`       This is not a vandalisation:  I posted the following as a message to you, I never made any vandalisation so I don't know where the ``bot`` entry came from.  Oh and I also want to apologise for the note on my edit to the rodney king page as I have no idea whether you are actually biassed or not and I don't know how to change that edit annotation - sorry.   -     -   I fail to see why you removed my edit clarifying the position as regards the ``missing`` section of tape - ``There is dispute whether a part of the tape that shows Mr. King attempting to attack the officers actually exists, although it is claimed that this ``unaired`` segment was the major reason why the jury returned the verdicts which they did.`` - I do not think that a court of law has actually ruled as to the existence of a ``missing`` segment and I hardly think that quoting one website is sufficient evidence to assert it's non-existence. If you have further authoritative sources for your assertion, please give them as I would like to know for sure also. In the meantime I don't think that it is unfair to say that there is a dispute as to whether a missing segment of tape exists. (Please don't think that I in any way condone the treatment of Mr King, I am making my comments in the spirit of objectivity.)     So you see it is a message not a vandalisation ...   `