User talk:Aaron Schulz

Saturday, 28 September

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

Reverting error

Please note that your bot reverted my edits in error, as I was trying to fix the vandalism, but your bot added it back in... go figure... 80.203.147.174 (talk) 11:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Church of Scientology (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your scripts off WP

Hi there,

I'm using your admin script (no popups) on Wikibooks; the master rollback functions don't work. When I installed, I copied code over, and removed some parts (if it was WP-specific I took it out). I don't know whether my modifications are responsible or not, but if you'd take a look, I'd be greatly obliged. My original note was here. As well, if you ever plan on doing upgrades, it'd be a great idea to make everything non-project-specific so other wikis can just link to the version here.

Thanks! – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

reverting

Hi. I sincerely thought I was improving the Optimum "L" filter article. The diff makes it look like I deleted nearly the whole article, substituting my own text -- and I understand why you would program a robot to revert that sort of thing. But I only added to the article -- I don't know why "diff" doesn't recognize that the original text is still in the newer version I submitted. Should I try to re-add my additions manually, hoping that this time your robot will see that my edits are good? Or should I simply revert what your robot did, potentially triggering an Wikipedia:Edit war? --75.19.73.101 (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was from a summary-based ratio that was too sensitive. I changed it, so just remake the edit. Thanks. Voice-of-All 21:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGAIN

THIS was neither testing, vandalism, linkspam or "an inappropriate edit summary". For some bizzare reason, removing one link and adding a load of commented out text counts as vandalism, but removing an entire raft of links(pam) isn't. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 17:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Provide Details

The identification of (diff) as vandalism is vague and imprecise. If there's something wrong with the edit then at least tell me what exactly the problem is rather than handing me a laundry list of possible problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.8.12.133 (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "....." marks probably added up with other things to make it revert; they should be able to get through now. Voice-of-All 21:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I've read through some of the other talkpage stuff and it seems that you are trying to trigger based on statistical patterns in the text (like SpamAssassin does). I expect you will be getting a lot of false positives with this method but good luck all the same.

Admin coaching request

Hi, Voice of All.

Can you please coach me to become an administrator? I have listed myself at Wikipedia:Admin coaching/Requests for Coaching#Current requests just not long ago. I would be appreciated if you want to coach me. Thanks in advance, Greg Jones II 22:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too busy, and I shouldn't even be on that list anyway. Voice-of-All 00:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]