RevertLists

User:XLinkBot/RevertList User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList User:COIBot/RevertList.css User:MER-C/RevertList.css

This page has archives. Sections older than21 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12

This page has archives. Sections older than21 days may be auto-archived byLowercase sigmabot III.

The bot undid my undo, atPredator (film). I'm not sure if that's supposed to happen. --62.166.252.159 (talk)11:52, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored your edit without the know your meme reference.PhilKnight (talk)11:58, 14 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Although, what I was looking for here is feedback as to whether the bot's action was as intended, as it undid my undo. As I understand it, an editor should be able to revert the bot's undo without it re-undoing. It also states on my Talk page "feel free to undo the bot's revert". As I wrote in the edit summary when I undid its undo: "Other sources sufficiently corroborate the viral meme nature, so brief one-off use of Know Your Meme should be fine here." PerWP:KNOWYOURMEME it is generally unreliable, and its use discouraged, but it is not a deprecated source, andWP:RSP, perWP:RSPISNOT, isn't a policy or guideline. There were also no edits in between the revisions. I added +3,540 chars, the bot undid with −3,540, then I re-added with +3,540. But then the bot re-undid with −3,540, and that seems strange. It is an automated process, the bot is not a human editor, and my last edit was already tagged "reverting anti-vandal bot". Shouldn't the bot then leave it alone, and have humans take a look at it? --62.166.252.159 (talk)07:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Versageek,User:Beetstra, any thoughts on the above? --62.166.252.159 (talk)04:50, 1 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@62.166.252.159 yes, it is, knowyourmeme is on override. People kept insisting that for ‘their use’ it was fine and hence were consistently reverting XLinkBot on this link. Its not fine, find other sources (in your case you had that already). Primary and nonRS sources can be fine in some cases, but if there are better sources they are superfluous.Dirk Beetstra^TC04:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ira --Noticed you made a recent edit to my Wikipedia page,Paul Rogat Loeb. It's beingconsidered for deletion, so I thought you'd like to know if you wanted to weigh in.PaulLoeb (talk)01:03, 21 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I recently added Popcat onCats and the Internet but my revision was removed by this bot. Can you please tell me why?

Hamburbur13 (talk)22:12, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind sorry I found out whyHamburbur13 (talk)22:15, 28 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is a village in Purba bardhaman i live thereRahul Sharma koner (talk)10:55, 2 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Editor, I noticed you reverted an edit I made on the V. P. Nandakumar page, citing "unconstructive vandalism." I'm writing to clarify that my intention was to add missing information. I had made extensive research on the subject, had quoted supporting websites and against each quoted facts. I believe this change would be beneficial to the article because as the article was having very limited information. If you have a moment, could you please explain what specifically about my edit appeared to be vandalism so I can understand your perspective and we can hopefully find a resolution?

Thank you for your time and contributions.

Harivalath (talk)05:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Harivalath No, that was not this bot, and not even another bot or user. Your edit that was recently reverted had a clear indication about what was wrong with the edit (not "unconstructive vandalism").Dirk Beetstra^TC06:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]