User talk:Tawkerbot4/Sep06

Broken interwiki unicode character

See this edit. Femto 11:34, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Beat Crusaders

Tawkerbot4 incorrectly reverted the addition of double brackets to indicate a link to the Beat Crusaders page off of the article Bleach media and materials Gdo01 22:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone has vandalized a listing regarding me.

There has been a listing about me and it's been vandalized repeatedly with scurrilous, slanderous and legally actionable comments. These comments are demonstrably not true. I would appreciate your help in removing these from the listing and in preventing the Talkerbot from continually re-posting these negative comments.

My name is Hanoch McCarty. The individual is pseudonymously known as Fawkesfire but is actually Mr. Michael Cole of Galt CA. He is a neighbor with whom I've had a dispute over the past two weeks regarding his three dogs savagely attacking and wounding my border collie. Regardless of the rightness or wrongness of the dispute, is Wikipedia the place to post flames???

Is this "being nice" or adhering to "the rule of kindness" or "the rule of neutrality"?

Please help.

Repairofvandalizing 21:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)Hanoch McCarty Repairofvandalizing 21:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)repairofvandalizing[reply]

Minor

Legitimate edit reverted here: [1]. It's minor. Probably not even worth your time looking into since it's not the kind of thing that happens often. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hufl

[2] This was a legitimate edit. The majority of the page seemed to be copy-pasted from St. John's University. Best, Irongargoyle 04:18, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broken language interwiki link

Tawkerbot4 recently reverted vandalism on English language but somehow broke the got: interwiki link [3]. I just fixed it and wondered how a reversion could change the content like that? --Imroy 19:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might be the way the bot is grabbing text to revert with, it might be stuck w/ the standard english charset at the moment, I'll run a test when I get back from classes :) -- Tawker 12:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On meta

I would like you to be aware on m:User:Tawkerbot4 and m:User:Tawkerbot5. I am afraid there is something wrong. --Aphaia 15:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why were edits to Thaksin Get Out reverted?

Some of my recent edits to Thaksin Get Out reverted? The article is too long, and I had posted onto the Discussion page that I would be transferring some sections into new articles of there own. Patiwat 21:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refinement needed

Please check the edits to Hourglass. The first, a nonsense replacement for a section was corrected, but this was immediately followed by a section deletion by the same IP user, which was not corrected, so it had some residency time before my manual restoration. Thanks, Leonard G. 04:17, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Itse olet Ante Aikio!!! Vittu!! 84.231.5.189 16:50, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'fuck' and 'shit'

Bot reverted my recent anti censorship revert to Internet slang, probably what it's supposed to do,cause the text said fuck and shit. User:Pedant 02:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting to vandalized version

Please take a look at Westminster Bridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Your but reverted to a vandalized version because it was victim of multiple separate edit vandalism by two similar IPs. It might be a good idea to have your bots check if any edits have been made since the supposed vandalism they're reverting to avoid this. I've also seen them undo reverts by good users. It appears to be some sort of edit conflict when reverts are done in short succession. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:45, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar thing here, although due to my mistake. Could you build in a latency (of, say, 1 minute) so that eventualy users can fix their own mistakes in such cases? If it would create more problems, plese disregard. Thanks. --Qyd 15:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It kind of removes the deterrent if we do it that way :) - half the point of the bot is to make the vandals think that their edit will be gone so fast why bother. Well, at least it's stopped the vandalbots -- Tawker 01:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Politics of Kosovo

Would you please stop the bot from "reverting vandalism" on Category:Politics of Kosovo. We're trying to remove the material which clearly doesn't belong to a category page, but to article space. Thanks! Duja 07:53, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]