User talk:Tawkerbot2: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 22:05, 21 April 2006

For information about Tawkerbot2, please read Tawkerbot2's Frequently Asked Questions

Any non civil messages may be sent straight to /dev/null (aka deleted) so please be nice. This includes all caps messages :)

Archives @ User talk:Tawkerbot2/archives

Vandalism Warning on IP page

I was brought to this page by a warning that popped up on my ip page. I, myself wasn't responsible for the vandalism, but I verified, and indeed it looks like it was vandalized. Nice work! Though, leaving a warning on a Tor exit-node's IP page isn't rather useful, except for the Op. to know. 207.172.220.7 22:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No way for the bot to know if its a tor exit node, that might take a lot more code than I want the bot to have :o -- Tawker 06:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

United States history section

I recently summarized the history section of the US article by cutting it down in size, which was too big, and shortening the POV. However, the bot reverted the edit. Please help improve on this issue. Thank you.--Ryz05 22:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

not my fault

My computer is being hacked by someone, I'm not sure who, and at random times during mesI

Remove "Jaradus Networks" arrticle

The bot reverted a fake article I tried to delete from Wikipedia. I want to delete this because it is entirely fictional.

get out of my space - I work very hard on articles putting in content somehow a major edit was discarded by this bot. I realize that most of WE is for rock and roll. but some of us actually work for it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.150.180 (talk • contribs)

In that case, you should add {{prod}} to the page, blanking the page and removing all of the content, (as you did) -- Tawker 15:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why did you do that?

I am trying to figure out why this device is interfering with my editing. Smokefoot 01:14, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

After a user request, I have taken a look at this particular use of the bot. I notice this change is the edit that triggered the bot. Several things should be noted:

The editor was the sole contributor to the article prior to this edit.
The bot therefore reverted "version by Smokefoot" to "version by Smokefoot."
Smokefoot is a well-respected contributor to chemistry articles, and this article is of a high standard.

I presume that Smokefoot was trying to perform a major rewrite of the article. Although the edit seems like vandalism at first glance, he must have had his reasons for the edit. I realise you can't check easily for #3, but #1 and #2 are possible. I would like to suggest that Tawkerbot3 (or maybe Tawkerbot2.1?) should have the following refinement:

Check that the editor is not the sole contributor. If they are, leave it alone.

I can see that #2 may be trickier, because a vandal may do a minor edit that the bot sees as OK (say, changing the population of a town from 23,232 to 32,323) then the vandal may go on to blank out a large section. However it does seem silly that it reverted Smokefoot to Smokefoot! Walkerma 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See reply on Smokefoot's talk page -- Tawker 06:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On a more positive note

Since you probably just get lots of complaints here, I thought you might appreciate some praise! I recently gave a talk on Wikipedia as a chemical information source at the American Chemical Society national meeting in Atlanta, and I included a screenshot of a Tawkerbot2 reversion of vandalism. I pointed out how the bot had caught conversion of sulfuric acid to a page of dadadadadadadada within 2 or 3 minutes, I used it to illustrate how quickly most vandalism is caught. Well done on that one, when the bot works right (which it usually seems to) it can be a great asset. Walkerma 02:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Buddha

Please stop your bot. You are repeatedly interfering with my legitimate attempt to improve the article. I can accept being interfered once but not twice. Wikipedia articles are policed by wikipedian who have thing called common sense. Vapour

Thanks for giving me warning that I will be blocked for vandalism. I'm not going to touch that article until your bot is turned off. Please restore whatever your bot did, this time without using bot. Vapour

I have stopped the bot for 15 minutes... Sasquatch t|c 03:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I Just saw your bot help revert vandalism om the Alexander Fleming page. Well done! Is everyone as happy with the bot, or can I help with the logic?DanielDemaret 09:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[[Media:Example.ogg]]

Seeing this more often in unreverted vandalism, please include in bot behavior. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And == Headline text == as well. - Roy Boy ⁸⁰⁰ 17:54, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy 99,9% ?

~~You make jokes?~~ Look 99,9% accuracy vandalism in a series. The Bot reverted only the last one!?! If this will work, I will do request for the German Wikipedia. --Olliminatore 22:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidenote: the percentage statistic refers to false positives, not false negatives (how many mistakes it makes, not how many misses it makes) ~ PseudoSudo 22:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm sorry for my misunderstanding. I very like the principle of the Bot. I give my suggstion to improve him. Can this problem become fix? Thanks --Olliminatore 22:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bot did not know whether any of those previous edits were vandalism or not. Only the last edit was sufficiently unambiguous for it to recognise it as vandalism. So it reverted that edit, but couldn't revert any of the others – Gurch 10:49, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's an very deciding (important) disadvantage. Which I think is be (without difficulty) solvable. --Olliminatore 16:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ann coulter

I replaced the word aggressive with vituperative in describing coulter's style. "Aggressive" is far too generous a word to describe someone with views slightly to the left of Atilla the Hun. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.67.217 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Tawkerbot2 did not revert the edit you're referring to; the reversion was done by User:Mushroom; I suggest bringing the matter up with him. ~ PseudoSudo 22:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kayode Modupe-Ojo

I am the user that made this page and I am the person that has deleted/edited this page because of personal reasons. I would be glad if you could leave it as it is.

Thank-you.

You need to tag it with either prod or db|creator request, the bot can't tell that you are the creator though I'm not 100% sure if GFDL licensing will allow us to delete the page -- Tawker 23:09, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great Job

Congrats, Tawkerbot2! You have now beaten me to reverting vandalism 50 times! Keep up the good work.

--Primate ^#101 02:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for copyright violations without the template

I have a suggestion that might stop the bot from reverting the blanking of a copyright violation, at least some of the time. The bot could look for certain words in the edit summary, like "copyright", "copyvio", "copied" and "taken from". Editors often use these words in an edit summary even when they don't use the template because they don't know how else to tell others it is a copyright violation. If the bot determines that the article was a copyright violation, perhaps it could put a notice on the user's talk page about using the copyright violation template, if it's able to do that sort of thing. -- Kjkolb 03:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'll look into it, thanks for the suggestion -- Tawker 04:15, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?

"Your recent edit to Wayne Taylor was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles."

There are multiple users sharing one internet connection. Please take note of this before IP banning.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.54.175.211 (talk • contribs) 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I sharedip noticed your talk page, but no idea what type of connection this is, ARIN wasn't too friendly -- Tawker 02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Europ Express

Hello, you have remove my move of the lemma Trans Europe Express in Trans Europ Express. This is a Failure. The right name oft this trains was Trans Europ Express (see the talk on the Site Trans Europe Express) and here [1] Please remove your remove to the right lemma. --Mäfä 07:41, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I've seen your messages on talk pages during my recent bout of vandal hunting. Could you add a header to your messages, so they're separated from any previous messages? - Mgm|^(talk) 09:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jaetas

Regarding this edit (and another one on the same article), they're not exactly harmful reversions but they are unnecessary ones. I don't know if there's any way of avoiding them, perhaps the bot could filter out very new, very short articles, or articles where the creator's username is the same as the article name? Heh, actually for that last criterion it might as well tag them with {{delete}} anyway – Gurch 10:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Book page deleted by bot

Your recent edit to Psychotherapy: a Personal Approach was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept our apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // Tawkerbot2 11:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me why this was marked for deletion by your bot in the first place? Is it because the colon is not permissible? I am concerned because I am also being told that Wikipedia is not for books, and the Wikilinks to this page were removed too, which I feel is wrong, as there are thousands of pages on books. --Lindosland 11:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of The Little Bighorn

The main article on this battle is Battle of the Little Bighorn. Battle of The Little Bighorn should redirect to it.--Brendenhull 19:38, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't your redirect that triggered the bot, it was you blanking the page that did it. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raaso

In checking up behind your bot, I found the edit to page Raaso, which reverted a legitimate edit which sought to resolve copyright issues, as stated in the summary and on the talk page. Issues of this sort ought to be outside of your bot's sphere of influence. See the reversion here. GreetingsEarthling 23:17, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah i got a question

it says i vandalized somthing and i dont remeber doing anything wrong can you tell me what i did?

See reply on your talk page -- Tawker 04:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to "Insert text"

I just found on User talk:69.171.119.11 a link to [[Insert text]] added by the bot. I think it'd be better to add the nowiki in this automatic comment, as otherwise it will be impossible to use [2] to find such editing experiments anymore - which I do manually regularily. Besides, not all edits which add this link are editing experiments, sometimes (however rarely) good text gets added, but for whatever reason one of the buttons in the editing toolbar was clicked as well. It seems this most often happens with [[Link title]] however... andy

confused bot

is there a way to improve bot's recognition of vandal? -- tasc ^talk_deeds 15:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What edit is it confused on? -- Tawker 15:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Jesus of Suburbia

The article "Jesus of Suburbia had lots of heavy html in the SOng analysis. I removed all that and replaced it with Wikipedia code instead, and improved typos. Suddenly, this bot comes around and put back the heavy html. Look at the code. Seriously, every line of wirting has like 5 lines of code. I had to do it. --PokeOnic (Talk) 21:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi. The webpage Pakistan, has the following lines " Although Bollywood movies are banned, pirated discs are easily available, so Indian film stars are popular in Pakistan as well" in the culture section. However, this is a baised statement and currently software piracy is being addressed in pakistan.. and to state such a fact is to diminish the reputation of a country ..

kindly either erase the page or change it to Although Bollywood movies are banned, Indian muslim film stars such as Shahrukh Khan and Aamir Khan are popular in Pakistan as well. This is the same effect that pakistani TV actors such as Moin Akhter and bands like Strings and Junoon have a vast popularity in India.