User talk:Aaron Schulz

Friday, 3 January

User
Talk
Esperanza
Community Portal
IRC channels

You can contact me quickly via IRC on freenode by using my handle "AaronSchulz".

You can use English on my talk page.
Vous pouvez employer le français sur ma page de discussion.

Discussion - New Comments on Bottom! - purge cache

Why?

Why exactly did the bot revert http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Guy_L._Steele_Jr.&diff=prev&oldid=182026326 (I read the description of the bot, but still cannot tell)? G20071221 (talk) 03:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It thought there were too many 1-2 letter words (garbage), I've upped the min words needed to skip stuff like that. Voice-of-All 04:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. G20071221 (talk) 05:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why my edit on Baby Signs discussing the very real controversy in the Deaf community was regarded as vandalism or spam. Was it because of the link to an essay regarding this view? If so, it was only for informational purposes. I do think that the edit, without the link of course, is not only helpful to those who are researching, but a fair compromise - not logged in, IP on the edit list page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.66.53 (talk) 07:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I attempted to add:

"Popularly, many companies who produce information on baby signs do not use proper ASL, Auslan, or the native or recognised sign language in that country. The rationale for this is that adapting signs allows for flexibility in communication; however, some Deaf people are opposed to this practise as it may be perceived as disrespectful to the signed language of the country (as a parallel, some Deaf people have said it is like teaching animal sounds rather than their informal name), and may conflict with a formal sign (e.g., BITCH vs. BREAKFAST or DRINK (noun) vs. DRINK (noun, as in alcohol)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.186.66.53 (talk) 08:00, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Characters and Sketches

Koestler rape allegations

I don't understand why this bot reverted my edit to Arthur Koestler's page. This is what I attempted to add:

Reports of Rapes

Koestler's biographer, David Cesarani, claimed that Koestler was a "serial rapist" who beat and raped several women, including film director Jill Craigie. Craigie publicly confirmed the report in 1999 after the release of Cesarani's biography. Criagie said that Koestler "banged my head on the floor, a lot" and choked her before raping her. She neglected to report the rape because she thought the publicity would be damaging. After the publication of Cesarani's biography, protests led to the removal of a bust of Koestler from public display at the University of Edinburgh.^[1]

I simply add a bit more to the rape allegations than were there before and put them under a separate heading, since a single sentence under "Women" seemed inadequate to deal with this controversy. Can you please restore my edits? Thanks.

how bloody annoying

oi son, listen here, I edited the quentin tarrentino page becasue this is a fact people don't know and it's quite cool. why did you moan at me for it???? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.66.175.82 (talk) 14:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot error

A user was complaining at the helpdesk that the bot made this revert of an apparently valid edit by him when he was not logged in. I have to agree that the bot was a tad overzealous there. I gather this is because of the subject at hand in the article referencing so many "bad" words, but still I can really understand the user's frustration. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, tweaked some context checking. It was having no false positives for a long time until I added some more checks. Still ironing out some context issues. Voice-of-All 15:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Silly robot!

It just decided that all my hard work on One, Inc. v. Olesen was vandalism and reverted it. I reverted it back. No need for much attention, you just request notification if it makes a mistake. 71.41.210.146 (talk) 10:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusted. Voice-of-All 23:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False Positive, Dance Dance Revolution Universe

VoABot II reverted a genuine article change in the article Dance Dance Revolution Universe, likely because it was a large delete that had validity. --AeronPrometheus (talk) 21:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason given was "link spam". "[url]" tags were once used by a large number of spambots for a while as they didn't know what wikitext allowed. Voice-of-All 23:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it was a table that got deleted, and VoABot restored it despite the fact the guy was removing the table because it didn't belong in that article. :P --AeronPrometheus (talk) 03:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this is the edit it reverted... Voice-of-All 14:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Issue with Rms125a@hotmail.com

Your bot's reverting edits that mention this editor, under "dubious information" since it includes an e-mail address (example: [1]). Could you build in some kind of override where it allows this e-mail address? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be reverting on that within User namespace. Let me fix that. Voice-of-All 18:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Time Low

VoaBot is currently in a revert war on All Time Low. I'm pretty sure the anonymous editor is correct. --Tombomp (talk) 09:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Apologies, the user was replacing a silly list with an even sillier one and I didn't notice somehow. --Tombomp (talk) 09:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Warning levels

Hi, why did VoaBot II leave a final warning here? The previous warning was level 2 and, more importantly, issued three days ago; warnings that old directed at anonymous users should be ignored, as it is very likely the user is someone else by that time. Thanks – Gurch 18:32, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And that isn't vandalism :o? --82.203.139.241 (talk) 19:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, it does get confused sometimes. I'm more worried about it marking warnings as level 4 when they aren't. (The bit that says  in the warning I linked above – is it supposed to be ? If so please change it as it's being parsed incorrectly. Thanks – Gurch 02:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False positive in Autofellatio

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Autofellatio&diff=next&oldid=185036502 Taric25 (talk) 22:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC) Again http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Autofellatio&diff=prev&oldid=185036728 Taric25 (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenan and Kel revert

Not that I think the edits should have stood, but I was wondering what prompted VOAbot to do its last revert on Kenan & Kel. Nothing seemed obviously vandalacious...nor did any of it seem worthwhile or grammatical, but I'm just curious about the workings of the bot's mind. Thanks... Gladys J Cortez 22:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

False positive for comment vandalism

Hello this reversion seems clear to me to be a false positive from the bot. Its so strange that I'm not even sure what could have caused it. --best, kevin [kzollman][talk] 22:53, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism

The bot reverted my edit, classifying it as "vandalism", when in fact, it was not. I changed misspelled words, took out useless information, and fixed capitalization errors. I fail to see where the vandalism is. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TaylorTechno (talk • contribs) 04:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sundial

Sundial - just thanks. Edmund Patrick ( ^confer _work) 13:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shut it down until fixed.

You really need to shut your bot down until you fix it to stop making all these false positive. I do not appreciate being accused of vandalism when I'm clarifying something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Time_Crash&action=history

^ http://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive//1998/10/19/nkost19.html

[1] ttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/htmlContent.jhtml?html=/archive//1998/10/19/nkost19.html

[1]