User talk:AntiVandalBot/Oct06

Reverting all of a vandal's contributions

Hi. I noticed this edit made by the bot. As you can see, while it reverted some of what the vandal has written, his other "contributions" remained in place. Would it be possible to revert all contributions from a single user if one deserves revision? --Chodorkovskiy ^(talk) 08:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I guess it could be technically possible but it's a bit freaky.... we don't want to mass with potentially good edits, VandalProof might be better.. -- Tawker 01:45, 24 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Ramazan

Your recent edit to Ramazan (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 10:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I converted Ramazan into redirect Ramadan as the month of Ramadan is called Ramazan in most of the Asian countries, including Pakistan, India, Afghanistan, Bangladesh, and Far East. In other words half of the Muslim world pronounce Ramadan as Ramazan. Be sure that I did not remove any page but first created a new page for Ramazan Beg then redirect Ramazan to Ramadan. If you insist, then I have no objection. God bless you.

User:M.Imran 11:00 (UTC) 25 September 2006 Karachi.

User:209.97.229.61

This clown has had repeated warnings to stop vandalism, but continues to vandalize with impunity, like nonsense written to Taco Bell. Any chance he could be shut down? Tubezone 16:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious as to why this cat's only on a temporary block. His/her editing history ([1]) goes back just about six months and as far as I can tell every "contribution" has been some sort of vandalism. Why not just cut out the middle steps, and pull the trigger on this one? -JakeApple 02:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's an IP..... we don't indef IP's unless they're open proxies - -Tawker 04:51, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Third mistake on Iqbal

Hi - the bot has a problem - this is the 3rd time it branded my edit as vandalism. Rama's arrow 22:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googlewhack

I was deleting spaces inbetween words, e.g. "sing le" to make it "single" as it should be. I did this with 3 other words. Looks like it's back to "sing le". I was only correcting the article, not vandalising it! Obi-Dan Kenobi 12:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

I tried to restore a redirect put in place by an admin and reverted by an editor in Radio priority controversy and the bot cancelled the change. I suspect if I attempt it again it'll do the same, so I'd like to have an admin put that back or let my change go through. Thanks. Sparkhead 14:38, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad revert

This bot really needs an overhaul, It constantly reverts pages to previous, vandalised versions. The bot needs a code that tells it what version it should revert to, not always the last version. Also, the bot reverts the most obvious of errors, the ones that any member of the CVU, (like myself) would catch. The bots are rather useless, in my opinion, if they can't catch the hard-to-notice vandalism. Cheifsguy 15:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think it is getting..... bots don't write themselves overnight. As for it doing stuff that any CVU member would catch, yes, I know it does. I've seen the CVU feeds during times when there is tonnes of vandalism and nobody is around to fix it (that and mass vandalbot attacks). Trust me, last time the bot went offline for a bit I had a tonne of complaints from users wondering where the $(#)*# it went. In any case, the overhaul's n the works :) -- Tawker 00:39, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad revert

That was bad revert. There is need to make improe the bot. So please revert it to its earlier version. I want to remove the party's shortname. As that template is unnecessarily redundant of the its party name. Thanks, Shyam ^(T/C) 22:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Googlewhack

Looks like someone has gotten away with deleting the rules from the Googlewhack page, yesterday I seen that someone had changed a rule to "who cares" or something like that. The rules should be reverted to what they were. Obi-Dan Kenobi 08:11, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interlanguage unicode bug

(diff), known bug (User talk:Tawkerbot4/Sep06#Broken interwiki unicode character, User talk:Tawkerbot4/Sep06#Broken language interwiki link) continues. Femto 11:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH, VILE BOT!!

Heh. A minor editwar drama going on over at Rock_and_Roll_(Gary_Glitter_song), but nothing major. Just figured I'd pop by the talk page and alert ya - while nine times out of ten simply adding the word "fuck" is vandalism, there's always that pesky tenth. Maybe replacing "f---", "f***", "f**k", etc with the more mature and literary "fuck" should be noted and ignored by the bot? --70.108.126.75 14:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorry

i stepped away for a second and my friends decided it would be funny to delete a page. Those damn idiots. Sorry about that. Eagle3566 16:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

page blanking error.

I blanked a page of which I was the Origionater, primary contributer and would have been sole contributer if not for some Interfering Busybodies. The bot counter reverted before the artical could go by by. That is very problimatic... I still think the bot is a great idea though. Emperors Harbinger 21:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal on "Cristiano Marques Gomez"

24.63.252.44 immediatly vandalized the page after you reverted his previous blanking of the page. Can anything be done about this? Wushugene 22:17, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your vandalism!

Your f*cking bot vandalized the article Disc tumbler lock I was attempting to correct.--Fahrenheit451 04:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unicode corruption

In this edit, AntiVandalBot seems to have corrupted the got: interwiki link during the process of reverting vandalism elsewhere on the page. The other Unicode interwiki links weren't damaged, so I'm not sure what's odd about the got: characters, but I'm guessing the script mangled them somehow. --Delirium 22:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Burning Plains

Your bot reverted my redirect. The information in the article had already been merged. The article only had two sentences of content anyways, and a big honking navigation template. See: Places in the Inheritance trilogy 132.205.44.134 01:30, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Ray

Someone keeps vandalizing former pornstar Crystal Ray's page. I keep having to go back a revert the edits. I believe you even sided with me and reverted previous vandalism on that page earlier this month. This is IP user 200.188.xxx.xx (varies).

The big problems I have is that the person violates COPYRIGHT issues because he/she plagarizes by copying and pasting material. Furthermore, the copyright material is not a NPOV and is outdated (the user insists that she is still in porn, while she is not). See talk page for more information. Thanks for any possible help. Jbm867 02:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Simca esplanada

Hi, I got a message concerning an edit after a blooper of mine on the page above and need a bit of an exchange how to go about if something like this should happen again.

I issued the page on my very first day as contributor (three days ago...) and got the fist letter of "Esplanada" wrong, it wasn't capital. I then decided, after finding no way to repair this, to simply create a new page, copy the entire content over and delete the content of the page with the spelling blooper.

However you excellent anti-vandalism bot spotted my actions and acted promptly. In fact I would like to have that page deleted. Can you do that. Or should I do that myself. Hot do I do this?

sorry if I perhaps proceeded in the wrong way, all part of the learning process... :s

br --Vee8 03:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops

The bot just busted me for reverting an anon trying to replace a disambig page with an article. Is that standard, or is that a glitch? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot mistake

The bot just warned me for removing this unexplained text. I removed his warning of my talk page for now. Michaelas10 12:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Computer

This was a bad revert on Computer - 14:46, 30 September 2006 AntiVandalBot (Talk | contribs) m (BOT - rv Michaelas10 (talk) to last version by Bobblewik) I've redone it, so I hope it stays fixed.

Boss Sauce

This article is total spam. It was PRODed early on, and the creator (coincidentally named User:Bosssauce) blanked the article: [2] . AntiVandalBot diligently reverted the blanking very soon after: [3], after which the creator recreated the article. Perhaps if AVB hadn't blanked the article, we could have ended this all with a {{db-blanked}}. I don't know about Bosssauce, but I've seen other cases where new users post inappropriate articles, then blank them after getting some pushback, then get very frustrated about being "trapped" in Wikipedia process when the blanking is reverted. Would it be possible to instruct AntiVandalBot to allow blanking by the article's original creator? It seems like this might be a case where a little human discretion would be helpful. FreplySpang 17:49, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted legit edit

AntiVandalBot reverted this edit by me. I thought administrators were whitelisted? --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 21:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Bad revert to the South Park article

Your bot reverted my edit and left a vandalism warning on my talk page. In the article for Douche and Turd, the phrase "turd sandwich" was directing to people to the articles for "feces" and "sandwich", so I redirected it to Shit sandwich for a better explanation of the phrase. These Wiki bots aren't so hot. Roland Deschain 11:04, 1 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

KFC

[4] I reverted vandalism, but was reverted by this bot ... Please check it out. BigBen212 17:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

=Barnstar

You mistook the addition of an interwiki on Neoarchean for vandalism

84.83.194.208 10:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Bot Question

I'm interested in learning how to use your bot or a similar bot. How would I go about doing that? You can e-mail me or repond here. Thanks! Maniwar 12:14, 4 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

What the bot?

This makes no sense. [5]. Thatcher131 16:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Regarding Category:Entertainment lists

Salutations, AntiVandalBot! You have reverted thrice an edit from the aforementioned Category, but you see the content that you continually restore is spam. It must be removed. Please, if I remove this content again do not revert it. It is not meant to be there. Dooms Day34 9 21:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Reverted removal of vandalism

Hi. I found this edit, where the bot has unintentionally made vandalism worse. I don't know if the problem is fixable, and possibly it's not worth the effort (how many times a vandalized article is blanked by another editor?), just wanted to report in case. Tizio, Caio, Sempronio 15:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and reverted the article to the last good edit. Maniwar 23:02, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Recent Edit

Just thought I'd let you know that I was uncensoring a quote, I was not trying to vandalize, I know that WP is not censored for minors, and I was just doing that. 69.209.107.18 04:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the phenomenon live on Anthony Garcia. I reverted AVB changes and removed the warning :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 04:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

unwarrented changes to Deuterocanonical books

Bot made unwarrented reverts of edits by an anonymous editor in Deuterocanonical books. See talk page of aforesaid article. Rwflammang 18:35, 5 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Miigwech

It seem the Ojibwa article has been suffering vandal attacks lately. Miigwech (thank you) for you assistance in catching vandal actions and reverting. CJLippert 23:07, 5 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Rhythm and Hues Studios

In attempting to comply with the tag at the top of the page, I reverted to an earlier, clean version of the article. Your bot reverted my attempts to up this article and left a message on my talk page. -Classicfilms 06:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

AntiVandalBot not warning?

AntiVandalBot reverted vandalism on the Indiana article, but didn't warn the vandal. I left a warning on the IP's talk page for AntiVandalBot, but thought I'd better leave a note here. Always before when I've seen AntiVandalBot or any of the Tawkerbots revert vandalism they've left a note on the vandal's talk page. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Geisha

can you revert edits made by User:Yugiblows in the article Geisha? idk how to rv vandalism

Coojah 20:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to wrong version of Roger Sherman

AntiVandalBot got confused on the Roger Sherman page - two vandals with different IPs attacked the page one minute apart. 209.42.78.20 attacked the page at 13:37 UTC [6], and 204.108.150.5 attacked a different part of the page at 13:38 UTC [7]. AntiVandalBot reverted the 204 version at 13:38 to the 209 version at 13:37 [8], instead of the clean version from three days earlier [9]. Is this just a fluke? -- DiegoTehMexican 17:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.... the 2nd vandal attacked before the bot got to it (the bots are getting bogged down w/ increased load...) -- Tawker 20:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Increased load? You don't say... But AntiVandalBot and the other Tawkerbots are doing a bang-up job under the circumstances. Kudos! -- DiegoTehMexican 22:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bot restores trash to category pages very often!

Your bot restored a PROD and other edits I did to fix a category. Comments do not appear on category pages. I removed it. PROD does not handle categories, further it was reprodded, so I removed it. Categories were duplicated, so I fixed it. your bot "corrected" this to the bad version. Category:Jewish-American politicians 70.51.10.10 07:42, 9 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Your revert of LISA (musician)

You left a message here to user 24.195.157.47 (not me) that says you should be notified if your bot reverted a legitimate edit, which it did ^_~ - Chsf 19:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Help needed!!

Hi there, I recently moved my userpage Cluckbang to a new userpage called Haile-Gabriel. however, now, i wanted to do the reverse by going back to the cluckbang page and also to delete the Haile-Gabriel page. You maybe asking why i am doing is, its to stop confusion, and also i dont want to use the Haile-Gabriel page anymore. Cluckbang 20:34, 9 October 2006 (UTC)Cluckbang [reply]

Angry mode?

Is the bot on Angry Mode? [10] The link has it reverting an editor 3 times in 4-5 minutes. Now, I'm notgonna check what the edits were, as the subject page is likely NSFW, but the bot really should not be in angry mode, even if these are true vandalisms. - TexasAndroid 21:14, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal bot reporting wrong user

Hi. Two of your bots are attributing vandalism to the wrong IPs such as to this article:

Thought you'd like to know. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2006 North Korean nuclear test

AntiVandalBot is going a bit overboard here - check the above articles history immediately prior to the bot shut-off. -- Chuq 00:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrectly reverted

Someone made some blankings to the article The Game. Every time I try to put the info back, the bot keeps reverting it. Here's the pair of diffs to show you what I mean. [11] and [12] --Ted87 00:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thousand Island Park

Is there a way to leave this article alone? The long version is the vandalized version, but AntiVandalBot keeps reverting people who change it to the shorter clean version. Joyous! | Talk 01:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Difs here [13] Joyous! | Talk 01:57, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with interlanguage/interwiki codes?

If I understand the situation correctly (not sure I do), this edit by AntiVandalBot looks to have messed up an interlanguage link for "got:" (gothic), as shown by this comparison to its supposed restored version. Do you know what happened? Is it an AVB bug? -R. S. Shaw 02:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, known bug... fix should be out in TB2 v2 -- Tawker 05:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Batman

Please stop reverting my edits. An editor made major changes without discussing first, and I am trying to revert them. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 14:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Attempts to uncensor Thierry Henry

I and others have been attempting to uncensor a quotation (from "s**t" to "shit") in Thierry Henry: [14] [15] [16] but either AntiVandalBot or Tawkerbot4 have mistakenly reverted these as vandalism. Totally understandable, but could the bot's owner or an admin sort this out, please? If you need a citation for it, try here. Thanks. Qwghlm 00:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What Qwghlm said, except today. sʟυмɢυм • т • c 20:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe false alarm on User:70.123.133.131

I think the bot's false alarming on User:70.123.133.131. Other than a possibly accidental page blank, their edits of late seem positive. Can you take 'em off the list to auto-revert? Georgewilliamherbert 20:17, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're kidding me

Your bot knocked me for this edit [17]. I removed it because it displayed specific game guide information that was not appropriate for Wikipedia. What's more, you bot came so late that it reverted another anonymous user's edit. Hbdragon88 01:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. i was just curious because this bot usually gets vandalism seconds after it's made - one time we reverted both at the same time (I was reverting one diff, while AVB was reverting another vandalism that had just come up). Many comments on the Tawkerbot2 page also relate to just how many times the bot has beaten them to reverting vandalism. Hbdragon88 03:06, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. Melee

Hi, AntiVandalBot reverted an edit of the said article back to a vandalized state. No need to apologize to me, it reverted Hbdragon88's edit. Thanks. bibliomaniac15 02:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Session wrestler

legitmate edit (possible WP:BLP issue) was reverted by anitvandalbot. Please fix. --Tbeatty 04:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops!

You dinged me for vandalism to Music, but I was in the middle of reverting the same thing. I assume that's a fluke. --Graham^talk/mail/e 08:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

War of the BOTS!!!

Just thought I'd point out this series of edits:

User:129.21.230.148 vandalises Lucas [18]
User:129.21.230.149 changes the vandalism slightly [19]
User:AntiVandalBot reverts the changes by 129.21.230.149 to the version by 129.21.230.148 (remember, both are vandalism containing profanity) [20]
User:MartinBot reverts AntiVandalBot to the version by 129.21.230.149 [21]
Finally a human, User:Tom harrison comes along and reverts everyone back to the way the article was to begin with [22].

Are we now having Bot Wars? I've seen similar things happen before. For a while Tawkerbot and AntiVandalBot were edit warring on AntiVandalBot's userpage. Is there some way to stop this? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 18:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're brothers, this sort of sibling sniping happens all the time. Just tell Tawker and he'll give them both a good talking-to and a time-out. ~Kylu (u|t) 01:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They're having sharing conflicts...... it's a setting that we need to manually set and we've been bad about setting :o -- Tawker 05:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now fighting with Mathbot: [23] Agathoclea 09:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article: Backmasking: Vandalism

The article "Backmasking" has been vandalized by an unknown user. I don't know who else to tell. Please fix. Thanks much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xanastasyaxnoirx (talk • contribs)

It's been fixed. ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 20:49, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Billie Joe Armstrong

The bot reinstated some bizarre Disney themed vandalism, likely assuming I'm the one blanking the page... -- Xinit 00:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome To The Black Parade

Hey. Just wanted to say thanks for reverting the vandalism to the Welcome To The Black Parade page. ViperBlade ^Talk!! 09:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

== Acetic acid ==

The bot appears to be reinserting vandalism. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Category:Shi'a Muslims

The bot had a false positive on Category:Shi'a Muslims. BhaiSaab ^talk 05:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a list of red flags that this bot looks for to the user page

It would help me in alerting you to anything that it might be missing. Will (Talk - contribs) 06:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Mathbot

Please stop reverting Matbot on pages he owns, like here. Kusma (討論) 09:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about programming AntiVandalBot to not revert edits made by accounts with bot status? Would that cause problems? --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 16:53, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested message fix

"Your recent edit to x 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." There's usage of both first and third person in the message ("my" is present, although most of the time the message refers to the bot as the bot). --Gray Porpoise^{Phocoenidae, not Delphinidae} 16:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Erroneous vandalism warning for User:BostonMA

Hi, I recently reverted an attack placed on User:Jaranda's user page. The user page was actually created by the vandal, and so my removing the attack content, it appeared as a page blanking. Please remove the vandal warning from my talk page as I am an RC patroller, and a vandalism warning on my talk page will cause confusion to other RC patrollers. I would do it myself, but I would prefer that you do so. --BostonMA ^talk 00:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deckiller has removed the warning. However, you may wish to consider some way of handling this sort of situation. --BostonMA ^talk 00:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, don't worry about the warnings.... even I got the odd one. VandalProof usually is pretty good about things and no bots will block for that kinda stuff. Welcome to the RC patrol btw, I hope the bot makes your life easier half the time... we need humans on RC badly :o -- Tawker 00:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, Tawker even got one? What's happening here? For my part at least, I refuse to do RC patrolling because the number of edits is just overwhelming. I occasionally patrol newpages or newimages (newimgaes only once though), but changes is simply overwhelming. Hbdragon88 05:36, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of good ways to RC patrol these days:

1) Follow the bots. Watch the contribution lists from the bots. Then check out the contributions lists from anyone reverted by the bots. You will often see unreverted vandalisms that the bots missed when seeing what else vandals are up to. Also, if the bots are running in calm mode, as they should be, and the vandal redoes their vandalism, the bots will not revert a second time. But a human watching the bot's contributions can easily see where there has been further activity after the bot's revert, which shows a good sign that there may be further vandalism.

2) Wikipedia:Most vandalized pages, and especially the "Related Changes" link on the left for that page. That Related Changes shows you a list of all recent edits to the most vandalized pages on the project. A good place to watch for regular vandalisms. Again, also check the other contributions of any vandals you find on that list. - TexasAndroid 13:30, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestions

After coming back from a significant hiatus from RC patrol... it's been nice to see a bot get some of the glory. The problem is I find myself reverting a small (but annoying) amount of vandalism from repeat vandals; hitting the same article again. While I appreciate the bot is designed as such, it would be cool if it had a built in memory so that if a reverted IP edits the same article again AND is not reverted in say 5 minutes; the bot will report it on the Admins Noticeboard.

I'd also like to see it handle External links/interwiki/category blankings better; or at least reporting suspects to the noticeboard. I'm fine with vandalism getting through, but it is aggravating likely vandalism sits for a few hours until I come along and look at the VF backlog... or possibly days when another editor happens along. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 05:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Babydaddy

Your recent edit to Babydaddy (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. // Tawkerbot4 07:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bots are still reverting each other now and then. If they ever get into a revert war with both on Angry mode, it's going to be ugly. (Big red button time...) - TexasAndroid 13:22, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

false reporting?

I received a message from vandalbot stating that my change to the article 'war on terror' was referred to the bot. I added a link to my blog, which, within the scope of the article, is completely relevent. I'm not sure if this constitues vandalism or not, please let me know, as I have no idea. Thanks.61.16.161.2 12:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on user's page. The user deleted a large portion of the article the first time (s)he added their link. This is what triggered the bot. Looks inadvertant, but the bot reacted correctly, given the deletion. - TexasAndroid 13:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Category:Amusement parks in Singapore

Your recent edit to Category:Amusement parks in Singapore (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 22:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the bot reverted a legitimate edit. Please train it better or put it down. Choalbaton 22:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

KingOfDX 02:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

botmaster?

please take a look, antivandalbot just reinserted spamlinks in Sexual intercourse —ptk✰fgs 03:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about 193.16.218.66

The above IP address is one of a university, the first 3 edits were me by me, but those about the Brachistochrone curve (diff) by another person using the same IP. I hope it helps by identifying IP addresses used by a lot of people. --V. Szabolcs 11:37, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to George Allen (U.S. politician)

Your recent edit to George Allen (U.S. politician) (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. // Tawkerbot4 12:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you and tawkerbot4 need to get it together and stop vandalising... [24]. I fixed it and you warned me. stupid bots. --198.185.18.207 13:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot revert

The bot reverted this edit on RFC. While I appreciate the sentiment that substantial reducing of a page may be indicative of vandalism, on the RFC pages it is indicative of the page not having been cleaned out for a long time and having many old issues listed. >Radiant< 13:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Horse articles

I am removing any of my horse articles from wikipedia that do not conform to wiki rule. I have received "tone" complaints on several of my articles, and now expect to receive more since they are written in my "style." I am very sorry to have to do this since I was very much enjoying contributing to the wiki's horse section, but I cannot "clean them up" since they are good articles (in my opinion) and hold interest. But if this is not wiki's way, then I have to find somewhere else to put my material. I do not blame wikipedia. It is my fault for contributing inappropriate "tone." If someone else wants to write about the horses I've introduced, that would be wonderful since my purpose was to keep them remembered. I have now removed two articles with tone complaints...neither of which had anyone else's contributions...most of my articles seems to remain untouched. ..Ki Longfellow 17:18, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am removing articles I wrote (and no one else) that wikipedia via agents/editors/etc. have told me are not suitable for wikipedia. I am not removing articles that seem to pass muster. Why would I be blocked from removing nonwiki approved material? ..Ki Longfellow 15:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got a warning for a valid change

I haven´t done this before so I´m sorry if it isn´t correctly done. The thing is I made a change to the Vincent Margera page which basically restored some stuff. Someone has been making fun of some other people by changing the meaning of "vittu" from pussy to David Bussy. They also did the same thing in the part about his arrest, I think you´ll find it if you look for it. I just find it strange how those changes could pass through the security just 20 minutes before mine. Really weird. Anyway, could you just restore it so that it is actually more factual and less of an arena for boys making fun of each other? Thanks! /Maria

Yep yep. I took a look at your edit [25] and I think I can see why a bot would want to revert it, despite it being a legitimate change. :) I'll look after it. --BradBeattie 17:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it´s me with the vincent Margera page again. Heres my IP-address 83.253.18.139 17:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please fix

I don't think there's any way to program the robot to recognize legitimate changes of the nature of the one I made to the entry 'age-adjusted life expectancy': I deleted the whole thing and merged it into life expectancy, where it belongs. I guess you'll have to just fix the problem manually and allow the edit. No robot could understand and recognize such changes, so don't feel bad; it only means humans will always be required. Please reinstate the edit. Thanks. --EpiDemog 17:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An idea

I think a good idea for this bot is to not revert other bot edits, since they are usually constructive edits. --AAA! 03:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Falls of the Havasupai Indian Reservation

There is currently no page, but instead a large length of lorem ipsum text, obviously not in line with wikipedia's goals. I replaced the text with a sentence saying, "This page needs to be written or deleted," because I do not have time to write the article at present, but linking to a lorem ipsum text from wikipedia's front page is disgraceful, and in my view, worse. The bot reverted the edit. -ivantheshifty, 05:47 19 October (UTC)

I will address this issue. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 06:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot revert

Hello,

Just wanted to alert you to the fact that your bot, when reverting vandalism, also reverted a small edit by me. Here is a diff, if that helps [26]. I don't want to cause any trouble, only to help out. If this has already been brought up, I apologise for being repetitive! Alsandair 21:26, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After taking a second look, it seems the actions were basically unavoidable. Sorry for wasting your time! Alsandair 21:32, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Vandal

This bot have a vandalism in the page "Category:History_of_Korea" The correct version is "13:47, 13 October 2006 129.22.126.113 (Talk) (fix grammar) " --Hairwizard91 04:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Belgrade

Please call off the damn bot. It's reverting my edits, to earlier versions by...myself. Help! --estavisti 05:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right! this bot collapse a normal editing

woot for antivandalbot

thanks for beating me to so many different vandalism reverts today! Locriani 13:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Torrie Wilson

Then take a look on this one and then tell me if I'm still vandalizing pages! [27] The IMDb Movie Database tells always the truth.

Hi, I spotted your edit to AntiVandalBots talk page during routine Vandal patrolling. As a regular contributor to IMDb too, it works in exactly the same way as Wikipedia, relying on user contributions, but without the need for references and citations. It can be ridiculously wrong at times with no way to make corrections on the spot and new uploads taking days or weeks to show up on the system. IMDb is a good starting point for refrences, but if there are other sites more likely to have accurate information, possibly supplied by the subject of the article, I'd always go for that as your point of reference first with IMDb as a fall back. Best Wishes AA Milne 18:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stub proposal archiving

Hi there! I have been moving sections of Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals to various archive pages, and it looks like the bot reverted my edits[28], possibly because I had blanked a section of the proposals page when I moved its text to the archive. Is there a way to avoid this type of reversion in the future? Thanks - Her Pegship 19:17, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wow

Wow you revert vandalism within seconds (and thats fast!) Keep up the good work! I thank you a lot for reverting vandalism

PrestonH 03:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to Euploea crameri

Lol, I was making a revert vandalism while your bot is also doing the same thing. I did it first and the result that your bot is actually a vandal :D [29]. — Indon (reply) — 13:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean its actually possible for a human to beat the bot! Wow!! - thanks for fixing it, we still have this odd fluke problem w/ reverts in the same millisecond -- Tawker 15:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: weird AVB revert

[30] -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:39, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please

please stop re inserting the picture of a penis into the article on margret thatcher, it's vandalism not part of the article--64.12.116.6 20:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some reason it won't edit a page twice?

On the Maginot Line article, it reverted a vandal's edits within two minutes, but the vandal came back and made some more immediately (as in, within the same minute that the revert was made). It was 16 minutes until I found the vandalism and made the revert. Does it take a really long time to get back to an article or something? If you're concerned about making it hard to do legitimate edits, then I would recommend having it check the user info. If they've gotten vandalism warnings from non-bots then it should go ahead and revert away, or at least flag it somehow so that a human can take a look a look at it. -NorsemanII 14:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

missed vandalism

You might want to check what happened in this instance : [31] - you ended up reverting one severe vandalism to another just as bad (and obvious) ... not sure what went wrong in the recognition process, but hopefully correctable (keep up the generally good work though :) --Invisifan 17:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bot-spamer ;)

Take a note. Bot shouldn't revert registered users, which previously reverted anonymous editors. not to mention, it shouldn't give warnings to registered editors. Cheers, -- tasc ^words_deeds 21:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to say that a registered user is "good" - there's been some issues that we're working on, thanks for the note -- Tawker 23:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome. keep up the good job. -- tasc ^words_deeds 23:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I Hate AVB

The damn thing always reverts vandalism before I get a chance to. sheesh. can you not make it miss just a few vandalisms for me to revert? :-p --User24 23:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC) [reply]

So We Caught Vandalism At The Same Time And . . .

I accidentally reverted the same thing that a Bot Reverted. As a result, the AntiVandalBot reverted my reversion and left a note on my talk page. Not really a problem, but just thought I'd point that out as it's hard to tell when we revise at the same time... -WarthogDemon 04:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How fast!?

Fantastic! You managed to revert vandalism before it had even happened.[32] --Stemonitis 08:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow.... I like this :) -- Tawker 16:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects for duplicates

I made Kevin Ryan (footballer) redirect to Kevin Ryan (rugby league footballer); the two pages duplicaed each other precisely. I always thought that merging articles came under the heading of "be bold", certainly one as simple as this? Grinner 16:47, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Missed vandalism

The bot attempted to revert vandalism on the Euclid article but somehow reverted to a version which was already vandalised. The vandalism was obvious, so perhaps some fine tuning is required.

Cheers

LittleOldMe 17:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also experienced this, eg on Citizenship. --User24 01:08, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Failed to give a warning/note about reversion due to Tawkerbot

An IP vandal blanked a page [33], and the AntiVandalBot reverted the edit. However, the AntiVandalBot didn't give them a warning [34]. I had to do that myself. If the AVB is going to not mess with Tawkerbot, it should still give warnings. -NorsemanII 01:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what's going on

AntiVandalBot is now being run by Tawker on the toolserver. This replaces the AntiVandalBot that I was running on my private server as well as the Tawkerbot2 that Tawker was running on his private server. Now the vandal fighting is more uber than ever. --Cyde Weys 04:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]