a redirect on 4 April. Revert syntax used was:

#REDIRECT: [[Greece at the 1896 Summer Olympics]]

which does create a valid redirect. -- Jonel | Speak 13:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I bet it's the colon after the word redirect. I've never seen that syntax, and would have bet it was invalid. Obviously it's valid syntax, and if that's not in the bot's lists of valid redirect syntax, it should be. - TexasAndroid 14:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I've never heard of that one either, to the list it shall go. Do we have a list of other correct redirect syntax so we can get em all with one shot? -- Tawker 14:38, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope, that's pretty much the only one I've ever used (for slightly more than 2 years now, actually). Hadn't realized it was so unusual. -- Jonel | Speak 14:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

User talk:Dcandeto

Thanks for experimenting with the page User talk:Dcandeto on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. dcandeto 20:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See reply on your talk page. The edit in question was deleted so I really have no idea what happened as the bot doesn't store the edits (I only have so much hard drive space :) -- Tawker 21:14, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Consider changing name to "Blankerbot2"

See this edit. dbtfz^talk 20:53, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

One bug, besides, the bot has too many edits for a username change now, I've taken a look and hopefully fixed it :) -- Tawker 21:11, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Understandable. I'm sure the bot does far more good than harm. dbtfz^talk 21:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Bot warning

Huh? What vandalism? --84.249.252.211 21:21, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

See reply on your talk page -- Tawker 02:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Aiee

I suppose this isn't a unique problem, but I got hit with a {{test}} today for no known reason. It might be helpful if you had the bot include the name of the "vandalized" page... just a thought. Anyways, it is a great bot, so... happy editing! Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 01:44, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, as we can see here (scroll down to about 20:36), tb2 apparently reverted someone else, but warned you. This sometimes happens when the database is lagged, because it shows the wrong person in the diff (or history, wherever it gets it from). Sorry about that. --Rory096 06:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Feature Request

Please stop the bot from issuing warnings if:

• either the vandal's talk page has been edited since the vandalism took place
• and/or if Tawkerbot2 is actually beaten to revert the vandalism by someone else.

We're getting loads of double warnings on IPs, and it's not good. — FireFox • T [09:48, 2 April 2006]

Buffyverse tracklist

I recently made two edits to this article Buffyverse tracklist

Before I started recent edits: [3]

After I completed recent edits: [4]

Unless I'm going mad this is not vandalism, in fact it makes the long article far easier to browse, so I will revert the anti-revisions your bot has made.

If your bot has done this to that article what other beneficial work could it be removing?

-- Paxomen 18:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Reverted to edit by same user

Can't give you the diff as the article has been speedied by the summary was "BOT - Reverted edit by User talk:Piratejesus (46649306) - reverted to User talk:Piratejesus (46649230)" It probably shouldn't do that. --pgk^(talk) 21:57, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion

It'll be a good idea, if possible, to wiki-link the message that is automatically posted to talkpages by the bot, such as the sandbox. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 13:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, its on the todo list, Tawkerbot2 v xx should be fairly major and include a bunch of new features -- Tawker 14:02, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Not fair

I want to be an admin now, just so as to be able to press that big red button... Palmiro | Talk 15:29, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2 Audit

An audit of Tawkerbot2's reverts was conducted on April 3, 2006. The results were (129/3) for a result of 97.7% accuracy. --lightdarkness ^(talk) 00:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

What were the three it screwed up on? joshbuddy^talk 00:38, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the bot for bad talk messges

I saw the message left at User talk:69.216.240.76. While I agree that the edit(s) reverted were indeed vandalism, I'm concerned that the message left on the user's talk page is really rather daunting. Most new users won't even know what a "bot" is. It should also identify what article was reverted (for everyone's convenience). References to things like the sandbox should be wikilinks, etc. I've blocked the bot for 24 hours to give you a chance to fix these things. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The bot can run while the message can be fixed by Tawker. Due to this, I let the bot be unblocked. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe the messages are fixed. If there is something more you want from there messages, please let me know. joshbuddy^talk 02:37, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

You could have a link in the warning message to a page like: User:Tawkerbot2/FAQ aimed at new users with answers to many basic questions like "What is a bot?" and how this one operates. The page could be protected and have a prominent link to this talk page to ensure that any messages they want to post (after they have read the FAQ) are posted here. The Tawkerbot2 user page does some of this, but because it also tries to handle issues that admins and experienced users may have, it is too complex of a page for the newbie user. NoSeptember ^talk 02:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Which edit?

I got a note about a bot, but I have no idea which edit the note was referrring to. I don't do vandalism. Maurreen 02:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

See reply on your talk page, it was the redirect issue which I've fixed -- Tawker 02:50, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

False positive

here. Reverted one anon user blanking vandalism from another anon. Not sure how you'd ever detect that this was a good edit... (ESkog)^(Talk)

FAQ

That page came along quite nicely :). I revised the warning a bit to encourage clicking the FAQ link instead of the bot's signature. If possible, I would think signing with a link to this talk page would be better than linking to the user page. NoSeptember ^talk 17:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Requset to look into automatic deletion

Your bot deleted a perfectly legitimate relocation of information (moving a list of books burned in Fahrenheit 451 (film) from Fahrenheit 451), it then left me a rather condescending note on my talk page. Please leash it. Ionesco 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Sorry

Sorry, my sister was doing research on Italy. And I wanted to tell her how Wikipedia worker and how you can edit the entries and all that. So I showed her that, what I did was, I copied all of the article;quickly showed her that you can edit the article and reverted back the changes. Sorry for any disobedience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.28.250.124 (talk • contribs)

false positive on Chapelle's Show

[5]

Totally understandable. I fixed the Chapelle's Show article so it doesn't use uppercase. Cool bot! Pfalstad 02:06, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Can we make it better, stronger, faster?

This is some vandalism the bot missed. Maybe you can improve the bot with this info? [6] (near full blanking), [7] (more than one exlamation point), [8] (I'm guessing most uses of fuck in all caps can be reverted). Again thanks for the great bot! -Ravedave 02:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

list of CW Network Affiliates

For WBDC, the link really should point to WBDC-TV, not to the disambiguation page at WBDC. That was the edit I made which was reverted.

See reply on your talk page, I've fixed it (the page) -- Tawker 08:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Harper Lee

You may want to look at what happened on Harper Lee. Maybe you have encountered this before: vandalism, real update, vandalism by same user, tawkerbot. Missed the earlier vandalism. A tough one to catch, I would imagine. John (Jwy) 17:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

oh, its vandal 1, vandal 2, vandal 1, tawkerbot2. John (Jwy) 17:25, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

*cough*

Erm... Tawkerbot2 has a strong opinion. [9] — FireFox • T [17:51, 5 April 2006]

Hmmmm, I wonder if its the 2 vandal issue though it should have caught that. I'll take a look when im back in front of a desktop (sry about replying as tb2, my bberrys ip is blocked. Tawkerbot2 19:11, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

edit summary/.

a revert shows this summary..

Tawkerbot2 m (BOT - Reverted edit by User talk:216.56.27.115 (47089798) - reverted to User talk:SYSS Mouse (47089765))

I'm truly sorry.

CONGRATULATION!!111

--Shanel 02:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Bot reverted an important edit to In the darkness

In the darkness is 3/4 of a sentence + many lines of copyvio lyrics. My attempt to remove the copyvio was reverted by your bot. 24.177.122.249 02:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• I don't think a copyvio tag would be appropriate for the edit I made. Unless instructions have changed, copyvio tags are only used if the entire article is a copyvio. Smaller copyvios can be handled by deleting the inappropriate material. There was 3/4 of a sentence that wasn't a copyvio, so potentially that stub could have been left. Deleting the thing is probably better in this case, however, so we're where we want to be. 24.177.122.249 02:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• It's cool. I find vandalism maddening, and this is the first time I've ever been crossed up by a bot, so I'm not complaining. This situation is a bit unusual, although I have found a few articles like this: a song article that is a tiny stub followed by several paragraphs of copyvio lyrics that should be removed. 24.177.122.249 03:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice one.

I thought this was particularily funny.

See this --Spook ^{(my talk | my contribs)} 02:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Sarah Chandler site

Hi,

I recently tried to delete the entry i created for Sarah Chandler, who is a friend of mine. The entry is 100% correct but Sarah Chandler herself has asked me to remove the entry for reasons of privacy. My removal was reversed by Tawkerbot2. Is there any way to get the entry removed? Thanks, Michael Cameron. —This unsigned comment was added by 210.55.201.197 (talk • contribs) .

Yes, but you have to tag it with a speedy tag, such as {{db-author}} or {{db-bio}} to get it actually deleted, rather than just blanked. --Rory096 05:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rory, but I am not sure how to do that. Can someone please explain? —This unsigned comment was added by 210.55.201.197 (talk • contribs) .

You just need to hit edit and type in {{db-author}} on the top of that article. --Rory096 07:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Bot messed up page

I am now struggling to put right a problem with Fletcher-Munson curves. I was trying to get the template I put up to turn black, and identified the problem as the use of an en-dash somewhere. I tried to delete the redirect but it caused a delete template to appear on Fletcher-Munson curves and now I just don't know how to fix things and get there at all. Can you sort it out for me? I want the nav template to work without going through the em-dash redirect. --Lindosland 11:45, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't see the bot make any changes to the page, (unless I haven't had enough espresso this morning) so I don't think its a bot problem. I'm a little confused, what exactly are you trying to do, fix a redirect or is there something in the template -- Tawker 14:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

He blanked a redirect, and the bot reverted him, restoring the redirect (Clicking on the links he gave invoke the redirect, so you have to then go back to the redirect to find the bot's actions). I'm not really sure either what his actual goal was. - TexasAndroid 15:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit by User talk?

It's not a big deal, but it seems odd to me that Tawkerbot2 attributes edits to User talk pages rather than the User ("BOT - Reverted edit by User talk:209.226.36.10 (47250996) - reverted to User talk:Mwanner (46971754)"). Is there a reason for that? Just curious. -- Mwanner | Talk 14:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Mostly because the links point to the talk pages as its where I (and most users IFIAK) go to check out a user's history. Its open for debate, if enough people want a new format, it can fairly easily be changed (though I'm a little hesitant because it will break syntax on a few bot dependent scripts) -- Tawker 14:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawker, stick with the talk pages. User pages of IP address are almost always empty. Talk is where I usually go to. It's a nice feature. - Ganeshk (talk) 14:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2 (what else?)

Hi, I am just curious if it is essential for Tawkerbot to provide revision numbers in the edit summaries. Seems like an entirely redundant piece of information, not really useful to human editors. Am I missing something important? Thanks.—Ëzhiki (ërinacëus amurënsis) 15:42, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really necessary, mostly it was for debug purposes. The only major reason for not changing it is people have matched its patterns in various other bots and changing it would break the other programs -- Tawker 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Your Bot is running Amok

I put up an article entitled American Revolutionary War Campaigns, which someone else moved to American Revolutionary War Campaign Streamers, which was vandalism. the only justification for the change could have been the fact that I illustrated the article ith a picture of a Revolutionary War Campaign Streamer, but the intent of the article was to present the synopsis of the Revolutionary War Campaigns in a single article. I moved the article back to its rightful place, and your bot interfered. My manual move was NOT vandalism (I would be vandalizing my own article). FIX YOUR BOT!!! SSG Cornelius Seon (Retired) 20:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Responded on the user's talk page. - TexasAndroid 20:15, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Ajith

Vandals have using this bot to sustain their nonsense in this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajith

Kindly remove the bot monitor from the article or ban the vandals who have removed links and whole paragraphs without any discussion whatsoever. Anwar saadat 21:49, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Can someone explain what triggered Tawkerbot2's reversions ([10],[11]) of the Ajith article? Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 22:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I won't explain it due to WP:BEANS fears. Suffice it to say, something was a little bit too sensitive, I've made some pretty decent modifications that should make this more precise. Sorry about those reverts. joshbuddy^talk 23:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand. It almost seemed as though the bot was taking sides in a revert war. Thanks. --TantalumTelluride 01:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Extraterrestrial life

A wildly prolific and successful bot--but often wrong, as I again noticed today. It reverted a vandal blanking back to an already vandalized version AFTER I'd successfully corrected things on extraterrestrial life (see hist round about 23:00 UTC). I'm clueless with bots, but the fact that it would revert to a wrong version after my correction tells me there's something wrong with this one... Marskell 23:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is just one of those unlucky things that can happen. There is no easy way to prevent this. Well, actually, I can think of one way. I'm going to go away and think about this.... perhaps it is easily possible. joshbuddy^talk 23:37, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Bill Maas

I deleted the entry "Bill Maas" because the entire entry appears to be made up on a whim and none of the information is factual. Your bot has reverted my deletion. Please fix this. Thanks.

If you feel this article is nonsense, why don't you use a {{db-nonsense}}. Even then, I don't see anything delete worthy about the article itself. joshbuddy^talk 01:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Framework?

Which framework is tawkerbot run on? I am thinking of writing my own RC patrolling bot, that would log some common article mistakes. I cant find anything in the python wikipedia framework for parsing RC. -Ravedave 02:41, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

pgk's pgkbot is the RC interface -- Tawker 02:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Missed re-vandal

This was missed by the bot. Included some standard vandal stuff; and was caught the first time, but not the second time though. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 07:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

"Last warning" vandals

Because of how thorough Tawkerbot2 is in reverting vandalism, I've noticed several cases where a vandal has been given a {{test4}} "last warning" before Tawkerbot2 leaves a "your edit has been reverted" message. My suggestion is that Tawkerbot2 should check for a test4 (subst'd or otherwise) that is recent, and if one exists, should post a message to the appropriate place to request an admin block the user instead of adding the boilerplate warning.

My reasoning is that any user (or perhaps just IP users?) who have already garnered a test4 are highly likely to have triggered Tawkerbot2 with something other than a legitimate edit. Even in those rare cases, the message requesting an admin block the user can ask the admin to double-check. — Saxifrage ✎ 15:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I generally agree with this idea, for what it's worth. Tawkerbot2 has been doing good work whacking moles on Thomas Pynchon today, so I'm quite pleased overall. Anville 16:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

reverts of anons

Hi, bot driver. Please be careful when reverting vandals and ALWAYS check the previous history. In some articles there are swarms of vandals, whole stacks of them in the history. Your last revert of Sam was a bit careless. `'mikka (t) 22:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

This is a problem that I haven't come up with a simple solution to. As it stands, if there are multiple vandals coming from different usernames/IPs, it will require human intervention to clean up. As it would have required human intervention to clean up in any event, I don't personally see this as a great loss. It would be nice though, to have Tawkerbot2 understand this sort of attack and thwart it. I hope to do this later. joshbuddy^talk 23:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've got an impression that Tawkerbot2 is semi-auto. For all true bots I sent the following kind of message:

It would be very good if any bot reports the username of the previous edit. I track vandals in my watch list by seeking for anon and re-linked user names. Edits by bots "mask" this visual aid, thus hindering the eyeball search and, what is even worse, urge me to double check edits made by not-so-smart bots. Thus saving your time you are wasting my time. `'mikka (t) 15:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems you are getting complaints both by people who want edit summaries to link to talk pages of the last editor (which makes sense because the user page will often just be a redlink, especially for IPs) and others would actually like to see whether the user page is just a redlink. Might I suggest using a format like User:75.0.170.76 (talk) instead? Hopefully that would satisfy both parties... TheGrappler 17:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I will do this right now, its done. joshbuddy^talk 17:23, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I didn't read carefully what Tawkerbot2 does. My comment was directed mainly to bots that fix typos, modify categories, etc. A bot that reverts vandals is a different story. Since it is already known that it handles a vandal, knowing the previous edit is not really informative. It this case a message useful for me would be kind of "rv from User:75.0.170.76 to User:I am a lucky vandal". But wouldn't it be a too much burden for the database? `'mikka (t) 17:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

New message format: Thanks. That's what I wanted. May I suggest to abbreviate "reverted" to "rv"? Less reading, less writing. Edit summary is of limited max length, some trolls use very long names. But this is less important. `'mikka (t) 18:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've made some changed to the format. Made it considerably shorter. Thanks. joshbuddy^talk 19:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

An example [12] joshbuddy^talk 19:31, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's bad enough that editors want to delete Garcia Marquez, but now bots too !?

[13] Monicasdude 01:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The bot really doesn't have feelings, and I'm not totally sure about your addition. It really doesn't look like it fits -- Tawker 01:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Compare it to what was there before. Just stubbing it so somebody who knows enough about GGM can put together a better page. Monicasdude 01:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

HE KILLED A GUY! (another false positive)

See this edit. What's up with that? dbtfz^talk 05:01, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

That is perhaps the funniest false positive yet... Joe 05:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Technically this isn't a false positive. Its more likely a network delay. On network delays, it needs to refetch, not use stale data. Need to fix the whole edit conflict nuttiness. Gonna look at this right now. joshbuddy^talk 05:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed this. As soon as I'm done my current project, I'm going to write a REAL bot interface to wikipedia (wikimedia). Scraping web pages is fun and old, but it could be so much better. joshbuddy^talk 06:03, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

A note re reply times on this page

I am currently undergoing what has turned onto one of the longest sets of questions ever on an Request for adminship - possibly some of your bot questions are there so it might be a good place to check as a lot of Tawkerbot2 related stuff has come up (and I have 6 more days of this, I wonder if I can get 100 questions!) -- Tawker 08:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Update, maybe not 100 questions but I'm 4 votes short of WP:100. No nominating the bots unless its April 1st, ok (someone was IM'ing me about it :) -- Tawker 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding pages blanked by author

Somebody created an article called "Ben Schwartz" and then blanked it. I've moved it to User talk:Tawkerbot2/Ben Shwartz since it's obviously not a worthy article, but I still wanted Tawker and Josh to take a look at the page history. Notice the bot's edit summary that says:

BOT - rv Jesuschristo (talk) (47571404) to Jesuschristo (talk) (47571104)

In cases like these, the bot should apply the template {{db-author}} onto the blank page instead of reverting and giving a warning. Feel free to delete this crap after understand the concern and add this feature. — Apr. 8, '06 [17:24] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

• I noted something similar to this abov, note the db template should only be added if they are the sole author (which i guess is the scenario which creates the above situation.) I guess it might be worth having a slightly modified template to make it clear that it's an automated addition. --pgk^(talk) 17:28, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Completely valid point. This feature has been added. Thanks Joshsock 18:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

New feature

Hey, nice new feature. With my new special administrator glasses, I can see that tawkerbot2 added db-author to an article [14] which an anonymous user blanked, not the author themself. Mak (talk) 19:38, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Deletion log

    * 14:35, April 8, 2006 Makemi deleted "Touchpants" (content was: '{{db-author}}')

Page history

    * 14:30, April 8, 2006 . . Tawkerbot2 (auto add db-author)
    * 14:30, April 8, 2006 . . 71.225.0.164
    * 14:24, April 8, 2006 . . Fremitus

I deleted it before I realized, but it should have been deleted anyway, so no harm. Mak (talk) 19:57, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Let me clean this up.... No, this is great. I put in extra logging, and made a small change. I'm hoping if it happens again, I'll get to see it. joshbuddy^talk 20:04, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I am the one who created "German-Namibians" (from: Deutschnamibier) a few days ago but realised that it is much better to move the original "Germans of Namibia" (including the article history). Cant move though till the history-less dummy is deleted. ~

Mistake

I'm here to inform you that you made a mistake on reverting vandalism. Take a look at this edit. [15] As you can see, I've reverted it. Funnybunny 02:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've corrected this now. Thank you for reporting this. If you see any other like this (after the time of this edit) please let me know. joshbuddy^talk 09:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry

Sorry about what I did to the Bartok disambiguation page. It was an accident. I accidently clicked on save.

Edit

This bot keeps pulling information from SPOOKED: The Ghosts of Waverly Hills Sanatorium.

The information I put up is Valid.

Please discontinue.

Thanks.

Jessica Morris

Well, here is the edit history for the page, I don't see Tawkerbot2 in there at all. Might it be possible that you were talking about SPOOKED - in that case I see one edit and you removed all of the content from the page (I see you added a redirect on the second edit) - the total blanking is what triggered the bot. If you have any further questions please give me a shout -- Tawker 06:51, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The bot is detecting a valid problem. User:Harlie8304 has created three copies of a biography for the same person, others have changed some of them to redirects, and the user is reloading the duplicate text. See User Talk:Harlie8304, and check all contributions for that user. Thanks. --John Nagle 06:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm still not 100% sure of what the user is doing but it sounds like the bot is functioning properly, am I correct in this assumption? -- Tawker 07:02, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Neopet Revision

I'm sorry for what happened to the article. Apparently, TBC and I reverted at the same time, and we must've overlapped each other's revision.—GH 01:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

See reply on your talk page -- Tawker 04:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Bhrigu Samhita

Hi, just wanted to let you know Tawkerbot2 detected vandalism (someone had blanked the page) on the Bhrigu Samhita article. But, it reverted back to another vandalized version. Don't know if there's a good way around this. I reverted to a good version in the meantime. --Laura S 02:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

See reply on your talk page -- Tawker 04:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the followup. That makes sense. Neat concept for a bot, I'm pretty new here but from what I've seen, us humans are pretty overloaded. --Laura S 13:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Question & pattern request

I've seen a couple of reverts on my watchlists and have so far seen no mistakes. Good show. :-) I was wondering if this bot also reverts vandalism and test edits to the various sandbox pages. Also, I'd like to be email the patterns for vandalism if possible. I can be emailed in the usual fashion. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 15:37, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

Your edit summaries at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism/TB2 are pretty useless. I believe in good edit summaries wherever possible, especially for bots (bot edit summaries should be perfect). "Report 111.257.123.38, 6 warnings in last 24 hours" (yes I know this is not an IP address) would be a lot more useful than the meaningless "Wikipedia python library" you currently use. Please consider changing the edit summary when you find some time. Thank you, and happy bot-ing and coding, Kusma (討論) 16:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to support that idea. Or at least use a simple edit summary that makes sense, like the simple "Report possible vandal". Mak (talk) 18:55, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot reverted to test edit

I just thought you'd want to know that while Tawkerbot reverted vandalism here, it only backed one step, leaving the immediately preceding vandal edit in place (and thereby highly likely to be overlooked by the next human reverter also). :-( Bishonen | talk 17:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC).

Stem cell

There is a problem with your bot reverting this article. Funky Monkey 18:00, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I manually fixed it. Tawker 20:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

srsly

won't allow change to this page (the entry srsly)

Umm, it appears to be deleted, I didn't see any behaviour out of the ordinary in the deleted edits either. -- Tawker 01:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

FIPS Place Codes deletion/ I am not vandalizing pages

I am not vandalizing pages. I've been told that because of their size they don't want them here and that they are inappropriate for an encyclopedia. I created the pages. Since people have said they shouldn't be here, I am marking them for deletion. What a wasted effort. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rfc1394 (talk • contribs)

No vandalism in those edits, I just looked and the bots working perfectly. Instead of tagging it for deletion you put in an explicit word along with "I don't care any more *******" - the bot is working perfectly -- Tawker 01:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A request

Could you revert these kinds of test edits? [16]

Lotsofissues 11:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

the legitimacy of only "positive" information

I edited the wikipedia entry for Trenton, Ontario and now this Tawkerbot calls it vandalism for some reason? Does the Tawkerbot live in the city of Trenton, Ontario? I do not understand why my entry was pulled. It is factual. Just because it does not comply with a city's tourism board doesn't mean that it is not a fair and true about the city. I deleted nothing of previous entries, just added more truth. If wikipedia is supposed to be a truthful encyclopedia, than surely it must not only comply with the glorified truth, equal to that of a tourist brochure.

See reply on your talk page, though you might want to consider WP:NPOV - Wikipedia isn't exactly a tourist brochure, that seems a little on the side of POV'ism -- Tawker 14:04, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Faggot (epithet)

I reverted some wholesale vandalism by user Dragonsrevenge to Faggot (epithet), and it was in turn reverted back to the vandalised version by Tawkerbot2. And now, I'll re-revert.Eron 14:39, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I'll take a look into that, thanks for pointing it out -- Tawker 14:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Stupid mistake......

Whilst editing "List of catchphrases on the simpsons" I entered "Cowabunga dudes." for Bart Simpson and now I have recieved a stupid warning... Thanks a lot........

Well, one ! really would be enough :) -- Tawker 14:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted instead of moved, my bad!

sorry bout that. Im new to this whole thing and just realized what the move feature does. Tried to change List of Dalhousie Alumni to List of Dalhousie University people. It makes more sense and will meet with conventional naming of other universities. Dozens 16:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Replied on user's page. - TexasAndroid 16:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Concern

I like the idea of automatically cleaning up vandalism, but I'm concerned that the bot approach may reduce the opportunity to make new people feel comfortable with editing. I am not sure what the algorithm is, but some first tries at editing - as we acknowledge with the test templates - are indeed just tests by redeemable newbies. When I revert such things I sometimes personalize the warning message in a way to encourage the editor to continue in a more productive way. It would be difficult for the bot to personalize in this way. An alternative that might take care of this would be to give humans some time to take care of the vandalism first. If, after some period of time (1/2 hour?) it is still there, have the bot do its thing. A complexity for the bot, I know, but worth thinking about? John (Jwy) 16:45, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Unfortuneately, that goal goes counter to one of the active goals of the bot against real vandals. The fact that the vandal's efforts are reverted so quickly is intended to be a deterrent to further vandalism. Also, by reverting so quickly, the bot takes a good bit of the workload off of the human vandalism fighters. Since no human wants to let vandalism stand for 1/2 hour, having the bot wait would just put that work right back on the backs of the humans. Finally, there is already a problem occasionally with the bot when edits come rapidly before the bot gets into the act. If there was a 1/2 hour wait, then reverting many vandalisms might become impossible due to other edits in between. - TexasAndroid 16:53, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I could have not said it better - the idea of a delay has come up, but tb2 is a major deterrent, with it on the job vand lism has dropped a lot, a delay would seriously impar the deterrent. Better to fix the false positives than put more work on humans. Tawker 18:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. But the 1/2 hour is only a suggested solution to a problem. If the bot could recognize "redeemable vandalism" (note, not a false positive) from the others and leave it alone for a human to handle, that would contribute to two goals: reducing vandalism AND converting a exploratory vandal into a useful contributor. Perhaps delay processing any vandal when you detect a empty user talk page. Or maybe just a carefully worded warning is the simplest solution. In any event, thanks for the good work on a very useful bot. John (Jwy) 19:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

If you want to help tweak the first message that the bot uses, which would be the one newbie tests would be most likely to get, it's at User:Tawkerbot2/test1. - TexasAndroid 20:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Technically, the half an hour delay wouldn't be a technical challenge. With regards to tb2 blowing away someone's later edit, I believe that problem has been completely solved. I think the carefully worded warning is the best solution. tb2 also has a test4, which could take a much stronger tone. joshbuddy^talk 21:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Saddam Hussein

Not sure what happened, but I was attempting to revert something someone else apparently reverted second before RadioKirk talk to me 17:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

You had a problem that the bot had in it's early life, and it likely has to do with the popups revert tool you appear to have used. Between the time you saw the vandalism and the time you sent your revert, an admin did a admin revert. Then your revert command came through and reverted the admin, right back to the vandalized version. The bot saw your revert, flagged it as vandalism, and reverted once more. So this is a case of your pop-up tool doing the wrong revert. The bot was 100% correct in reverting you. I would suggest you just delete the bot's warning from your talk page and move on. It wasn't your fault, but the bot acted correctly, so just move on. :) - TexasAndroid 17:42, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Non-causal edits

I've noticed that Tawkerbot2 seems to be non-causal ;-) In the history of, e.g., Ogden the revert is posted before the vandalism edit. Although the current version of the page appears to reflect a proper revert. Probably a problem with the Wiki, but thought I'd mention it. Great bot! MFago 19:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

LOL. That is just bizarre. Gotta be a Wiki problem, unless the bot has suddenly gained psychic abilities to revert vandalism before it happens. :) - TexasAndroid 20:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Pre-vandalism?? Werdna648^T/_C\^@ 17:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to help

hey, i promise that i am not vandalizing the boards. for example, i just changed the information on the "devil jin" page. the raven link that was there was for the acutal bird raven and not the character. I apologize for any confusion. also, i dont remember editing the clarence thomas page. Caval —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.143.139.36 (talk • contribs)

The user was warned yesterday for this[17] edit, which looks to be fairly straightforward vandalism to me. - TexasAndroid 19:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I suspect the user isn't the original vandal and was confused by the messages on their Talk page from yesterday. I left a note for them explaining how IPs work and suggesting an account if they edit often. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: Glenn Branca entry

Some of the information in this entry is false. I tried to correct it but I assume that tawkerbot2 didn't like my changes and changed it back to the original. My changes were in fact mostly just deletions of false or misleading material. I am Glenn Branca so I know what I'm talking about. I also received some kind of blocker warning accusing me of "vandalism". I don't know all of your rules but I assure you that I did not vandalize the entry. Thank You, Glenn Branca

I don't see any edits by your username. I should probally point out that editing your own bio isn't a great idea, Jimbo Wales (the founder of the site) did it once and he got well, not good things, for it from the community. Perhaps you could bring up the issue on the articles talk page instead? -- Tawker 02:30, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Just wondering

If you want could you tell me how this works? I am just curious to what it looks for to be considered a vandalism edit? I noticed Tawkerbot on my watch list, when it reversed the edits of a user who changed the year of birth from 1956 to 1926. That was really cool that it could do that. Kyle sb 07:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the exact criteria are something of a secret at this point. We would rather not let the vandals know what the bot is watching for, as that would make it easier for them to avoid the bot. The programmer has shared the criteria with me, and I suspect with several other admins, but in general it's kept under wraps. Sorry. - TexasAndroid 13:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Kyle sb, where was that change? Can I please see it? joshbuddy^talk 14:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Well now I go back and checked the article I was thinking of the year - 1956 to 1926 was not changed by Tawkerbot. A registered user edited that and I got it mixed up with another page Tawkerbot edited. Thats why i asked what it looked for, because it amazed me it could pick up on that. I wondered if it was just watching that particular IP or if it was manually assisted. Although obviously this bot is going to have problems, I have noticed its doing a good job and countering a very serious problem. And I understand its important not to release the details of how the bot works, so I no longer want to know. Thanks for the reply. Kyle sb 15:07, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

What articles does it scan?

Does the bot currently scan all Wiki articles, or just selected ones? If selected, how can we make requests to have other pages added to the list? --cholmes75 18:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I beleive it's not so much scanning the pages, as the changes. There are feeds of all changes to WP, and the bot watches the changes, and checks each one against it's various checks to decide if the edit is vandalism or not. - TexasAndroid 18:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

But there is a specific watchlist that all edits to the article will be checked. If you need a page watched send me a message. -- Tawker 18:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok. I'm stumped. What benefit do you gain from having a watchlist of specific articles to watch, when you are already watching all edits from all articles by watching the feed of changes. - TexasAndroid 19:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not much really, it was a legacy feature that we never took out, no real harm in having it check them, new users could possibly leave an account for long enough to bypass the "new user" protection then we'd need the watchlist -- Tawker 05:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit in the Article Mathrubhumi

HI, I had deleted most part of the article Mathrubhumi as the whole content is copied from the website mathrubhumi.com. It seems to be a copyright violation. Fo this clean up I got a warning message and the page was reverted to the previous version with all copyrighted materials. It seems unfair. I cannot understand why this bot behaves this way. Is this programme created to protect articles that are just copyright infringement?. I wonder !!. Manjithkaini 13:59, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

To Tawker. You suggested on the above user's page that he use the copyvio tag. But I thought that the copyvio tag was more for entire articles that were copyvios. If it's just one or two sections that are copyvio, I though that general procedure was just to clear out the offending sections, not to tag the entire article. - TexasAndroid 15:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange edit by Tawkerbot2

This one: [18]. Now reverted to the correct version. GregorB 14:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Joshbuddy? You'll need to take a look at this one. Looks like TB2 picked up a Wiki error message instead of the old version, and reverted to the error message. ^_^;; - TexasAndroid 14:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if wikimedia returns a better HTTP number (better than 200) in these instances. Otherwise, I'm not sure how I could go about fixing this one. joshbuddy^talk 15:53, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the actual returned content and comparing it against the standard error message could do the trick... GregorB 11:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Friedrich Nietzsche revert

I was editing the Friedrich Nietzsche article using Cyde Weys' WikiRefs to bring it up date with the new reference standards as per Wikipedia:Template messages/Sources of articles and it got reverted. — Blahm 17:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop this bot from undoing my improvements to the Arizona State University page

Dude, stop this bot from undoing my changes. I spent 10 minutes improving the page and it kept undoing what I was fixing. Turn it off if it's not going to work properly. I just spent another 5 minutes figuring out how to post a message here to tell you how to fix this thing. This is very frustrating.

Sorry about this. Its all fixed now. joshbuddy^talk 18:33, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleted my work

You deleted my work to delete profanity left by another user... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.162.195.221 (talk • contribs)

I think this is in reference to Top-level domain; I returned the page to the appropriate state. An anon blanked the page and left only "fuck u hobo", whereupon the user who wrote to you simply removed the vandalism, but failed to revert the page, leaving an empty article. TawkerBot then reverted the "blanking" to the vandalized state. So, while the bot did return the page to an undesirable form, it did so only in view of the anon's failing to revert (I don't mean to suggest that he/she erred, only that TawkerBot performed as one would hope it would in a blanking situation). Joe 00:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Grass mania 2

The reversion of a blanking by the pages only author, other than someone leaving a {{prod}} tag seems to a bot to be perfect vandalism... However it still seems like someone needs a bit of intelligence, which is why I am leaving this message here. Do with the bot what you must! Ansell 01:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you think the bot SHOULD do here? joshbuddy^talk 01:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Come to think about it, the page would have lost the CSD tag by the blanking, which would have meant it wouldn't be in the CSD system anymore. Good work BOT! Sorry. I thought that the bot should recognise blankings by pages only authors, but thats a bit intense really. Blankings aren't all that great. Ansell 01:13, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

In fact it does (or at least is supposed to) understand those sorts of blankings. But if someone else is in the edit history, it no longer recognizes that sort of blanking as legit. joshbuddy^talk 01:15, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it would have understood the legitimate effort of someone to blank their own page. It is a well designed rule overall. The fact that I think its better to leave it to CSD now has to mean it worked. Ansell 02:09, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Bug/feature

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but on its automated vandal reporting page, it sometimes repeats itself: see this diff for example: [19]. It looks like this happened when the bot reverted someone for a 5th and 6th time. I don't know if you intended the bot to do that (and I can see why one might want it to) so this is just an fyi. JoshuaZ 04:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

It was a bit of an unattended feature, essentially the bot is taking what it pumps out to IRC and posts it to AIV, it might be something to fix as the multiple alerts are really redundant (especially during a vandalbot attack) -- Tawker 06:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been adjusted per Tawker's recommendations. joshbuddy^talk 06:25, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page De Stijl on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Strothra 21:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Whoops! sorry, didn't look close enough on that one. --Strothra 21:19, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Mew

Mew. m:User_talk:Pathoschild#Vandalism. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 22:12, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Eyeshield 21 edit reverted

I attempted to edit the various pages where it says that Hiruma Youichi uses the word "damn" as a prefix to many of the nicknames he gives to people. The correct word is "fucking," according to non-VIZ-mangled canon. The bot must have thought it was a malicious edit, due to the curse word. *laughs*

Vandilism

Dude, I sware I haven't a clue of what you're talking about. I use this site frequently, and wouldn't think of harming it.

Vandalism Warning on IP page

I was brought to this page by a warning that popped up on my ip page. I, myself wasn't responsible for the vandalism, but I verified, and indeed it looks like it was vandalized. Nice work! Though, leaving a warning on a Tor exit-node's IP page isn't rather useful, except for the Op. to know. 207.172.220.7 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

No way for the bot to know if its a tor exit node, that might take a lot more code than I want the bot to have :o -- Tawker 06:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

United States history section

I recently summarized the history section of the US article by cutting it down in size, which was too big, and shortening the POV. However, the bot reverted the edit. Please help improve on this issue. Thank you.--Ryz05 22:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

not my fault

My computer is being hacked by someone, I'm not sure who, and at random times during mesI

Remove "Jaradus Networks" arrticle

The bot reverted a fake article I tried to delete from Wikipedia. I want to delete this because it is entirely fictional.

get out of my space - I work very hard on articles putting in content somehow a major edit was discarded by this bot. I realize that most of WE is for rock and roll. but some of us actually work for it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.150.180 (talk • contribs)

In that case, you should add {{prod}} to the page, blanking the page and removing all of the content, (as you did) -- Tawker 15:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

why did you do that?

I am trying to figure out why this device is interfering with my editing. Smokefoot 01:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

After a user request, I have taken a look at this particular use of the bot. I notice this change is the edit that triggered the bot. Several things should be noted:

1. The editor was the sole contributor to the article prior to this edit.
2. The bot therefore reverted "version by Smokefoot" to "version by Smokefoot."
3. Smokefoot is a well-respected contributor to chemistry articles, and this article is of a high standard.

I presume that Smokefoot was trying to perform a major rewrite of the article. Although the edit seems like vandalism at first glance, he must have had his reasons for the edit. I realise you can't check easily for #3, but #1 and #2 are possible. I would like to suggest that Tawkerbot3 (or maybe Tawkerbot2.1?) should have the following refinement:

• Check that the editor is not the sole contributor. If they are, leave it alone.

I can see that #2 may be trickier, because a vandal may do a minor edit that the bot sees as OK (say, changing the population of a town from 23,232 to 32,323) then the vandal may go on to blank out a large section. However it does seem silly that it reverted Smokefoot to Smokefoot! Walkerma 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

See reply on Smokefoot's talk page -- Tawker 06:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

On a more positive note

Since you probably just get lots of complaints here, I thought you might appreciate some praise! I recently gave a talk on Wikipedia as a chemical information source at the American Chemical Society national meeting in Atlanta, and I included a screenshot of a Tawkerbot2 reversion of vandalism. I pointed out how the bot had caught conversion of sulfuric acid to a page of dadadadadadadada within 2 or 3 minutes, I used it to illustrate how quickly most vandalism is caught. Well done on that one, when the bot works right (which it usually seems to) it can be a great asset. Walkerma 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Buddha

Please stop your bot. You are repeatedly interfering with my legitimate attempt to improve the article. I can accept being interfered once but not twice. Wikipedia articles are policed by wikipedian who have thing called common sense. Vapour

Thanks for giving me warning that I will be blocked for vandalism. I'm not going to touch that article until your bot is turned off. Please restore whatever your bot did, this time without using bot. Vapour

I have stopped the bot for 15 minutes... Sasquatch t|c 03:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

I Just saw your bot help revert vandalism om the Alexander Fleming page. Well done! Is everyone as happy with the bot, or can I help with the logic?DanielDemaret 09:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[[Media:Example.ogg]]

Seeing this more often in unreverted vandalism, please include in bot behavior. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

And == Headline text == as well. - RoyBoy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy 99,9% ?

You make jokes? Look 99,9% accuracy vandalism in a series. The Bot reverted only the last one!?! If this will work, I will do request for the German Wikipedia. --Olliminatore 22:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Sidenote: the percentage statistic refers to false positives, not false negatives (how many mistakes it makes, not how many misses it makes) ~ PseudoSudo 22:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm sorry for my misunderstanding. I very like the principle of the Bot. I give my suggstion to improve him. Can this problem become fix? Thanks --Olliminatore 22:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The bot did not know whether any of those previous edits were vandalism or not. Only the last edit was sufficiently unambiguous for it to recognise it as vandalism. So it reverted that edit, but couldn't revert any of the others – Gurch 10:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That's an very deciding (important) disadvantage. Which I think is be (without difficulty) solvable. --Olliminatore 16:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

ann coulter

I replaced the word aggressive with vituperative in describing coulter's style. "Aggressive" is far too generous a word to describe someone with views slightly to the left of Atilla the Hun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.67.217 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2 did not revert the edit you're referring to; the reversion was done by User:Mushroom; I suggest bringing the matter up with him. ~ PseudoSudo 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Kayode Modupe-Ojo

I am the user that made this page and I am the person that has deleted/edited this page because of personal reasons. I would be glad if you could leave it as it is.

Thank-you.

You need to tag it with either prod or db|creator request, the bot can't tell that you are the creator though I'm not 100% sure if GFDL licensing will allow us to delete the page -- Tawker 23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Great Job

Congrats, Tawkerbot2! You have now beaten me to reverting vandalism 50 times! Keep up the good work.

--Primate ^#101 02:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion for copyright violations without the template

I have a suggestion that might stop the bot from reverting the blanking of a copyright violation, at least some of the time. The bot could look for certain words in the edit summary, like "copyright", "copyvio", "copied" and "taken from". Editors often use these words in an edit summary even when they don't use the template because they don't know how else to tell others it is a copyright violation. If the bot determines that the article was a copyright violation, perhaps it could put a notice on the user's talk page about using the copyright violation template, if it's able to do that sort of thing. -- Kjkolb 03:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'll look into it, thanks for the suggestion -- Tawker 04:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

"Your recent edit to Wayne Taylor was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles."

There are multiple users sharing one internet connection. Please take note of this before IP banning.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.54.175.211 (talk • contribs) 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I sharedip noticed your talk page, but no idea what type of connection this is, ARIN wasn't too friendly -- Tawker 02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Trans Europ Express

Hello, you have remove my move of the lemma Trans Europe Express in Trans Europ Express. This is a Failure. The right name oft this trains was Trans Europ Express (see the talk on the Site Trans Europe Express) and here [20] Please remove your remove to the right lemma. --Mäfä 07:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Header

I've seen your messages on talk pages during my recent bout of vandal hunting. Could you add a header to your messages, so they're separated from any previous messages? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Jaetas

Regarding this edit (and another one on the same article), they're not exactly harmful reversions but they are unnecessary ones. I don't know if there's any way of avoiding them, perhaps the bot could filter out very new, very short articles, or articles where the creator's username is the same as the article name? Heh, actually for that last criterion it might as well tag them with {{delete}} anyway – Gurch 10:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Book page deleted by bot

Your recent edit to Psychotherapy: a Personal Approach 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 our 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. // Tawkerbot2 11:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me why this was marked for deletion by your bot in the first place? Is it because the colon is not permissible? I am concerned because I am also being told that Wikipedia is not for books, and the Wikilinks to this page were removed too, which I feel is wrong, as there are thousands of pages on books. --Lindosland 11:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Battle of The Little Bighorn

The main article on this battle is Battle of the Little Bighorn. Battle of The Little Bighorn should redirect to it.--Brendenhull 19:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't your redirect that triggered the bot, it was you blanking the page that did it. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Raaso

In checking up behind your bot, I found the edit to page Raaso, which reverted a legitimate edit which sought to resolve copyright issues, as stated in the summary and on the talk page. Issues of this sort ought to be outside of your bot's sphere of influence. See the reversion here. GreetingsEarthling 23:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

yeah i got a question

it says i vandalized somthing and i dont remeber doing anything wrong can you tell me what i did?

See reply on your talk page -- Tawker 04:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Links to "Insert text"

I just found on User talk:69.171.119.11 a link to [[Insert text]] added by the bot. I think it'd be better to add the nowiki in this automatic comment, as otherwise it will be impossible to use [21] to find such editing experiments anymore - which I do manually regularily. Besides, not all edits which add this link are editing experiments, sometimes (however rarely) good text gets added, but for whatever reason one of the buttons in the editing toolbar was clicked as well. It seems this most often happens with [[Link title]] however... andy

confused bot

is there a way to improve bot's recognition of vandal? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 15:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

What edit is it confused on? -- Tawker 15:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus of Suburbia

The article "Jesus of Suburbia had lots of heavy html in the SOng analysis. I removed all that and replaced it with Wikipedia code instead, and improved typos. Suddenly, this bot comes around and put back the heavy html. Look at the code. Seriously, every line of wirting has like 5 lines of code. I had to do it. --PokeOnic (Talk) 21:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Pakistan

hi. The webpage Pakistan, has the following lines " Although Bollywood movies are banned, pirated discs are easily available, so Indian film stars are popular in Pakistan as well" in the culture section. However, this is a baised statement and currently software piracy is being addressed in pakistan.. and to state such a fact is to diminish the reputation of a country ..

kindly either erase the page or change it to Although Bollywood movies are banned, Indian muslim film stars such as Shahrukh Khan and Aamir Khan are popular in Pakistan as well. This is the same effect that pakistani TV actors such as Moin Akhter and bands like Strings and Junoon have a vast popularity in India.

Umm, I don't see the bot editing it, do you have an exact diff -- Tawker 00:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Vandilism Warnings.

You Keep Telling Me That I Have Committed Vandilism On This Site I Know That I've Only Edited One Page And That Was A Correct Entry. But I Use AOL Is That The Problem?

Basically, yes. AOL uses a system that is a large open proxy so the IP addresses which Wikipedia uses to know whom to send messages to jump around, so you will often receive messages meant for another unregistered AOL user who was vandalizing. One solution of this is to register an account (which takes about 3 seconds) and then you will only get messages meant to go to you. JoshuaZ 07:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow

Thanks for the great bot, I am amazed at its speed and accuracy! Linuxerist E/L/T 18:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Can i take a look at the pattern?

Hi there,

I study linguistics and i have great interest in text processing programs, particularly Perl and regular expressions. I'd be glad to look at the code of the bot or at least the templates/patterns. And i'm not a vandal.

Thanks in advance. --Amir E. Aharoni 18:34, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Lance Diamond Edit

I edited the section on Lance Diamond because it consisted solely of a redirect to another article regarding a pro wrestler whose last name is also diamond. However, the two are not the same person. Lance Diamond is a singer from Buffalo, New York. I simply deleted the redirect because it was incorrect, but I don't know enough about Lance Diamond, or Wikipedia format, to write an accurate article. I probably should've noted that the article need expanding, but I'm not sure how to do that. However, the redirect to the pro wrestler article is incorrect as Lance Diamond is certainly not a pro wrestler.

I deleted the page, I hope that worked ok -- Tawker 19:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Deleting my edits

Whoever owns this bot, could you please check the undos of edits it did on my changes on "The Apprentice UK" page please? It said it thought I was vandalising, when I was just adding a quotation that the original writer omitted. Thanks

Chris edit: oh wait, I am using AOL, might that be the problem? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.203.147.64 (talk • contribs) 19:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Yep, its this diff - no quotation marks there, its the AOL multi users thing -- Tawker 19:50, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no, AOL is not related. Tawkerbot2 reverted this edit of yours, which didn't have to do with the quote you inserted. The quote you added here was reverted by User:Politepunk, likely due to the message regarding the photos you inserted, which should be posted on Talk:The Apprentice (UK TV series) rather than on the article itself. You can put the quote back on your own. ~ PseudoSudo 19:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Ooops, thanks for finding that :) -- Tawker 20:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

That was my friend.

It was my friend, and a lot of other people's that died - Ryan Foley.

You need to put that back in and if you even lived in South Windsor, CT, you'd know that it is important. He was a very nice guy if you ask anyone that knew him.

Umm, unless you have a statement of notability and or something else, it really doesn't fit there per the MoS -- Tawker 21:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Longroyd Bridge

Thanks for the info. The bot edited a revert of an unrequired redirect to a new article page, the bot edit has been re-edited. 86.3.1.236 22:26, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

If you get the chance...

... and find me worthy, I wouldn't mind looking at the pattern TB2 uses to spot vandalism. I've been beat to the revert a bunch of times now, and have been surprised at some of the vandalism it has caught. Anyways, it's not really a pressing issue, more of a curiosity than anything. And if you don't really wanna email me, that's fine too. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Magna Carta/temp

This page is no longer in use and needs to be blanked. Thank you. -- Stbalbach 19:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

edit that i have never done

there are several edits that ahve come up which i havent done, on budism etc, i created my own account yet this this happens and i have taken offence to this. i hope that it does not happen again.

You're using AOL which uses a large number of open proxies, hundreds of thousands of people share the one IP address, once you sign in you should not see the notices -- Tawker 20:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Wikipedia username changed

Hi, I would like to have my Wikipedia username changed, to comply with the username policy. Sjksiongboon - would like it changed to Invinciblebuddy.