User talk:AntiSpamBot/Apr2007

Chandra Wilson interview

• I launched this complaint last month [1] I was told the reason why I was not able to link to my interview was because I was posting it from a computer at work that shares the same IP address as the link. I tried doing so from home and had no luck. Here is another example [2]. Please help me understand why TV.com and IMDB, companies that ares very similar to the one I work for, are allowed to post their links on every TV and movie page, and yet I can't even reference a post from our blog.

/ preppypunk. / March 22, 2007.

Well for one, tv.com and imdb are both databases. yours is a blog, and nothing stops it from going from movies to how your christmas was this year, which makes the EL irrelevant, or at very least unreliable. TV.com and imdb are both also authoritative. Lastly, you might notice at links normally to be avoided, it specifically mentions blogs as one to avoid. JoeSmack ^Talk 01:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

MeeVee [3]is an online database of every show currently airing on TV, the site offers program details pages, video clips, episode guides, video search, etc. Example [4]. I guess I missed the section on linking to blogs, but had I known it, I would have steered you to our content portal [5] where are interviews are also published. Incidentally, our blog[6] is authoritative. We publish up to 8 articles a day that include news, reviews and daily celebrity interviews. / preppypunk. / March 23, 2007.

You might want to read over our conflict of interest guidelines to determine whether you should be adding the link at all, in that case. Shadow1 (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making that clear. I appreciate your help and I apologize if it seems like self-promotion. I'm trying to understand why there's all of this conflict. I have a few more questions and then I promise I'll let you be. 1) How did IMDB and TV Guide get listed on every page? It's weird b/c I looked at the code and it was only a number, not a URL, which suggests a feed. Are they working directly with Wikipedia? 2) I agree with your conflict of interest clause. It's not in the spirit of the site. However, when I tested it from home, it still came back as spam. That means no one even outside the company can post links to our site. We have loyal readers who would like to contribute to Wikipedia. It's frustrating for them and me when they receive a spam notification.

From the "Only make links to relevent content page": "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully...This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question." I believe our content is relevant to the articles and subjects at hand, just as much as USA Today, AOL, Slate's content is.

/ preppypunk. / March 26, 2007.

/ preppypunk. / April 2, 2007.

How is this considered spam?

I placed a link to a complete bibliography supplied by the author that the page is about to my information site. Revision link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mike_Resnick&diff=118248281&oldid=117944987 I am not trying to make money from or spam wikipedia.

It was blacklisted because you were inserting the link into multiple articles, and also because you own the site. Please read Wikipedia's conflict of interest and spam guidelines. Shadow1 (talk) 15:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I undesrtand now. Thanks for the information on the conflict of interest section. I was not aware of this and now I understand how it casued the problem. Though I would eventually like to see it unblacklisted at some future date if possible.

Sorry

I appologize for trying to add an image to the page. i was just trying to help add pictures to pages that did not include images alreadyDflav1138 01:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Security Service Field

The bot and I have a disagreement over this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Security_Service_Field&oldid=119143003 Apparently it doesn't like oursportscentral.com, but that was the best link I had to hand to reference the Sky Sox' new scoreboard. Unfortunately the Sky Sox website won't cough up the reference. I think it's justified, and would request that you leave it be.Woden325 22:27, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

 Done Removed from blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

List of Egyptian gods

Need these links in List of Egyptian gods.

• Makara's List of Egyptian Gods from A to H. angelfire.com/me3.
• Makara's List of Egyptian Gods from I to Z. angelfire.com/me3.
• Makara's List of Egyptian Goddesses. angelfire.com/me3.

Fucking bot. J. D. Redding 15:38, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Angelfire is a forum, which are named in WP:EL, it is on the revert list of shadowbot for a reason. Simple alternative, see the links on http://www.angelfire.com/me3/egyptgoddess/Links.html, I am sure there are links there that are good sources for the information (as is disclaimed on the pages you want to insert). It might even be possible to create reliable references for each of the seperate gods. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:43, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Not a good answer, but helps alil. I will look @ the links.htm page. Guess the above links will have to stay in the article's talk, till I can find a workaround to the fucking stupid bot. Sincereely, J. D. Redding 15:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend that you watch your language. The bot was doing its job by removing an Angelfire link, don't get angry at it because it reverted you. Shadow1 (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Alwaysmaiarawalsh

My site Always Maiara Walsh is not an inapropreate site it's a fan site please do not ban me. Hello can I please add my site on it because it's the #1 fansite for her everyone will want to visit it! Bye, Heather

No. Continuing to add inappropriate external links despite warnings is considered spamming under Wikipedia's spam guidelines. If you wish to make useful contributions, please do so after your block expires. Shadow1 (talk) 15:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Fraud & False Statements

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beer_rating&action=history

Lots of editing going on in this page ... BeerAdvocate should have its own page back and should have never been merged. This page needs to be reverted back to its original page. Heavily bias page here edited early on by so-called rival members from other sites.

Just re-revert (as I did), shadowbot generally does not revert twice (though shadowbots operators do get a notification of a re-revert). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Batu Lintang camp

Shadowbot has not only removed a link I put in, but a whole load of text editing, images etc too that I've been working on today. I'm not that familiar with reverting so could you put it back to how it was immediately before Shadowbot got involved and I'll manually remove the imageshack link that it didn't like. Ignore the edit I made after Shadowbot - that's when I first noticed something was wrong and before I realised just how much Shadowbot had screwed up the article. Thanks. I don't know how to link to his revert so you'll have to look here - he was only involved once. Jasper33 16:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lucasbfr has sorted out the mess. Jasper33 10:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Health Promotion in Higher Education

I have been working on this site for the last three weeks as one of my projects that I was assigned for an internship. I recently went to add an article and when I was finished, all of my additions had been deleted. I received a message stating that my edit at (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Health_Promotion_in_Higher_Education&diff=119129008&oldid=116376821) was reverted by an automated bot. If you could assist me in getting all of my additions back onto the page, it would be greatly appreciated! Thanks, Lindsey (bio24@simla.colostate.edu) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.125.146.186 (talk) 16:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC).

You might want to review our conflict of interest guidelines. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 02:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

InvisionFree link

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Age_of_Empires&diff=120084465&oldid=120083812

As instructed in the message you posted on my talk page, I've reverted back to my original edit (since the link goes to a relevant page created purely for the modification being discussed). ~ Giggy! ^{Talk | Contribs} 22:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversions of data removed due to WP:BLP

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bryan_Danielson&action=history

see contributions here... content removed per WP:BLP is being readded by the bot.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 07:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem should be fixed. I had included obsessedwithwrestling on the bot's blacklist due to a spam attack last week, and didn't think it would be appropriate to remove the rule just yet, which is what tripped the bot. Shadow1 (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Dean Lister

Your recent edit to Dean Lister (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 21:39, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Cryptic Slaughter link

I recently tried to add a helpful link to the article for a fan page which is: www.freewebs.com/kingdiamond666/crypticslaughter.htm which clearly isn't spam if you take a look at it, I wouldn't add spam to Wikipedia, thats ridiculous, I was simply trying to add a link that fans of the band would find helpful information wise.

I'm going out on a limb and assuming that the link is to a site you own, in which case you may want to read Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Shadow1 (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels

Hi,

I made some edits to this page, and was providing very good, external links for this article, to enhance it so it is at the very best standard. Here is the link. I firmly believe it is a good link. Can you please not revert my edits again.

Many thanks Davnel03 08:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you listening to me??? Davnel03 09:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I've added you to Shadowbot's user whitelist, it shouldn't bother you again. Shadow1 (talk) 15:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Urbandictionary & Oral sex

You reverted this change to oral sex due to the link to www.urbandictionary.com. This does not appear to be spam. I'm not going to revert your link, because I don't know if you'll revert back, but I suggest removing the site from your blacklist and reinserting the change. (I'm not sure it's a particularly good edit, but that should be dealt with in the normal course of business.) Matchups 19:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Shootout!

Upon reading the page for History Channel's ShootOut! show, I noticed it also mentioned the game. So I tried to add a link to the developer's site http://www.kumagames.com and it got reverted. I'm pretty sure its relevant, unless the page linking to wiki page of the game is enough already.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.211.32.180 (talk • contribs)

Hi. The problem here would be the symmetry between the link and the page. The link to the developers would be appropriate on the wikipage of the developers. On the wikipedia page about the specific game a link to the page of the game on the developers site could be OK (but I see the game has an own site). Here the relevancy would not be direct. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for the info! Actually I noticed that I actually described my problem wrong. I actually did link to the main site for the game http://www.kumagames.com/shootout_free_game.html and not the developers site (my fault). So from what I understand this should be okay? Many of the other entries on the site link to where you can go get the game if you desire. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.211.32.180 (talk) 18:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC).

The Police File

Our site keeps being deleted from the page of the police by your bot at wikipedia and we have been accused of spamming because we place it back each time while this is a proper site operating for years. the police tour seem to remove our link every time even from the external links page. what is going on ? please check the site including domain registration and year of setup to verify this is not a spam site with the sole purpose of spamming. we have more then 10000 members in our mailing list.

Further discussion on User talk:Shadow1. Shadow1 (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Kuma Games

I was trying to add a company info box to this page (Kuma Games), and the whole thing along with some other edits got reverted because it seems that I couldn't add a link to their site under the "| homepage =" option. I'm pretty sure an external link in a company's infobox should be relevant enough right? Thanks, heres a link to the revert http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kuma_Reality_Games&diff=121701462&oldid=121701441 elektrokuter 13:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggest for change to user notification

Hi, the user notifications for this bot may be a little unclear - the use of regexp in the message itself may confuse users. The message "the link you added, matching rule img[0-9]*\.imageshack\.us/img[0-9]*/.*\.jpg, is on my list of links to remove" would perhaps be better rendered "The ImageShack link you added...", perhaps with a reason why that site is included on the list. --Darksun 20:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. I'd need to modify some of the MySQL tables, but it's a workable idea. Shadow1 (talk) 20:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Games Workshop Online Community

This edit here was reverted automatically as spam. I have restored it, because the insertion of the directory link had support from discussion on the talk page (especially regarding the nature of the article). It is, however, good to see that there is a BOT to respond quickly to random spamming of freewebs sites. Regards. --Grimhelm 10:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

My apologies. In the future Shadowbot will make sure additions of Freewebs sites are only made by new/unregistered users before reverting. Shadow1 (talk) 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Videos unwelcome?

Hi there,

It appears your bot has blacklisted any link to nature-video-for-you.com.

I truly understand and share your concern with spam.

However, a picture is worth a thousand words, and a video is worth a hundred pictures. There is no way for me to add video to appropriate pages without an external link.

Around 75 unique people a day are accessing the videos I've shared on Wikipedia. It appears readers find the videos useful.

Multimedia can greatly enhance the user's educational experience. But it appears Wikipedia is not ready for it. I'm sure Wikipedia doesn't want to host videos, and it seems some editors won't allow links to it. So, that leaves Wikipedia stuck in 1997.

I'm willing to pay video bandwidth and production costs out of my pocket, to serve your readers, but just can't come back here everyday to have yet another spam discussion with yet another editor.

Not sure what to do. I've spent thousands of dollars and hours producing this content and am willing to make it available to Wikipedia users for free.

Want it or not?

Thanks for your advice!

Pub4you 09:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, your links were blacklisted because you were, under the wikipedia definition, spamming them to several pages in wikipedia (the definition states "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed." Moreover, you seem to have a conflict of interest here. May I suggest you to read the policies and guidelines linked in the welcome message on your talkpage, thanks. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for your feedback.

Yes, I understand my links are being removed, and I understand why.

This doesn't answer my question though. Does Wikipedia want to offer video content to it's readers, or not? Yes or no?

Imho, the problem here is not spamming, but lack of a multimedia strategy/policy by Wikipedia.

Wikipedia's options seem to be:

1) host multimedia files 2) permit external links to remote multimedia 3) become irrelevant over time

The web is going multimedia. Does Wikipedia want to be part of this future? Video producers like myself would like to help Wikipedia make the transition, at our expense, but not if the price is daily spam accusations from, please pardon, folks who haven't thought this through.

The real problem is, it doesn't matter a bit what we might agree here, because 10 minutes from now a new editor may wander in and reverse whatever we've agreed to.

Friendly advice: If Wikipedia doesn't figure out how it wants to go multimedia, the users themselves will edit Wikipedia out of existence in the next few years. And then all your spam control efforts will be for, naught.

I do understand you have a real problem with spam. Can't really help you there. You also have a real problem with multimedia. I can help you there.

Again, want this help or not. Yes or no?

Thanks!

Pub4you 11:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I understand. I would advise against linking to the external sources; external links tunnel people away from the wikipedia, and although wikipedia is not a paper encyclopeadia, some people have it offline (in areas with no internet, etc.) and then the external links are not useful. Therefore, the multimedia would have to be included in the wikipedia, and I suggest you go to the village pump to see how wikipedia would solve this (it may have been discussed, or there may be solutions there already). I am sorry that I can't help you here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Dirk. Yes, no website likes to send folks elsewhere, but what choice is there unless Wikipedia is willing to host the multimedia content themselves? External linking to multimedia is the USER SERVING solution that is available right now, today, for the vast majority of users.

Why do you and other editors care that users are "being funneled away from Wikipedia" so long as it is the users themselves who are making this decision, based on their perception of their own interests?

Really, I accept and appreciate you must be a good hearted volunteer here to serve users. So why aren't we serving them, and giving them what they want?

Why are you blocking users from this choice?

I do appreciate that you should evaluate my links for appropriateness, but other than that, any chance you and other editors might get out of the way of me giving users the multimedia experience they want?

Pub4you 11:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The key issue here is that every webmaster wants Wikipedia to link to their website, and many of them feel about the same way you do. We could let these several thousand webmasters all have their way, but offering a few hundred links in every article is not the project's goal -- we don't consider ourselves a web directory. Your edits clearly have a conflict of interest (I think my blog is great, too, and I work hard at it, but it's not appropriate for me to link to it -- if somebody else thinks it's great, then sure, I guess), and past all that, you should probably see WP:EL, our external linking guideline. Hope that answers some of your questions. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:57, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the fact that multimedia can not be displayed within Wikipedia has been completely ignored in this spam crazed discussion.

Again, if Wikipedia does not join the rest of the net in evolving towards video, it will become irrelevant over time. Currently, it appears the only way available to offer Wikipedia users multimedia content is external links.

Discarding external links to multimedia, just because they are external links, is not serving users, or Wikipedia.

Serving users is the issue. The relevance and quality of the content is the issue.

Who created the link, and how they might benefit, is not relevant. Do you think Wikipedia readers care who created the link?? No, they only care whether the content serves their needs. Only editors care who created the link.

I accept the group consensus on whether the videos I'm offering are useful or not. But for the moment, the fact is they are the only videos available in some topics, and users are clicking on the links and watching the videos.

Readers want multimedia. Are you gonna let them have it, or not?

Pub4you 01:43, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Ranger Rick article reverted

Tried to add a link to Ranger Rick's Facebook account that the NWF maintains, but my link was reverted. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.241.16.2 (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

Reversion and objection

Hello,

I recently made a revision to the article listed below, and your bot reverted it automatically, citing Wikipedia rules. I have no problem with that, now that I more fully understand the rules.

However - I wonder why the bot allows a link (even though it's not a hyperlink - just the text for people to copy and paste in their browser) to the original author's website, when, as I understand it, links to websites such as his are not allowed according to your policy.

Can you please explain?

Thank you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chambers_stove

The bot only checks for recent changes; it doesn't look at the link that was already there. It also only knows to revert links that are on the blacklist (such as proboards); making value judgments on every link would require a Turing-complete artificial intelligence (one that's as smart as a human)! Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:56, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok - that makes sense, but how does one see to it that the Wikipedia rules regarding links to websites gets enforced?

Talk to actual people. Complain on the article's talk page. Talk on the talk page for the counterspam WikiProject. Remove it yourself. Be bold!. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 22:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have edited it myself, and the article's originator - the guy with the website he's promoting through the article itself - deletes my revisions. He even threatened to send a message to a Wikipedia Administrator if I "vandalized" his article again.

What do I do?

I'll keep an eye out on the site. Don't worry; you've done nothing that any administrator would really call vandalism. I think the ideal situation here is to have no forum links, per the external link guidelines. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree - and no links or references to his website, either, but every time I remove them - and I thoroughly and politely explain why I've made them - he comes back, removes my revisions, then threatens me again.

Is there some way I can report this action and make him stop?

Yeah, there's a set of warning templates for spam: {{uw-spam1}} through {{uw-spam4}}. You add them to his user talk page. Then you report him to AIV (Administrator Intervention against Vandalism) if he goes past his final warning. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 00:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

OK - I'll try that. Thanks!

Oh - how do I insert them to that talk page - just cut & paste?

Just type that in exactly: {{uw-spam1|The name of the article goes here}}. And don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~~. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Huffines Middle School - please stop this bot

Please stop this bot wrecking my sourcing of this article see here. TerriersFan 23:53, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

The bot reverted you once, and didn't do it a second time, just like it usually does, so what's the problem? But in any case, why are you citing a social networking site? Shadow1 (talk) 00:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

inappropriate warning levels

Hi, I realize the bot just leaves warnings, but is there any way for it to give warnings appropriate to what has been received already? For example here, the user already had a level 4 warning, and the Bot gave a cushy, level 1 type warning. I've seen similar instances before. I thought I'd at least inquire. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 02:31, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully I can incorporate this into a future version of the software, as it's something I'd like Shadowbot to do as well. Thanks for the idea! Shadow1 (talk) 12:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Hodgkin

Silly Bot - I was trying to add the latin information on Hodgkin's dissertation by quoting the original offered on eBay at http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=ADME:B:WNA:US:112&item=7413522555&id= and I got hit. This is a legitimate reference (as the original is in private hands). Go ahead and enter the data in this article yourself with properattribution if you don't like the eBay link but it is VERY RUDE to edit while the article is being edited. - Mikebar 19:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Why exactly do we need to link to an auction of the book on Ebay? I would guess the name, etc. of the book is enough. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:51, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Buffalo Soldier External Links - Shadowbot reverted me! Fix it!

I tried tweaking and adding external links to the Buffalo Soldier article but your bot automatically deleted the information and reverted it. -Signaleer 08:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted shadowbot, but with removal of the members.aol link. I also added a {{linkfarm}}, there are way too many links on that page, please see WP:EL and WP:NOT. Thanks, and have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have re-added the members.aol link since it is an external link to the official Fort Leavenworth Buffalo Soldier Monument, therefore I think it is worthy to be on the wikipedia external link as well[7]. I also removed the linkfarm since all of the external links are valid and therefore credible. Thanks! -Signaleer 09:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have put the {{linkfarm}} back, please review WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL. Many of these are better of as references, and we don't need to link to all appropriate external links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Laois GAA

I was accused of spamming when in fact all I was doing was adding in a valid and official Laois GAA website, I don't see how it can be referred to as spamming. I would like some sort of answer on this topic. I am going to put the link back into the external links page, I hope this isn't construed as further spamming and I would like it left there and my record wiped clean. sincerely Ram

Miharu Hirano link

• My edit to the article of a Tekken character, Miharu Hirano, was reverted and called spam. It wasn't spam. I was merely trying to provide a link to a Miharu Hirano picture because there wasn't a picture of her in the article at the moment. It was the only picture that I could find. I would never spam Wikipedia. / KristiRenee. / November 23, 2006.

Kellie Pickler's Article

Ok. Just understand: This URL is the only where i can confirm that "I Wonder" is kellie pickler's new single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KelliePicklerFanatic (talk • contribs)

Holy Trinity Church v. United States

I don't see why the link added to Holy Trinity Church v. United States is deemed spam (other than triggered by the generic address filter). The cited court case is often used in apologetic arguments. Hence the link added is useful to debunk that argument, plus it provides additional information, including information on later cases that used that ruling/opinion.

Speedy Delete

I put a speedy delete test page link onto a page, and I was reverted. Here is your reverted edition. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wood_causes_sparks&oldid=114937353 Sorry, my fault, I accidentally clicked the URL link in the editing bar, and didnt notice, it thought i was putting a link in.

John Cardinal D'Alton

That is all very well, but at least retain the information that I added that were not connected with the questionable links of which you spoke. My links to TIME Magazine are perfectly fine, so I will be replacing them. I contributed very good information to Cardinal D'Alton's article and would appreciate it if you did not simply delete it. Moreover, you did not mention your reasons behind deleting the symbols used in his infobox.

I have contributed greatly to articles on the Cardinals and Bishops of the Church (simply take a look at my list of contributions), and feel as if I am entitled to some level of respect. If you wish to make changes to my edits, then do it pieces, not an entire reversion. Tajm 20:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

That's because Shadowbot is a bot, not a human. It doesn't, at the moment, differentiate between the part of the edit containing the bad link and the rest of them, so it reverts all the edits that the most recent editor (in this case, you) made. The bot, of course, meant no disrespect, since that requires some form of intelligence, and I highly doubt that Shadow1 can produce a Turing-capable artificial intelligence. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 01:30, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, you took us off the major backyard federations while many people have said we are already among the best. Please consider putting us back on it, if you dont think so, visit our website, www.freewebs.com/ptwrlsw

An external link evidencing the report of a newspaper was deleted alleging it to be 'spam'. Please undo it or drop the link to put it the WP way. Brothers in Arms 18:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia's image tutorial to use the image or find a better way to source the information. ImageShack is an unstable and volatile way to use images, not to mention that MediaWiki has a built-in way to display images in articles. Shadow1 (talk) 18:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)