Which is, now that I think about it, probably also why I’m a Violet Blue fan. ;-)
(well, that and the naughty pictures, of course)

Violet, if you ever decide to dive into the Wikipedia pool, drop me a line or something (I’m assuming you can access my e-mail address through this ‘comments’ interface) and I’d be happy to help walk you through it. If you’d rather not mess with it, but you see some kind of heinously egregious error that needs to be fixed, just let me know and I’ll take care of it. I’ve also got your article and the ‘violet’ disambiguation page on my watchlist now, so I’ll know pretty quickly if anyone changes either of them.

Oh, and one other thing?
Turnip. Turnip. Tur-fucking-nip.

Because I can, damnit.

and just to make matters clear, this was not me; I actually do not have a Wikipedia account of any kind. this was an email I received; I redacted the IP address because, well, it’s an IP address and it’s not mine to show the world. so Harl, it wasn’t me making these edits. honestly, I’ve been meaning to set up an account and take the time out of my schedule to learn the protocol/methods/voodoo, but it kind of overwhelms me; I’m truly wiki-phobic, something that’s kept actually me off of other group wikis.

See, the amount of vandalism on Wikipedia is just staggering. I’m not exageratting when I say 75-80% of my contribution time is spent reverting it – although I’m sure that varies by editor and what they’re interested in. Virtually all of the vandalism you see on Wikipedia is done by people who haven’t registered an account (so they only show up as an IP address) and consists of things like replacing the entire content of an article with the word “Poop” repeated 5647 times.

So if Cluebot sees an unregistered user make an edit, and that edit contains words on the Top 20 vandal-buzzword list, it reverts it. 99% of the time it does exactly what it’s intended to do, and saves Wikipedians like me a truly enormous amount of work. The remaining 1%, when Cluebot reverts something that wasn’t vandalism, is easy to fix.

And Luna, to answer your question – Cluebot didn’t revert the edit because of any percieved obscenity. It reverted the edit because it used words frequently used by vandals. If ‘turnip’ was a favorite among vandals, Cluebot would revert that as well – but once again, *only* if it’s done by an unregistered user.

As long as I’m logged in with my Wikipedia user account, I can use the words ‘turnip’ and ‘sex’ in my edits as often as I like – and I’m pretty much drunk with power because of it.

And it wasn’t just called vandalism. It was called obscenity. Would the words “turnip”, “keyboard”, and “afghanistan” be considered obscene as well?

Then you added the word “sex” which would reasonably be in a list of words which might be used in vandalism.

It’s quite possible to use the word “turnip” or “keyboard” or “afghanistan” in vandalizing a page, but it’s not as much fun as the word “sex” might be.

And it IS only a bot. The instructions at Wikipedia tell you that if your edit is proper, to take down the warning, and repeat your edit.

BTW, you tweeted earlier tonight that you were downright chilly because of your choice of garments. I hope you didn’t catch cold – and that your escort was properly appreciative of your low-cut attire. It was thoughtful of you to honor him so.