User talk:ChenzwBot/Archive 1

Libertarianism article

Dear ChenzwBot,

You wrote the following message:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make useful changes to Wikipedia. However, at least one of your changes, such as the one you made to "Libertarianism", did not appear to be useful and has been automatically reverted by ChenzwBot. If you want to try out changing Wikipedia to learn more about how it works, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

Bad warning? Please report it here then remove this warning. --ChenzwBot (talk ▪ changes) 18:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong when you say that the change I made to the libertarianism article "did not appear to be useful."

According to the main page,

Simple does not mean little. Writing in Simple English means that simple words are used. It does not mean readers want simple information. Articles do not have to be short to be simple; expand articles, include a lot of information, but use basic vocabulary.

My edit greatly expanded the libertarianism page, providing a great deal of accurate information, all the while keeping the prose simple and easy to understand. The only "difficult" word I used was the word legitimate, and I only used it because I there is no simpler word available.

Not only were my changes 100% useful, but moreover, I believe that, with my changes, the article could qualify for the very good articles section.

Please do not delete the changes again. If you think some of the words I use are not simple enough, please edit the article to replace these words. Deleting the entire article does not appear useful.

Thanks.

98.117.49.203 (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Libertarianism article (again)

Dear ChenzwBot,

You write,

Your recent changes to Libertarianism are vandalism and have been automatically reverted by ChenzwBot. Please stop. If your vandalism continues, you will be blocked from changing Wikipedia.

Bad warning? Please report it here then remove this warning. --ChenzwBot (talk ▪ changes) 19:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, your edits are vandalism. You should stop.

I am very upset at your activity. It is destructive and unhelpful.

Please stop.

Thanks.

98.117.49.203 (talk) 19:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

This user (ChenzwBot) is a computer program. It cannot understand you. I have restored your edit. πr² (talk • changes) 19:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Speed

Please ask your owner to slow you down when I am online. I need to revert too. :) Hazard-SJ ^Talk 06:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

What did I say? Hazard-SJ ^Talk 00:56, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

ChenzwBot is becoming a great vandal-fighter! You keep beating me in reverts *sighs defeatedly*. Your owner should be proud of you...@Hazard: The important thing is for the changes of the vandal to be cleaned, not your good reverting ;) - and remember that Chenzwbot can't speak on his own. Cheers! Bella ^{tête-à-tête} 00:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey

You have a British accent! "Vandaliszing" --Chemicalinterest (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Good for that! Vandalizing is bad; I like vandals with humour and my favourite colour is green. I am a real boffin as well. Spot of tea, anyone? Mr. Berty (seasons greetings!) ^talk/_stalk 11:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Dave Meltzer article

ChenswBot, you wrote

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make helpful changes to Wikipedia. However, some of your changes, like those to "Dave Meltzer", did not seem to be helpful and have been removed. If you want to try out changing Wikipedia to learn more about how it works, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

however all I did was add an "{{unreferenced}}" tag. Does it really qualify as vandalism? (The article really had no sources.)

Wpeaceout (talk) 07:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a bot; it won't respond to you. Your edit on Dave Meltzer was reverted because you added '''Bold text'''. The bot is configured to revert edits that seem like tests. Goodvac (talk) 08:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

none

LOLWUT?

[1]

Line 23, "* 1894 - Konosuke Matsushita, Japanese industrialist (d. 1989)" - happens from time to time, no changes will end up being made to the code because of it, the /shit/i pattern is useful. Goblin 14:39, 27 November 2010 (UTC) I ♥ Juliancolton!