This is not really my talk page, where you can start a new discussion or ask question. This is an archive of previously discussed matters. Feel free to read, but please do not make any edits here. If you want to start a discussion on a previously discussed matter or something new, please do so on my current talk page, and in a new section. Just hit the Leave Me A Message link at the top or simply Click Here. Thank you very much for your understanding!
Hello! Your submission of Khan Ataur Rahman at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! --MaximilianT (talk) 18:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On February 16, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Khan Ataur Rahman, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Dear Wikitanvir, Shah Amanat Airport is spelled with the 'Shah'being a separate word, I think Shah Jalal should be spelled like the aforementioned method instead of one word. Canadian (talk) 16:27, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm taking it to the article's talk page. lets continue there. :) Tanvir 16:31, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not exactly active here. Just working on a couple of articles of my interest here and there. I will return to bnwiki once I find more time. --Zaheen (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is very nice of you to say. I would rather see you and others take me as an example and match my contributions. --Zaheen (talk) 02:38, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good. 3 more years to go then. :) --Zaheen (talk) 14:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikitanvir. Earlier today you cautioned an IP editor for deleting contents from Nanoart, but according to their very brief contribution list they never went anywhere near that article. You might want to consider retracting the caution. Best, Favonian (talk) 08:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was a mistake. I cautioned the wrong IP! Sorry for that, and I replaced that warning with a welcome template. Thank you for letting me know. Cheerio :) — Tanvir 08:53, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikitanvir, I cannot find reasons for you undoing a content in [1] and citing it as a Vandalism. Can you substantiate the reason for that? I have provided the information along with appropirate links from the news papers. Is writing some truth in wikipedia wtih appropriate references is regarded as a vandalism. Please elaborate? eFacts—Preceding undated comment added 20:07, 21 May 2010 (UTC).[reply]
Please forgive me for butting in, but you got the wrong editor according to this. Favonian (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rationalefacts, Since I didn't revert that edits, I have no idea what was the wrong with that contents you added. Maybe your sources weren't reliable enough. All I can suggest is, before including it again you better discuss it in the article's talk page first.
And thank you Favonian for handling this matter for me. You have been very helpful. :) — Tanvir 07:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(cur | prev) 17:05, 21 May 2010 Vallinarayanan (talk | contribs) m (4,984 bytes) (Reverted 2 edits by Rationalefacts identified as vandalism to last revision by Wikitanvir. (TW)) (undo)
Wikitanvir:
Please go to the afreomentioned URL, check the history I can find a content identified as vandalism by wikitanvir. The page is semi locked.
I am adding the contents now with substantial evidence eFacts—Preceding undated comment added 17:32, May 22, 2010 (UTC).
Ah, now I got your point. That edit summary does not mean that I performed the revert. The username (who actually perform the edit) is always placed after the date and time, which means Vallinarayanan performed that edit. With the help of Twinkle, he reverted your 2 edits and restored the last version, which was edited by Wikitanvir (me). I think you are clear with it now. — Tanvir 11:19, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Trust me, my last edit is constructive. I know what I am talking about, unlike other people. Read my entry on the discussion page of the article on Italian philosophy. Anyway, I give up, there is no way to imrove anything around here. Edits of philosophy articles should be verified by specialist in philosophy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.177.243.61 (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You removed a whole section on Ancient Rome without any consensus, and you claim that constructive? Funny. :) — Tanvir 03:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat to you something I already told another user: consensus of the Wikipedians means shit compared to the requirements of historical truth and factual accuracy. Though I wouldn't expect you to understand much of all this. The section of Ancient Rome does not belong with the topic of Italian philosophy. Moreover, this section claims that Hellenistic philosophy is Roman philosophy, making even Plotinus a Roman philosopher! Then it proclaims that Roman philosophy is a phase of Italian philosophy. It is just like claiming that the thought of the Astralian Aboriginals is a phase within the developpement of Australian philosophy, culminating with the Australian analytic school (Armstrong, Campbell etc.), or that Aztec thought should be counted as Mexican philosophy. You people confound history with geography. But hey, go ahead, live in your virtual world of consensual lies and nonsense. I bet this must be ... how did you say? Oh, right, "Funny. :)"
PS Sorry, I saw just now that you are from an Asian country, studying economy, so your ignorance concerning European cultural history is perhaps excusable. Actually, not knowing anything about the subject at issue, you just go on reverting changes if you do not find "consensus" on the talk page of the article. Your are just the blind guardian of the visual arts museum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.57.253.21 (talk) 07:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When someone added that section, we were not about to delete it. Why? Maybe someone considered it useful, and rest of us (who don’t know about Italian philosophy) assumed good faith. Wikipedia always appreciate help from experts, and as an expert I believe you have broad knowledge about that subject matter, which I don’t. Changing something or reach a consensus is not difficult. You just simply explain your change in the talk page and let it know the other editors of that article. If no one complain with relevant logic or sources in a few days (i.e. 1 or 2 weeks) then feel free to perform that change. This is the simple tradition.
You can add texts in an article, and if we haven’t logic that added texts are irrelevant, or not right enough, or poorly sourced sensitive info (as per policies), we cannot delete it as we wish. If we want to delete then we must have reason for that, and we have to put it in the edit summary. In case of major change (i.e. deleting section) we must give a strong reason in the edit summary or discuss or explain it in the talk page to let other contributors know. I hope now you wont be bothered with that revert. Thank you and welcome to Wikipedia! — Tanvir 10:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I said I was sorry in the post itself man, did you even *look* at the sheer stupidity of the original poster's claim? I couldn't resist! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.248.64.152 (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isn't a place to resist or protest. I am happy that you are sorry. :) — Tanvir 05:49, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You made this WP:CSD nomination [3] as an article lacking sufficient context to identify the subject. At the time of your tagging the article read "John Bond (1802–1844) was a British politician. He was the Member of Parliament for Corfe Castle, 1823–1828." So the article was about a British Politician who was an MP in the 1830s. Therefore there was a perfectly clear context. Please be more careful with your speedy deletion taggings in the future. Thanks. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At that time, the article hadn't a single source to verify what it claimed. That's why I tagged it in CSD criteria. Even now, this article has only 3 sentences. But I agree the tagging was a little bit of hasty. Thanks. — Tanvir 08:22, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, "no context" has absolutely nothing to do with sources. Being unsourced is deliberately not a reason for speedy deletion. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please restore it to my last version. I added a paragraph in the wrong spot, I didn't take it away. Thanks Corrector555 (talk) 13:47, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Before, deleting a section consider discussing in the article's talk page first. Specially in case of a GA or FA class article. — Tanvir 13:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You rolled back edits, including removing publications from a biographical entry on a misplaced accusation of vandalism. Please read and examine before jumping to roll back. You needlessly undid work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.96.205.194 (talk) 14:28, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You removed a big portion of sourced info here, and I reverted that edit here. You even mentioned no reason in the edit summary. This type of edits are considered as vandalism in Wikipedia. I am sorry, but it's the policy. — Tanvir 15:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You removed a portion of sourced info that I had just added, including several added publications. You reverted that on a blanket false accusation of vandalism. Please review the policies of vandalism; you will see that adding publications with source is not vandalism. Please also review the history of your edits, and you will see that you reverted a lot more than you say. I apologize that I hit the button too early on one of my edits. If you hadn't reverted EVERYTHING so impetuously, and instead had followed the rules and initiated contact before leveling an unfounded charge of vandalism, you would have given me the opportunity to correct that minor mistake. Instead you ended up engaging in what is functionally vandalism yourself. I'm sorry to tell you, but what you did is not policy. It's contrary to policy.89.96.205.194 (talk) 16:51, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry about reverting those two publications you added. I probably wouldn't do that if your edit had summary. And are you claiming removal of that portion was a mistake? That was happened because you hit the button mistakenly? If that so, then why you removed that portion here again? This time you mentioned in edit summary that, minor controversy deleted - not noteworthy. But the sources are quite okay and reliable, as Jusdafax mentioned in his talk page. Now, what you have to say? First time it was a mistake, and then you did the same thing with a cause. Was it a mistake too? BTW, actions against any kind or vandalism must be taken hastily. At last, I try to take action as per policies, but as a human being I can make a mistake too. :) — Tanvir 18:29, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is my understanding that {{nft}}, like {{fc}} and {{afc}}, is intended to be subst'ed in all cases. If this is not the case, please tell me. – PeeJay 21:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, I don't see the difference between the two templates. {{fc}} is for writing team names without having to put "F.C." in every time, and {{nft}} is so you don't have to write "national football team" every time. They're both shortcuts, and I think both should be subst'ed. – PeeJay 12:36, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. The edits i made to the List of Waterloo Road Characters article was genuine. Angela Griffin's character, Kim Campbell has left the series as of last night's finale. The article that explains she had "another ten episodes" on Digital Spy referred to the Spring Term showing of Series 5 (Episodes 11-20) It's been a common error amongst editors, mistaking a split series to be two seperate series. 92.8.239.73 (talk) 17:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Sir, why did you delete my posting on Martin Johnson Heade.
I am sure it cannot be because the info was incorrect...Will you please tell me why as I plan to post it again unless you have some scienticfic to the contrary.
So, please pray tell, why did you delete my information.
thank you
VctH2
hazonhv2002@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by VctH2 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your response.
I am sure that I mentioned that this painting has a scienticfic analysis that can be seen by any that are interested. I also, mentioned that it has been seen by a number of art experts and three of those experts did in fact appraise this painting...I am not putting info on wiki to win a popularity contest and nor do I claim to be a deity that knows all...i olny go where the science takes me...I cannot fine your constucttive link...but, would love to see it as objectivity is most important to me...please leave the link herein or tell me where to find it as I have looked.
Hi VctH2, you added large number of content in the see also section. See also is a place to add bulleted list to wiki pages, not even external link. Please add relevant information in the correct sections with reliable sources. And take a look in WP:ALSO to know what could be added in see also section. Thanks. :) — Tanvir 19:17, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The link you added at the first, removed the see also section heading. That was a headline of your cited source, not a particular information. Did you try to add a reference? Then please use {{Cite web}}, and see WP:Citing sources to know where and how to cite. — Tanvir 19:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please, discuss all about this issue under this section. Do not create the section with same heading for a single comment. Thanks. — Tanvir 19:51, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi AntsmaPantsma454545, you just added a bare url at the top of the article, that clearly avoid WP:MoS. That is why I reverted that edit. Please see {{Cite web}} and WP:Citing sources. And please create a new discussion thread for a new article. It will help to understand and answer (I placed your comment in a new section). Thanks. :) — Tanvir 19:42, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you didn't cited your references properly. Please consider using {{cite episode}} when you are citing a TV show or something like that. Also please do not violate WP:3R. Thanks. — Tanvir 17:00, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tanvir, I already raised a bot falg in bn wiki please find it in bot request page. --Kiran Gopi (talk) 13:32, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You placed the request on the top of that page. So, didn't see it. Now I have replaced it at the bottom of that page. No worries. :) — Tanvir • 14:00, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your request , your Bot has only done one edit on arz wikipedia , once it has done a few morw it will be given a flag.--Ghaly (talk) 07:43, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done, your Bot has been granted a Bot flag on arz.wikipedia, looking forward to seeing more of your bot's contributions to interwiki links. ----Ghaly (talk) 15:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Wikitanvir. I saw your message on my user page on mt.wp. You can make your bot request here by replacing the L-ISEM TAL-BOT text in the second step field with your bot name, and press the "Oħloq paġna" link to create the request page. For your convenience, these are the fields you have to fill in English:
Awtomatiku jew assistit manwalment: Automatic or Manually assisted
Diġà għandu bandiera tal-bot: Already has a bot flag
Dettalji tal-funzonijiet: Function details
I'll try and translate the main instructions in English for all those which do not understand Maltese. Thanks for remarking me —Chrisportelli (talk) 13:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, What option you use for interwiki.py to check recently changed pages ? Guide me please, Thank you mjbmrTalk 08:07, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much mjbmrTalk 09:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me when i use -recentchanges or -new it just says nothing left to do and i leave it until now but nothing changes !!! Help me !!! mjbmrTalk 16:14, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your help, This problem solved for me bcuz source was not original and there was many bugs, I downloaded they from here this is original source i download a software named TortoiseSVN i can update all files directly with this software, But i have a question yet how i can run my files on toolserver.org ? mjbmrTalk 06:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helping , I Already requested a bot flag on bnwiki mjbmrTalk 09:41, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry we can't give your bot a flag at os.wiki, because it's under the general policy -- you will need to get the flag for os.wiki at meta. Your bot is doing a great job, but, please, do no more edits at os.wiki until you get the flag. Our normal policy is to temporally block the bots that are doing multiple edits while waiting for the flag. Be well, Amikeco (talk) 11:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wikitanvir. Maybe now is right time that you request bot flag on sr.wp. Your edits seem to be fine. The process of requesting it shan't take more than a few minutes. 本 Mihajlo[talk] 09:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, dear colleagues, you're right. Thanks for your help. Your bot makes too big a list of languages. Need a list of smaller ones. It is hard to find. The 10 most popular languages. --Санюн Вадик 13:12, 17 Теле 2010 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Санюн Вадик (talk • contribs)
Hello, Wikitanvir. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— Thor erik(talk
The interwiki links your bot added here or there are wrong. Kouronkerezed means female bathers (as one can see from the images) and not swimsuit. I did remove wrong links several times, but they come back regularly. Yours, --Llydawr (talk) 22:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the bot's fault. The bot runs in autonomous mode. It found that link to that article so he included the intewiki to those listed articles. Please correct the interwiki in brwiki article, then it will be okay. Thanks for notifying me. — Tanvir • 10:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Wikitanvir. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Your bot is too agressive. It repeats and repeats bot changes at too quick a paste which does not allow for legitime corrections. Please insert time between loops so that corrections crosswiki can take place. Kvdh (talk) 11:42, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please, please, kill your bot. It is a virus ! Kvdh (talk) 11:49, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are two groups of seperate articles:
[[ca:Palau de Congressos i Auditori Kursaal]]
[[en:Kursaal Palace]]
[[eo:Aŭditorio Kursaal]]
[[es:Palacio de Congresos y Auditorio Kursaal]]
[[eu:Kursaal jauregia]]
[[fr:Palais Kursaal]]
[[gl:Kursaal]]
[[pt:Palácio de Congressos e Auditório Kursaal]]
[[tr:Kursaal Sarayı]]
and (second group)
[[br:Kursaal]]
[[de:Kursaal]]
[[ja:クアハウス]]
[[nl:Kursaal]]
[[ru:Курзал]]
As I want to write an article in Dutch for the first group, I must wait till your stupid bot ends to start this article with the correct interwiki links ... Kvdh (talk) 12:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The same happens with your bot in gl.wiki. Please, control it. --Atobar (talk) 12:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Taking care of it. — Tanvir • 13:16, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much to both of you for contacting me. I've taken a look at the edits on several wikis, Yes, it may seems fast, but I also see the bot is editing in a fair edit limit. Kvdh, you got 4/5 minutes to correct those interwikis at the first moments in that article. The interwiki linking were not wrong because of the bot's fault, that's because someone linked the article wrong. The bot is kinda fast in this case, because maybe the bot is set to watch your recent changes on the wiki where the wrong interwiki linking happened af first. Please keep looking on the bot's contribution. I don't know which wiki it is.
And Atobar, yes, this happened same on glwiki too, and I also explained why it did happen. Usually it edits in 1 edit per 5-10 minutes rate, which is okay I think. It does not watch the recent changes of glwiki.
I'm very sorry for this trouble. I will keep looking on the bot edits for few days, and I request you two too to keep an eye on this bot's contribution. I think this kind of things only happened rarely which is quite normal, please inform if this problem occurs most oftenly. — Tanvir • 14:06, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the feedback. In an article with lots of different language links, 4 to 5 minutes is very very short to change the links in all languages. To me, changes to the SAME article should have an interval of at least half an hour. Kvdh (talk) 14:11, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, by the way, your bot does not allow me 4 to 5 minutes: as you can see here it makes two changes in ONE minute ... Kvdh (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's right, but that's in the second phase. I was mentioning the first phase. But buddy I think it's not possible (in the easy way, after all with pywikipedia's interwiki.py) to keep that interval in article basis. The bot doesn't running in each 5/10 minutes. It checks the 15 pages of recent changes, finished it all, then go back again to check. And you know buddy it will take usually 10+ minutes to re-check. After all other bots are checking too, so it doesn't get all. :) — Tanvir • 14:36, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see you already solved it. Thank you, Tanvir. --Atobar (talk) 16:04, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm not opening a new section because there is a similar problem on sr.wiki. It keeps adding wrong pl interwiki for pl:Aktywizm, see: [5]. Not a big problem so far, just wanted to inform you. EOF; [sabate]$ talk; 21:13, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, not only my bot, see here too. It's definitely not the bot's fault (my bot or others). Someone pushed wrong interwikis on the wrong page, the bots are just following that. — Tanvir • 21:39, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And again, in ru.wiki this time: what's this? ru:Бреннер, Фридрих and de:Friedrich Brenner are two different human beings. Both articles had no interwiki before the interruption of the bot. Do you agree with me that two people with the same name could be separate two people, not the same single person? It is not bot's task to verify identity of the persons with same name, is it? Andrei Romanenko (talk) 04:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Both articles had no interwiki before the interruption of the bot — did you mean my bot? If so, then you are not right. Fortunately that article has only one interwiki so, it's easy to find out what really happened. I see here JackieBot added the dewiki link on the ruwiki page at first, and that bot also added the link to the dewiki article here. And of course both of the changes are visible in recent changes so, my bot just got the link of that page from there. So, also in this time, it's not my bot's fault. I see JackieBot is running Python 2.6.5 so, I think Jackie must have ran that bot manually which made the clutter. I see Jackie reverted the edits afterwards, and after your successful correction it's not doing the same thing. Thanks! — Tanvir • 10:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may mention Jackie reverted the edits once in both wiki, but why my bot added the wrong link then? The answer is, if Jackie doesn't revert the edits at the same time, and if my (or any other bot running with -auto enabled) see that link on any of the wiki, it will read that, and will take actions as it commanded (according to Pywikipedia's interwiki.py) to do. This can even happen for delay of few seconds. As my bot check the recent changes of both ru and de Wikipedia, so in your case, it found that edit. It's unfortunate but not anybody's fault. Now maybe you got the answer why my bot added it. Thank again for your understanding. — Tanvir • 11:47, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The point is that the owner of another bot had reviewed it's work and reverted erroneus action of his bot - while you did not do it. That is why I file a claim to you, not to Jackie. It's possible that you will find some explanations for any case. But the fact is that you have got too many complaints within so short period of time. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 15:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my bot runs in 7/24 basis and edit automatically. Is it possible to review all the changes that it make? Yes, I've got many problems (as you see above), but it's not the bot's fault, you see? If you find that I've said anything wrong above, please be kind to notify that. And the problems (what they claimed above) have also made by other bots, and I mentioned that above too. The most of the discussions above are related to only one plwiki article link, and now yours. — Tanvir • 15:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Are you sure about this? Maybe you've mistaken. There are no page named Silver (anlam ayrımı) on Turkish Wikipedia. The page was never created. Besides, "gümüş" is "silver" in Turkish (if I'm not wrong). Thank you! — Tanvir • 08:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, you must get a global bot flag for your bot, WikitanvirBot, in order for him to have the bot flag on all wikis it operates on. Also, you need to give bot owner information on the bot's user page on all wikis your bot operates on. Amqui (talk) 01:46, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's very nice of you. I've bot user page on almost every wikis, except few. I'm just about to working on that. Soon it will be over. Thanks! — Tanvir • 13:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've finished with creating the rest of the user pages. Thanks! — Tanvir • 18:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but you are not using the bot flag (on cr.wiki at least) or you are not marking your edits as "bot" edit. You need to get a global bot flag if you don't have one. Amqui (talk) 01:35, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
oh yes, sorry about that. I've already requested on cr.wiki as you might see, and I'm going to request global flag ASAP. My bot may have done a lot of edits, but it's only been 3 months (though registered in January 2010), so I waited to get enough experience. Thanks for your suggestion. — Tanvir • 03:42, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I've made one here. — Tanvir • 04:08, 28 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's not vandalism, and not even a mistake of my bot. Someone pushed the wrong interwiki on any of the linked article. I see, other bots were doing the same. Find that wrong interwiki, and remove that on all wikis at the same time. Then the problem will be fixed. — Tanvir • 18:56, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop making interwiki between Executor (and equivalent in other lenguages) and "Správce dědictví" (Czech). They are different terms. NKP-Cz (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like above, I'm saying again, it's not the bot's (mine or others) fault in any way, and someone added wrong interwiki link on some other wikis. I see that page now have {{nobots}}, so it is fine now, no? — Tanvir • 19:14, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read the discussion above. Yes, someone added a bad interwiki, but although it was successively deleted in the different languages, the robot gave it back. It was recommended to use the template "nobots" as a temporary solution until the correction by the owner of the robot. NKP-Cz (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the languages, so I cannot (so sorry) correct. But the bot re-added again, because if you don't remove the links from those articles at the same moment, and if delay to do that, and some bot (mine or others) check the links in that time, it will read and re-add the link again (as per instruction of Pywikipedia's interwiki.py). So to prevent this you need to revert the edits at the same time. Unfortunately it can happen if you delay for even a few seconds. So, to do it freely, use {{nobots}} in all the linked articles, correct the interwikis, and remove the {{nobots}}. I know it's boring, but if you want to do peacefully, this is the way (in my view). — Tanvir • 16:43, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please prevent your bot from linking articles on "Shelf life" in various languages to an unrelated article in the Swedish-language Wikipedia on financial derivatives! Thanks. -- Picapica (talk) 21:56, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS "WikitanvirBot [is] used to make repetitive automated or semi-automated edits that would be extremely tedious to do manually." I can tell you that it is even more tedious to be obliged to undo them manually! -- Picapica (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These are other TV shows. They have only the same name (see w:en:Wetten, dass..?#International versions). Please adjust the Bot and remove the false entries from the article. Thanks. --Labant (talk) 12:34, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The link you added is wrong. The id page should link from Moss. I corrected that link, so please leave it corrected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have started a discussion on id.wikipedia with an editor there, because there seems to be confusion, and they have two pages on Moss there, with nearly identical content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:50, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems the page they call "Bryopsida" is equivalent to our Moss page, and their "Bryophyta" matches our Bryophyte page in coverage. I have left a note, as well as correcting the iwiki links there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The bot has been blocked on dewiki for 3 days. Please look into your code and fix the problem. When you fixed the problem you can ask for unblocking on w:de:WP:SP. Greetings --Steef389 02:28, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
On :slwiki as well - [7]. — YerpoEh? 08:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know, I'll answer in two parts. For the problems on itwiki and glwiki, it's not the bot's fault, because someone added wrong interwiki on any of the linked articles. The bot just followed that. As you already have seen, other bots were doing the same. The best thing to prevent that is using {{nobots}} in involved articles, so no bot can edit, then fix, and the remove that tag. Everything will be okay.
Now about the dewiki and slwiki problem.. yes, It's my bot's fault and I apologize for that. I've already taken care of that problem. I did that in approximately UTC 5:00 am (as of now all the problems of that kind occurred before that time), so if any of find that kind abusive edit after that time, please let me know. And thanks very much for your reporting. — Tanvir • 09:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Tanvir. Your bot is no longer blocked in gl.wiki. Greetings. --Atobar (talk) 10:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
