Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Essjay (talk | contribs) at 09:12, 10 March 2006 (→A good revert, but a false positive....). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

Yay I'm famous. Loving the big red button, also nice to hear some details about the bot generally, fascinating stuff. Making the button bigger wouldn't hurt tho :P ZoFreX 16:50, 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)

Good work

• Good work reverting page blanking of Hashish within the same minute it was blanked. HighInBC 18:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot warnings

Hi. Is it possible to have the warning that Tawkerbot leaves on a talk page to specify the page to which the warning relates? - ie. like the 'testx-n' warning templates do. That would make it much easier to see what a vandal has been up to. Take for example user:194.80.21.10 who I have been keeping an eye on - they got 3 things reverted but it takes a bit of figuring out what each warning related to. It would make it much easier to follow what was happening if it stated the page that had been reverted. Kcordina 15:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I just dropped by to ask the very same thing. The bot seems great, and a definite time saver providing the number of false positives is kept low. I would have thought it would be relatively easy to add the article which has been reverted to the message posted on a user's talk page, and it would make things easier for admins to follow up on. _└/_talk 16:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please proof-read the userpage!

I would copyedit if I had a clue about what you're trying to say. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:07, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Inaccurate Revert

Please look at the history of this. The bot finds the vandalism by 195.231.50.126, but it reverts to the version which had already been vandalized by 67.180.240.37. If the vandalism is carried out by multipler persons successively or a single person who changes its IP, the bot fails to revert to the original version before the vandalism, doesn't it?

Accuracy 99.1% good, .1% bad

This ratio seems very reasonable, as reverting a false positive back to the proper version is as easy as reverting vandalism. Since your bot only reverts once(in it's normal mode) the 1 part increase in human work is a fair price to pay for a 999 part decrease in human work. But good luck on .1%! HighInBC 22:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

A good revert, but a false positive....

check out this one: The guy should have said what he said on the talk page, not the article page, so I think it was reasonable to revert it, but it's not *strictly* vandalism...... so I'm in two minds about recommending that you try to make the bot avoid it or not... --Alvestrand 07:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It was a full-caps addition to the middle of the page that served no function whatsoever; it doesn't even qualify as a talk page post. This sort of edit is a very common style of vandalism, and most certainly should be reverted by the bot. Essjay 09:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)