User talk:AntiVandalBot/Apr07

Uhh...
I havent edited the article United States Constitution. I think your bot is malfunctioning. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.168.41.79 (talk) 04:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

This IP address is for one of the computers at my school...there's absolutely NO way I could have edited the Alexander Graham Bell page at 12:44 A.M. today...SO FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LEAVE ME THE HELL ALONE!!! This IP address is for one of the computers at my school...there's absolutely NO way I could have edited the Alexander Graham Bell page at 12:44 A.M. today...SO FUCK OFF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 209.32.71.82 15:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Category:Canadian hardcore punk bands
This bot reverted my edit of Category:Canadian hardcore punk bands. I was just deleting a bunch of pasted garbage, so I'm not sure why the bot reverted that. Can you fix it please? Thanks. --Vgedris 15:50, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I fixed the page again myself. Hopefully the bot will not undo my changes again. --Vgedris 13:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

ross_colquhoun
all i was trying to do was tag this article for possible deletion Placidcasual345 13:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Amsterdam
Unless it's an April's fools joke, you might want to look at this edit and the corresponding message on my talk. Garion96 (talk) 11:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Shake (song)
Hi! I've been adding the Songs category to some uncategorized song articles. Also, while in the neighbourhood, I've been removing song lyrics, 'cause of the whole copyright thing. In this case, the bot thought it was vandalism and reverted. I hadn't thought about it, but realize it might look like that to a bot. Could you un-undo the change, please, or tell me what I should do, if appropriate? --Ebyabe 19:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Revert of Ford Models, Inc.
Just to let you know, this bot reverted an edit that I made on the page Ford Models, Inc. which removed the entire text of the page, which was a dead redirect. Albeit, I wasn't logged in at the time, but perhaps there is some way to work around this kind of legitimate blanking? --Columba livia 03:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Cytherea
The bot apparently misinterpreted this edit as vandalism. This edit was a reversion of a previous edit by an anon-ip... Valrith 03:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fighting with MartinBot
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_dozens&action=history where your two bots got into a feud trying to fix vandalism. &mdash;dgies tc 05:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Pornographic film
Antivandalbot messed this article up... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pornographic_film&oldid=119676228 Well, it reverted to a bad version anyway. +123,000 characters or so. Just an FYI. mattbuck 09:35, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot having some issues today?
It now messed up Bush family, reverting it to a prior vandalized state, the text ''' fags!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ''' . ..! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bush_family&diff=next&oldid=119742278 FYI Greswik 16:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Monasteries on the S/slopes of Popocatepetl
A new user had asked for help. He had apparently made two copies of the same article with slightly different names: Monasteries on the Slopes of Popocatepetl and Monasteries on the slopes of Popocatepetl. They were identical and lacked links, though both were linked to the page on World Heritage Sites in Mexico. I edited the second of the two, and intended to delete the other, but obviously did not use the proper procedure. What is the proper procedure?

--Lavintzin 02:15, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

WOW THIS WEBSITE IS CONFUSION!

St Robert Catholic High School page edit
I edited this page because I am a student there and i'm trying to make this page better. please allow my edit to go through. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.108.11.221 (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC).

culture club page
i made edits -they have been cahnged- i should be included in this piece

steve —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stevelevine (talk • contribs) 09:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

How do I get to use AVB?
I am currently on RCP and CVU working to revert vandalism on sight, but doing it manually is damn slow. So I switched to Twinkle, but its still pretty slow. Then I was gonna creat a bot to do it for me, and I noticed this one. What do I have to do to get AVB and use it as part of my account? Thanks. Thor Malmjursson 12:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
 * AVB isn't so much a tool like Twinkle or AWB but moreso a totally automated script - in short, there is no human running the bots, it's fully automatic. -- Tawker 13:56, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Frank Martin article is plagiarism
I deleted the article on Frank Martin (basketball coach) as it was entirely plagiarized from a Kansas State University press release. The article had no original content and should not be restored. --Spacini 14:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

...This bot apparently reverted some vandalism I had done on an article I didn't even know existed...which was nice....

Twinkle Suggestion
Please disable your bot from reverting rollback edits that were made using the twinkle script. I was just fighting vandalism, and your bot fought me !!! :o) In any case, these edits are almost never vandalism, unless someone is rolling back a reversion.  Also, could you title the message that the bot leaves on the user talk page ?  Thank you!  tiZom(2¢)  01:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

To

I recentley created a page on VM Jones. However, HarperCollins (her publisher) contacted me to inform me of their displeasure, they would rather have just one, official website on VM Jones. Could you kindly delete the page?

Coltzen 01:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

DFA
Hi. My cleanup of the acronym dab page DFA got reverted because it included the f-word, which was included for the right reason though. Before I go ahead and revert this bot mistake (in this particular case; it's doing a great job otherwise :-)) I just want to ask if you can do anything to prevent another bot revert here or whether the f-word has to be left out. – sgeureka t•c 19:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a long standing problem.... the majority of the time, its vandalism when someone adds profanity to an article hence the bot rule. Feel free to revert away... it shouldn't re-revert -- Tawker 21:03, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

12.168.80.99
Umm, I wasnt even looking at a page about coal..I was looking at christmas trees and then you bot pops up spouting lies about where Ive been...No clue, but I didnt do anything regarding editing of pages and I dont like false accusations — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.168.80.99 (talk)
 * The warning in question was given to your IP by MartinBot yesterday after it reverted this edit. This was certainly a correct reversion of an editing test by the bot. However, if it was not you that made the edit in question, it is quite possible that you share your IP with other users and so someone else made this edit. In this case you can safely ignore this warning. If you want to avoid future messages that don't pertain to you, I suggest you consider creating an account. Regards. Will (aka Wimt ) 19:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

AntiVandalBot not as fast as it used to be?
I remember that when AntiVandalBot first came out, it could often revert vandalism in one second. However, the bot now often takes several seconds to do so. Does anyone know what caused the change? --Ixfd64 00:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Namely the increase in load on the toolserver and the increase in the number of edits the bot needs to check -- Tawker 03:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Bots should not unvandalise
I, as a vandalism partoller, can say that bots are VERY annoying when I am trying to warn someone. You and your cousin MartinBot make us vandalism protectors out of a job and you bots don't do it as well. W1k13rh3nry 20:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Huh, is this praise or ??? -- Tawker 21:04, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for W1k13rh3nry, but I think I can see a valid point. If a vandal is on a roll and a (human) vandalism patroller is following the guidelines on warning levels strictly (in the hope of getting up to 5 and reporting to WP:AIV) then it can be a bit annoying if a bot steps in and mucks up the sequence.  It seems that the bots have some awareness of how far the sequence has got - they do use various warning levels - but not much.  Is there a need here for a bit more structure to the way warnings are posted, particularly with regard to when to start a new sequence (if a possibly-shared IP vandal has been dormant for a while) and when to start a new section and how to name it, so that bots and humans can work together better on this? Philip Trueman 09:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the warnings don't necessarily need to go in strict sequence, so I jsut tend to go to one higher than I would have done if the bot hadn't "beat me to it". Surely we should be hoping that the vandla sees the error of there ways before we get to blocking in any case? David Underdown 10:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There's absolutely no need to stick religiously to the correct order of warning templates - as long as the user has more than 2 or 3 warnings in the past few hours, and one is a "last warning", an admin is likely to block. I'd like to emphasise to Philip Truman that the order of warnings doesn't really matter, especially if the vandal is returning. We always try to start with a friendly warning, to avoid biting, and get progressively more severe - 5 warnings usually aren't needed, and is a vandal is "on a roll", I would strongly suggest ditching the usual format and placing an "Imminent block" type warning.  If they continue, there are grounds for immediate blocking (if it's clear vandalism, I prefer to go test2, test3, test4, even skipping test3 at times).  Thanks, Mart inp23  14:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Point taken, and thank you. Philip Trueman 15:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It all depends on what the edit is, if it's obvious vandalism (and obvious they're not likely to stop) and after one warning they haven't stopped, Special:Blockip usually gets a visit. The whole warning template "scheme" in those cases is unnecessary, AIV / block em Tawker 05:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

L. Shankar
I attempted to eliminate the L. Shankar page and also attempted to create the Shenkar page. I work for Shenkar and there are innacuracies on his current page (L. Shankar), as well as that not being the way he spells his name now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nighttrippa (talk • contribs)


 * Deleting a page in Wikipedia is considered vandalism unless you have a really good reason; which you don't. What you might have is a case for moving the page and placing a redirect on the old name... Xinit 21:37, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * A good way to correct inaccuracies in an article would be to do just that - correct the inaccuracies in a gradual, well documented way citing the sources for why something is inaccurate and why the information you provide is more accurate. Whole scale deletion of existing content providing no or little reasoning ("I work for Shenkar and he asked me to") is unacceptable. As for whether Mr. Shankar has actually changed his name, a casual search in amazon.com finds no reference to the upcoming album that your edits kept referring to ("self-produced solo release, for BIG DEAL RECORDS/RYKO/WEA"). And there is no content at the website you linked to in one of your edits - www.shenkarworld.com. Thaths 16:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC)