Somewhat, it's a semi-bot on this account. I am using TW, along with popups and a few macros to check, usually while I'm browsing on another window. ACTool is pretty useful for macros, and it gets the job done. Never really had the time to code an actual fully automated bot. ICAPTCHA02:51, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I think I understand. I just want to make sure (for your sake) that you're not running anything that would be considered an unauthorized, unassisted bot. Do you have to review edits/reversions before they are saved? Into The FrayT/C03:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading [[:]]. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot00:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
False alarm.
Hello, I am one of the people who occasionally uses a machine with a public IP of 67.90.197.194. Recently, I read Objectivity (philosophy) and noticed that it was flagged as needing a total rewrite and attention from an expert. As it happens, I am an expert, so I gave it my attention, making bold edits to remove an accumulation of text that, even charitably, can only be called nonsense.
I carefully erased only the very worst parts, fixing what I could, and left clear edit comments to explain my intentions. I am absolutely certain that a human being familiar with philosophy would recognize my edits as constructive, even if they disagreed with certain aspects. Unfortunately, your bot is only capable of recognizing that material was deleted, so it mistakenly flagged me as a vandal. I encourage you to look at my actual edits and see for yourself that they are not only constructive but badly needed. The article is a terrible mess, and the first step to remediation is to remove the erroneous portions.
You are blanking out large amounts of pages as seen on your contributions page. Your "clear edit comments" consist of "I removed ______" ICAPTCHA18:52, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since the article is marked as needing a total rewrite by an expert, I would imagine that any erroneous text is fair game for removal. As you say, most of my edit comments consisted of correctly identifying was was deleted and explaining why. Here is the list, in reverse order:
Removed an entire section of postmodernism.
Removed a pair of statements that are false.
Removed meaningless sentence.
The entire paragraph is meaningless.
Removed more postmodernist anti-objectivism.
Removed uncited, doubtful statement.
Structuralism is postmodern and therefore entirely opposed to objectivism. It does not belong here.
Removed postmodernistic bias from heading. This article really does need a full rewrite.
As you can see, the general pattern is that this article on philosophical (epistemological) objectivity suffers from being written almost entirely from the extremely hostile perspective of postmodernist skepticism. While there is certainly a place for criticism, it must not violate NPOV by dominating the article and it must cite reliable sources. Otherwise, it needs to be removed.
If you disagree with any of these reasons or just find them incomplete, I think the appropriate response would be to question my basis in talk:Objectivity (philosophy), where I would be glad to explain at length. I believe that each of these removals was justified and constructive, and look forward to the opportunity to support my actions. Even if you disagree with each of them, I think you must assume good faith by accepting my assurance that my motives were constructive and that no vandalism was intended.
Please understand that I am addressing this to you because you are responsible for the first reversion and for all but one of the rest. I can only assume that Diniz was following your lead, since this person has made no attempt to contact me. Would you like to discuss these changes in detail in the appropriate forum? 67.90.197.19419:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I will assume good faith and no longer revert any of your edits. Feel free to revert my revision(s). Also, I think "The entire paragraph is meaningless." is anything but a clear detail of your edit. ICAPTCHA21:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Diniz was entirely reasonable, and now that I've posted to the Talk page, I've rolled forward the changes I had previously made. Thank you for working civily to overcome our initial misunderstanding. 67.90.197.19417:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for applying for VandalProof!(VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that at this time you do not meet the minimum requirement of 250 edits to mainspace articles (see under mainhere). Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof.Daniel→♦05:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A battle-weary JetLover has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Please also issue warnings after reverting vandals
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Pensacola Christian College: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you are running an anti-vandalism bot, please be more careful with it. You undid a change to the AVN Awards article without explanation. The AVN Awards is an article about pornography and porn related links and changes are appropriate for it. • Gene93k14:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Immediately after a user undid vandalism, you reverted the article to the vandalized version.[1] Please be more careful. —LOL20:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, ICAPTCHA. As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. you are not warning users when reverting vandalism. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank again for your interest in VandalProof. SnowolfHow can I help?23:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
