User talk:AntiSpamBot/Aug2007

re Trailer Sailer

Unfortunately you not only removed the Nine MSN external link but also half of the article. I have Undone the change and removed the Nine MSN link. If you have problems with the rest of the article please specify precisely the nature of the problem regards Jagra 02:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gang Signal

Your bot reverted my addition of a good reference in the Gang Signal article. I gave a good reference where there was no reference. It is on subject (Tatoos symbolizing murder) and clarifies what the article is talking about. Please fix, and return the good reference. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.86.167 (talk • contribs)

Urbandictionary fails WP:RS and is therefore on AntiSpamBots revert list. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the official blog of a celebrity considered spam?

One of the additions i made to Aimee Chan's entry was to include her alivenotdead.com/?aimeechan official blog page - but your bot reverted it here.

it seems to me that this should not be classified as spam, as the wikipedia guidelines here state - its publicly accessible (no log in required) and its an official source of information BY the article's subject, Aimee Chan. The wikipedia rules support links to outside sites that are "unique resource beyond what the article would contain" -- i think direct news from the subject of a wikipedia article qualifies, and even more importantly, it is of interest and utility to those people who are using wikipedia to learn about Aimee Chan.

-202.92.166.21 02:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, it looks more like a diary containing trivial information about her day to me. Could you please explain to me why this link is necessary? Shadow1 (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it is her official blog, she herself puts exclusive pictures.alivenotdead.com/24098/viewspace_8390.html .alivenotdead.com/24098/viewspace_8416.html, public appearance schedule info.alivenotdead.com/24098/viewspace_13124.html and news from her events .alivenotdead.com/24098/viewspace_14475.html. I'm sure it seems trivial to you since you probably are not a fan and have no interest in her career, but things like last week's 'what my plans are now that i've passed the Miss HK crown'.alivenotdead.com/24098/viewspace_14983.html are of tremendous value to those who may be trying to gather information on her and her career.

also there are numerous examples of wikipedia linking to blogs, diaries and personal sites of celebrities: just looking at myspace pages (whether they even have a blog or not), you have Leonardo DiCaprio,Grant Imahara, Kari Byron and about a million garage bands. Not to mention links to personal websites with blogs and photos (Jackie Chan, Roseanne Barr,Rosie O'Donnell,Michael Moore, etc).

So I guess my question to you is do you think you (or your bot) should be the one deciding that an official blog is too 'trivial' to be worthy of inclusion in a celebrity's wikipedia entry? I realize you're trying to fight spam links, etc, but I don't think 'official blogs' fall in that category.

-202.92.166.21 02:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will there be a reply for this?

-202.92.166.21 00:27, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blog. "Exclusive pictures, public appearance schedule info and news from her events" can easily be found elsewhere. Shadow1 (talk) 15:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please point me to any other site online where Aimee Chan's schedule, career plans and exclusive personal photos are?

PS - this is a bit off topic but why do you bother with this discussion page at all? I write a polite, detailed argument about this issue. I wait 7 days and what do I get in response? a flip one-line, self-contradictory non sequitur argument.

-202.92.166.21 20:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting patiently... -202.92.166.21 13:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are You Picking On People

I've just noticed you keep giving messages to one IP address, this dude: User:76.243.179.111 . . . I've never seen you do that before. Have you been programed to "watch" editors and IPs? -WarthogDemon 02:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge, that guy was a clear cut spammer. β^_command 03:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I just found it strange since I was trying to revert that user's edits but it beat me on reverts and warnings 4 times in a row. That was a first. -WarthogDemon 03:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That generally happens when the user is just spamming unique pages without actually bothering to read policy or stop spamming. If they were simply editing one article, then the bot would pause every two edits to prevent it from edit warring. Shadow1 (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does the bot work?

Does the bot run constantly or does it run just from time to time? I was wondering why it didn't revert this edit. Blacklist request for krakow-info.com was approved here. Regards, Jogers (talk) 17:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot runs virtually continuously as is its main 'feeder' "LinkWatcher", a bot that actually tries to find the links that are added to the documents. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks. Jogers (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

runescape.com

Hi there! Could you add the domain http://www.runescape.com to AntiSpamBot's bad list for everywhere except articles in Category:RuneScape please? Someone keeps adding the link (for example) to completely unrelated articles and it's getting a little tiresome. Mind you, there are some legitimate uses, like in references in MMO related articles and the game's own pages. Cheers! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 13:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Over zealous BOT!

I reverted your reversion at Blood alcohol content. Because the link you're allergic to was from within the original text that I converted to tabular form, not my spam. So my edit is back but without your allergy! -- You could have had the courtesy of cleansing the page before I got to it.67.176.29.209 10:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Technical limitation within the bot's diff parser. Not really that big of a deal, the page is fixed now, right? Shadow1 (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]