User talk:CounterVandalismBot/Report/Archives/2007/October

= False Positives =

Nas
I changed the word for Nas' future album title from "nigga" to "nigger" because the source stated Nas denied reports that the album would be called "Nigga", but the articles also states that the album would be titled the "N-word". I assumed it meant nigger but they were not specific. I am not sure if they are talking about this particular word or another n-word.

George John Dasch
I criticized Americans in a comment, and changed the word from Hitler to the Nazi, as J Edger Hoover was not in direct communication with Adolf Hitler. Since when is this vandalism? see: George John Dasch and tell me how it is vandalism? Or are you guys just stupid?
 * Thank you for reporting this false positive. It was classed as vandalism by the bot due to the small change, which is usually how vandalism is identified. It did not flag you for your edit comment, only for the content that was changed. I have adjusted the bot to hopefully stop this occuring again. Lloydpick 17:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Missionary position
Hi! In the article on the missionary position, someone had added a lot of euphemisms when referring to sexual organs, such as phallus instead of penis and orifice instead of vagina. I think that a serious encyclopedia should refer to things by their real names, instead of "beating around the bush". I was immediately warned about vandalism. I do not believe this is vandalism, it is making things clearer instead of people having to guess what an euphemism stands for. Remember that Wikipedia is not censored. 193.216.220.100 11:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reporting this, as you have pointed out this is a false positive over censorship. If you remake your changes to the article now it will not be reverted again by my bot. You can also remove the warning from your talk page. I would also suggest that you register yourself an account here on Wikipedia. Lloydpick 12:01, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

MUME
Hello. Sorry to bother you, but the bot is wrong in reverting the edits that were removing the anti-Estonian paragraph. It is the anti-Estonian paragraph that should really be getting reverted as vandalism, as opposed to all the reverts that were removing it. 129.170.166.109 18:16, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies, just remake your edits after CVbot has reverted and it won't do it again. Added to my dev queue to look at. Lloydpick 20:02, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry. It appears that I did not check what the reverted edit was. I thought the bot reacted merely to the deletion of that paragraph. I would say this was not a bot error: it did revert to a vandalized version, but it reverted an edit that was not legitimate either. Please ignore my complaint. Sorry to have bothered you. 129.170.166.109 03:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Gary Thorne
I edited the text, and then realised that i had made a mistake. I changed the text back immediately. The bot's reversion is actually, thus, correct, as the new text is identical to the old text. (Confused yet? Me too.  I made a boo-boo, and then fixed it.)  No vandalism intended.
 * Just checked to see what the bot reverted for, it was because of excessive caps and the repeated exclamation marks. Even though the intent wasnt to vandalise the article its what the bot saw. You can remove the warning from your talk page. :) Lloydpick 22:20, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Body Count (album)
You can argue whether or not my edits were valid, but this wasn't vandalism. If I was intentionally trying to mess up Wikipedia, why would I choose some random article? I was just trying to clarify the lyrics. In the context of the song, it seems correct. (72.153.114.126 22:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Thanks for reporting this false positive, I have subsequently removed the warning from your talk page and restored your version of the article. Happy editing! :) Lloydpick 22:43, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I Write Sins Not Tragedies
The name of the song is 'I Write Shit not Musics', not what you reverted it too. 24.139.31.210 23:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, can't say I believe you... Lloydpick 00:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I tried

Sports Weekend: As Nasty As They Wanna Be, Pt. 2
I believe the name of track 2 is "Pop That Pussy" not "Dick". I'm sitting right here listening to the song.
 * The bot did't revert because it thought the trackname was wrong, it thought your edit was vandalism. However a quick check on CDDB reveals the track name is "Pop That Pussy" |CDDB Lloydpick 23:18, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Michael Korkidas
Michael Korkidas (a rugby league player) recently signed to the Castleford Tigers to play for them next year in Super League, after playing for Salford this year. I edited his club - how long he had stayed with Salford for, and when he had left them to join Castleford. It was erased for vandalism - even though all the information I edited and inputted was true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.188.131 (talk) 10:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the report, I can see why its reverted your changes. Just re-adjust the article now and it won't revert it back again. You can also remove the warning from your user talk page. Lloydpick 11:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

= Misc Errors =

User_talk:131.156.75.125
CVBot properly reverted vandalism by this user to two articles, and correctly warned the user the first time, but it freaked out a little when issuing the second warning: --barneca (talk) 21:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol_keep_vote.svg|18px]] Thanks for the report, this appears to be caused by a Wikipedia network/database problem. However I haven't seen this happen since. I'll keep an eye out though. Thanks again! Lloydpick 21:51, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Not reverting dynamic IPs far enough
Can CVBot be more careful in cases like this ? The trouble with this kind of partial revert is that, even for anti-vandalism tools that cope with dynamic IPs, the partial revert freezes the earlier vandalism. Philip Trueman 18:40, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Theres no real way to determine if an IP is dynamic or not, and beyond that, who's to say if someone on one ISP is contributing correctly an another on the same ISP is not. This could cause more damage than good! Lloydpick 20:01, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But the same argument applies to successive edits from the same IP - they may not be by the same person. If CVBot decides that the last of several successive edits to an article by the same editor is vandalism, it reverts all of them.  So do its brethren, and many human-driven anti-vandalism tools.  Quite right too, IMHO.  In any case, my example shows CVBot doing more harm than good, so the logical conclusion to your argument is that it should not have made any revert at all.  By the way, it is not true that there is no real way to detect whether an IP is dynamic or not.  Admins doing IP range blocks seem to have access to information about (some of) the dynamic ranges that exist, and I see no reason why an approved bot should not have access to the same information. Philip Trueman 10:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

1 2 3 4 · · ·
CVBot created 1 2 3 4 · · · as a duplicate article of 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + · · · while trying to revert vandalism. Did you forget to encode + characters in URLs? Zetawoof(&zeta;) 20:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah its on one or two out of the total queries where it has a problem, iv taken the bot offline until I can get it fixed. Thanks for the report. I'v also asked for speedy deletion on the rogue article Lloydpick 21:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
 * there was one web request that was not encoded, happened to be the single one where it would make a difference :P Lloydpick 22:59, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

STIR Future
Might have been that I used "????"? 81.149.250.228 14:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah it will have been, im going to make an adjustment so that it shouldn't trip up over this again. Lloydpick 15:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger_Cook_(journalist)
Hi, I edited Roger_Cook_(journalist) and edited the sentence about the spoof programme 'Roger Cock'. I probably should have removed it but I actually just made it make grammatical sense. Anyway, my actions weren't vandalism - the page was essentially the same after I edited it. I'm not really sure why the robot would think they were because I didn't add the word Cock or anything just tidied up that sentence. Hope that helps! bakert 82.69.214.14 09:34, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the report :) Just looked up in the DB for why the bot thought it was vandalism. Even though you didn't actually add any content, moving it was enough to show it as an addition. But as you have quite rightly pointed out this is a false positive. You can remove the warning from your user talk page if you hadn't done so already. Lloydpick 01:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Super_Columbine_Massacre_RPG!
Hello, I edited the 'controversies' section of the article linked above and added a small commentary on the sentence 'Despite this claim, the original download website stated that the game contained nothing not related to "killing as many fuckheads as possible".', by changing it to 'Despite this claim, the original download website stated that the game contained nothing not related to "killing as many fuckheads as possible", although the phrase "kill as many fuckheads as possible" is lifted from the writings of Eric Harris - just as in the game itself.' I might have triggered the bot on accident though; initially I copypasted the added part from the talk page, where it was censored to 'f'heads' and not fuckheads. When I made the (quite small) correction and changed 'f'heads' to 'fuckheads,' the bot had moments later decided to revert both of my perfectly valid edits. Thank you for taking the time to read this. As I am now, I was logged out when I made this edit, but my wikipedia name is 'Yadaman'. 68.107.109.30 01:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the report, this as you have suggested a false positive due to censorship. Go ahead and remove the warning from your user talk page. In future however I would suggest you make your edits while logged in if you have an account. The bot likes registered users rather than unregistered users ;) Lloydpick 01:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the tip. Most of the time I forget to log in, because it's somewhat bothersome, and a lot of the time checking for it to remember me flat out doesn't work, so... Yeah. I'll try to remember more from now on. But I can't promise anything. Just... look into a way to fix the damn thing. ^_^; Yadaman 02:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lloydpick (talk • contribs)

Keith Dudemeister
Good evening. I edited the part of the article character's profile and noted that 1. Elliot wished Keith had walked in on her and J.D. and 2. that Keith only refers to Elliot as "pig whore" now. While I can understand why my revision would have been flagged, this actually did occur in the premiere of Scrubs' seventh season, as evidenced at http://www.film.com/play/scrubspigwhore/17062135 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.97.36.203 (talk) 05:42, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the report, you can remove the warning from your user talk page and remake your edits to the page. I would recommend however that you register an account here at Wikipedia and edit using that in future :) Lloydpick 09:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sycophant mistake
On the page Sycophant I added the term 'Suck Up' to describe because the terms used to describe a sycophant did not make sense in Australian/NZ English, so I added the alternate term 'Suck Up' (meaning brown noser, sycophant etc). The vandle bot removed the comment, which is a false positive.

Cheers, Alovira