| Revision as of 19:46, 5 March 2006 editJesseW (talk | contribs)Administrators11,799 edits edit summaries note← Previous edit | Revision as of 02:56, 6 March 2006 edit undoJesseW (talk | contribs)Administrators11,799 edits replyNext edit → | ||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
| ==Edit summaries== | ==Edit summaries== | ||
| You should use an edit summary like "reverting probable vandalism", rather than referring to a large blanking, as clearly are not large blankings. ] 19:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | You should use an edit summary like "reverting probable vandalism", rather than referring to a large blanking, as clearly are not large blankings. ] 19:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :I was actually suggesting you use a non-specific edit summary; large blankings is more specific than "reverting probable vandalism"... ] 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 02:56, 6 March 2006
Fix your bot
Please fix your bot - see these edits: . I will block it if it continues to revert legitimate edits. Is this completely automated? I'm skeptical that reverting vandalism can ever be performed by a bot. There are many legitimate reasons for removing large amounts of content from an article. Rhobite 16:20, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- Please see reply on your talk page -- Tawker 19:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
Edit summaries
You should use an edit summary like "reverting probable vandalism", rather than referring to a large blanking, as clearly some edits that the bot reverts are not large blankings. JesseW, the juggling janitor 19:46, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
- I was actually suggesting you use a non-specific edit summary; large blankings is more specific than "reverting probable vandalism"... JesseW, the juggling janitor 02:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)