Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:42, 8 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)

How does this Current Events blurb come up as vandalism?

This diff:

Not my edit and PFHLai put it back in, but I'm scratching my head as to why it saw that as vandalism. TransUtopian 04:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

see my reply on your talk page -- Tawker 09:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

That's quite all right. And I see it reverted 2 instances of definite blanking + profanity vandalism on CE too in less than a minute, so that's good. Btw, is the bot configured to recognize the mostly blanking that will happen when the events get archived at the end of the month? I assume so, but just thought I'd ask. TransUtopian 16:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Accusation of Vandalism and Plaigarism

My apologies are given for my errors. Must I say dear sir that as a new user I haven't had the time to manage to decode the rules and regulation, for I understand what you are accussing me of in relativity to the section Of Geography in the article India.--ishu 19:25, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for looking after the Typeface page

Dear Tawkerbot, thanks so much for reverting the recent vandalism to the typeface article. I'm trying to bring that and related typography articles up to a much higher standard and am very grateful for your intervention. —Arbo 13:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the bot was blocked by Jimbo (so you can cut the gossip)

The IRC log shows

<jwales> tawker: I'm with ZoFreX on that one -- it's a good thing I had a reason to push the big red button, because even if I didn't, it was soooooo tempting.

The bot has since been fixed, it now ignores admin edits. :) -- Tawker 04:32, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting vandalism on Electric current and Bandwidth. I'm glad someone's finally gotten around to an automated method of dealing with simple, obvious vandalism. Some suggestions:

1. Err on the side of caution. It's much better to miss some vandalism than revert good edits.
2. Don't mark reversions as minor if you're not watching them
3. Change the edit summary to something like "Suspected vandalism automatically reverted", so people realize at a glance that no human is observing the revert. As you can see on this talk page, some people don't even realize it's a bot after coming here.
4. It would be really nice if the edit summaries were specific. Instead of a generic message, use
   • reverting page blanking by 1.1.1.1
   • reverting addition of "Misplaced Pages sucks"
   • reverting addition of "'''Bold text''']"

   That would reduce the number of bot edits that people have to check up on

5. Could it add {{test}} templates to the user talks of people who vandalize? Is it worth it?

Reverting "X is gay" and "can I really edit this?" wastes way too much of our valuable time, even with vandal fighting software and the rollback tool. Thanks for saving us all some work, so we can focus on writing an encyclopedia.

(Not enough praise on this page.)  :-) — Omegatron 16:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)