User talk:TestEditBot

This is the correct place to discuss TestEditBot. If you have a question or comment directed towards the maintainer, please use his talk page. If you have made an edit and the bot has incorrectly identified it as a test edit, simply undo the bot's reversion. TestEditBot will not revert the same page within a 24hr period.

Definitely meets a need. But may I suggest:

1. Applying for WP:ROLLBACK
2. Relaxing the criteria slightly. This [1] wasn't picked up, because of the pipe symbol on the front of the "Insert non-formatted text here" line. Philip Trueman (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See this difference. Your bot then reverted that edit. Removing both the correction to the name and the example.jpg. Is there a way to prevent this? I could imagine a situation where someone does a lot of work to an article and then the bot reverts because they messed up one thing. KnightLago (talk) 13:39, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The bot does not revert any edits over a certain threshold, which I've been experimenting with. Right now it is set to 50 characters, so any edits over 50 characters are automatically ignored. That aside, the bot obeys 1RR and a revert can easily be undone. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 14:13, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussions above and this thread Wikipedia:Bureaucrats'_noticeboard#Deflag_TestEditBot. This bot has been deflagged for the time being. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:57, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably be noted that this was simply because the bot's edits are low-volume and worthy of being checked, rather than due to specific problems with the bot. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 20:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So we now have 2 Bots reverting reverts of bot getting it wrong ! please check out amelioa bots page about it getting it wrong. List of people from Sheffield is corect with the text (BOLD TEXT = Born In Sheffield) at the top of page, yours in antcipation that you fix this error -BulldozerD11 (talk) 09:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add to Bully's comments, it was this edit adn the discussion here. L.J.Skinner^{wot|I did} 11:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I completely understand your position and did foresee things like this happening, I don't think my bot should be thrown into this. TestEditBot made a single revert and then ignored the page as it is programmed to do, while AmeliorationBot reverted the page twice on 24 July. As long as the necessary changes are completed within the 24 hours of TestEditBot ignoring a page, the worst that will happen is you will have to click the undo button once. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 15:48, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is the status of this account? Are you going to get a flag? As it stands now the account is unflagged and editing. KnightLago (talk) 21:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TestEditBot runs without a flag with permission of the BAG. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 23:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So is it a bot, or not? KnightLago (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a bot that runs without a flag, due to low edit volume. The bot flag is more for the sake of keeping recent changes clean rather than to signify the approval of a bot - as this bot does not make very many edits in a given time, and that the edits it does make are worthy of human review, it makes sense for it to run authorised but unflagged. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 00:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, now I understand. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Bot ... you incorrectly reverted my edit of Emo haters, which was not a test edit. Your revert has been reverted. Truthanado (talk) 03:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The page has been deleted under the criteria of vandalism. If an administrator is able, I'd like to know if the edit which TestEditBot reverted was in error, and if so to paste the diff results. If it was just a small addition containing one of the trigger phrases, just say so here. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 03:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was a simple speedy-delete tag {{db-nonsense}} added to the first line of the page. Truthanado (talk) 03:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just looked through the logs and found the revert:

########## TEST EDIT DETECTED ##########

Page: [[Emo haters]]

Current version: 229516995 (User: Truthanado)

Old version: 229516317 (User: XXbreakingmeXx)

Diff:

+ {{db-nonsense}}

+ '''Bold text'''

tj9991 (talk | contribs) 03:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should not leave rude and impertinent edits on the pages of long standing and highly respected editors such as myself. I shall overlook you incivility on this occasion, but please beware, the consequences of such manifest oafishness will not be tolerated by such as myself in future. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 15:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User made a very small edit, wikifying two phrases and addition of the strikethrough text default. Also, Catherine, I suggest you rethink how you treat others on Wikipedia. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 21:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I beg your pardon? Are you addressing me? Catherine? It's Lady Catherine to you, young man! In future, when I converse with a robot please do not interupt. Catherine de Burgh (Lady) (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I changed an incorrect usage of 'an' to 'a' and you undid that! How did it help? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Andvd (talk • contribs) 08:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here like everyone else to complain about yet another case of auto-vandalism by your bot. As is clearly explained in the edit summary of this revision, it is not a test edit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus_freak&diff=230192924&oldid=230192903

Your bot is crap and is harming wikipedia; turn it off.89.176.31.200 (talk) 13:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

I would appreciate if someone could fix this thing -- its "comment" about my "test revert" on [2] was fairly silly, considering I was reporting a CSD A2. Ecoleetage (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, and thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test on the page Slovak-Hungarian War worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment further, please use the sandbox. Thank you. TestEditBot (talk) 16:17, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mkpumphrey (talk) 19

06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed a 3rd opinion header from a page on which a third opinion was given. Not a test edit. Maybe a fix in this things code will prevent such future reverts?XavierGreen (talk) 07:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your first attempt at doing this also added a "[[Link title]]" line to the article, and that's what triggered the bot. Perhaps you should get into the habit of using the 'Show changes button? Philip Trueman (talk) 11:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am also here to complain. Your bot reverted an edit by me restoring a db-nonsense tag. It thus removed the tag again. As you can see my tag was justified - the article has been speedily deleted by now. Reverts like this should not happen and I do not like negative entries like this on my talk page. Regards, Gunnar Hendrich (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately it's a low key edit war. They haven't gotten to calling each other names, or making nasty comments on each other's user talk pages. :-) Still, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Harper%27s_Bazaar&action=history . I'll drop a similar note on the other bot maintainer's page - can the two of you straighten it out, please? --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Rich Farmbrough, 20:42 13 August 2008 (GMT).

Doesn't seem to fit the triggers. Rich Farmbrough, 20:44 13 August 2008 (GMT).

It's pretty obvious that the reason for this is the <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref> in the page. Remove it and TestEditBot will leave the page alone. tj9991 (talk | contribs) 03:52, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah.. I thought it was looking for the trigger in the diff. Rich Farmbrough, 23:35 20 August 2008 (GMT).

I got warned because I accidently reverted another editor who had reverted a test edit...if that sounds like garble. :)

No hard feelings, though, but I will remove that warning. —LaPianista! «talk» 04:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... this was not a test edit... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikilost (talk • contribs) 02:52, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made use of the Emergency Bot Shutoff Button. (Note left on bot owner's talk page as well). In the TestEditBot's bot approval, the function descripion is "Check if it matches a pre-defined list of common test edits and make sure it is the sole changed content (other than newlines) so it doesnt interfere with useful additions." (bold mine) — so it seems that the bot is not functioning as approved, if the triggers are to be the sole changed content. This behavior — mixture of triggers and legitimate contents reverted — has been reported above by a few editors. ERcheck (talk) 04:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]