User talk:AntiSpamBot/Jan2007

Bonnaroo Music Festival

What's the deal with this? 21:55, 11 January 2007 Shadowbot (Talk | contribs) (RV -- Reverting edits by Sigsherman due to detected spam.)

I was adding legimate content to the article and spent hours compiling those setlists. Would someone like to shed some light on this matter ~Sigsherman

Hi -- I'm not in charge -- I just happened by and saw your message above. Wikipedia gets so much spam and vandalism that we have some automated software programs ("bots") that look for know patterns of abuse. I notice that Shadowbot only delete one link of yours to:

http://img385.imageshack.us/img385/4060/imgkb0.jpg

My guess is that someone must have spammed a bunch of imageshack.us links in the past and caused problems. Don't take it personally and all is not lost. You can pull up any previous version of your work by going to the tab at the top of a page that says "history". Here's the history for Bonnaroo Music Festival:

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

I suggest you not try to edit one of the older versions if you're not experienced editing here -- that can screw stuff up, badly deleting others' later edits. Instead, just copy your old material then add it to the current version.--A. B. ^(talk) 21:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand about the image but I'm more concerned about the setlists I added and were removed ~Sigsherman

Metro-North Railroad

My edit was not spam but a valid (and, I hope, valuable) link to a network map hosted on the website of the railroad's operator, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. I've reverted your edit. Lincolnite 20:20, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

charliet123

my edit as an external link to a fansite, not spam!

Sheaf (mathematics)

My edit was a simple spelling fix of neighboorhood to neighborhood. I am not aware of "neighboorhood" being a correct spelling anywhere. Please correct me if I am wrong. (Otherwise, please revert the bot's changes.) Thanks. C quest000 04:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user also added this link to the article: [http://www.example.com link title] , which is why this bot reverted the edit... I have fixed it now. --MNAdam 05:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LiveJournal article

My edit was a bona-fide attempt to add notable LiveJournalers. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_notable_LiveJournal_users&diff=89877310&oldid=89875390 I think my Wikipedia login expired and I didn't realize it. Museumfreak

Please read WP:N before considering addition of content that you consider notable. Thank you. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 21:28, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:AC/DC

The link I posted was merely to prove a point about something we were discussing on in the AC/DC article's talk page. I also see no reason why my other edits were removed :S HK51 22:16, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from disrupting wikipedia to prove a point. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 22:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I was disrupting Wikipedia...the link I posted was posted in the talk page, not the actual article. But if there's a policy against doing this then I apoligise. HK51 00:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't mind WizardryDragon. In any case, sorry for the revert, it shouldn't have occurred, and I've fixed it now. My apologies if this was an inconvenience to you. Shadow1 (talk) 00:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought this was on the main page, not the talk page. My apologies. ✎ Wizardry Dragon ^{(Talk to Me) (My Contributions) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia)} 01:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine, just thought I'd bring it to your attention. Don't worry about it Wizardry Dragon :) HK51 21:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Errors

I am reverting vandalism and Shadowbot is reverting me. [1], [2] are two examples. Heimstern Läufer 05:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are un-doing rv.

One more complaint of your reverting rv. You have reverted my rv. Pl. stop doing this. swadhyayee 06:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shut-off?

Could we please shut this bot off for now? It is making it very hard to edit: note the above complaints about anti-vandal activities being thwarted; also, Craigtalbert is getting spam warnings for good-faith additions of links. Heimstern Läufer 07:16, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked it for now. Grand master ka 08:07, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblocked as it seems that issues have been fixed. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 19:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The coveted Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		Presented to Shadowbot for his/her/its diligence in fighting spam on Wikipedia. --A. B. ^(talk) 13:35, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowbot is reverting too far back

Shadowbot's edit to List of Pokémon items reverted three edits back--two edits more than what would have been necessary--including my edit of changing "Magic Points" to "Power Points". Please make sure that Shadowbot doesn't revert more than what is necessary. Perhaps Shadowbot doesn't need to be so hasty, either. I would eventually have caught the "spam" myself (and it wasn't spam, either; it was an attempt to add an image to an article). --Brandon Dilbeck 02:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My bot has both rollback and 1 edit revert. Spam links are what it users the later for crappy link removal. Obvious spam uses rollback. You should probably do the same.Voice-of-All 03:29, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Revert at Kilmore Rec FC

It reverted my changes at Kilmore Rec FC. All I did was question notability, request categories, and suggest the creator of the article upload the image that was broken. Will (Talk - contribs) 02:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowbot's Christmas list

Hi. I have gathered a list of about 125 spam domains I've been involved with in the last 3 to 4 weeks, either by warning the spammer or reverting the link. I don't yet have an IRC client -- would somebody mind feeding these to Shadowbot? Please delete the names as you add them. Thanks! --A. B. ^(talk) 21:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rose Li

The link reverted was not spam but a link to the article title website made a new editor [3].--John Lake 06:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The insertion of [http://www.example.com link title] would be what set this bot off. —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 12:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad revert at The Story of Ferdinand

Seems as this bot isn't working right, I added an interwiki link to another language of above mentioned article and it get's reverted as spam. And not only that, but it also reverted it back to an older vandalized version of the article. (62.20.220.227 22:06, 28 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]

YOU BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH

YOU BEAT ME TO THE PUNCH--Woogie10w 19:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

example.com

...is not a valid domain name -- and can't be spam as such. In fact looking at recent reverts, I'd say it is coming from the edit toolbar, and these are newbie mistakes or vandalism. They should still probably be reverted, but I don't think it's a good idea to mention spam in these cases -- maybe the warning message for these cases would be something more like {{test1}}? Assuming it's not too much trouble to have separate warnings.

In any case, good work! Abu-Fool Danyal ibn Amir al-Makhiri 18:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too $hort Discography edit

The edit I made here wasn't spam. It's a screen capture of a website intended to be a source. I don't know if that's considered appropriate or not (as I mentioned on the talk page before posting it), but assuming it is is there a way to allow an imageshack link to survive this bot? ENDelt260 21:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is legitimate, please upload it to Wikipedia instead of Imageshack. Imageshack links are disallowed because they are frequently used by people to circumvent the Image Policy on Wikipedia. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 00:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John Stevens Henslow

My external link was not intentional spam, but an attempt to clarify an ISBN which wouldn't link, by making a link to a recogised library catalogue which showed it to be a real ISBN. Sorry if this was wrong procedure. I may be a muggins but I am not a spammer! Thanks, Dr Steven Plunkett 02:22, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot error

I tagged the article for Veara for speedy deletion [4] and for some reason the bot thought I was the one adding spam [5]. I'm not upset or anything I just though I would let you know of the error. Teiresias84 22:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Inappropriate reversion of Mr. Saxon

Recurring themes in Doctor Who continuity#Mr. Saxon currently contains a link to imageshack. A minor edit of mine to this section (a puncutation fix and an OR-tag) was reverted by Shadowbot, even though it wasn't my edit that added the link. Arguably the imageshack link should be removed, but reverting non-spam edits to a section containing possible spam surely isn't intended behaviour. EALacey 12:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Bot error - Larry papini

Hi there. The bot reverted my tag of db-nonsense to a new page that was blatant nonsense. Not sure why this triggered the bot to reverse my addition of this tag? Cheers •CHILLDOUBT• 17:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a diff link? That would help the programmer to figure out what is wrong. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 01:51, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop the bot!

please DO NOT REMOVE THIS!

This bot is driving me crazy! it keeps sending me the same message over and over and that orange bar (You have new messages (last change).) will NOT go away.

I READ the message

I ACCEPT I made an error

now, MAKE THE BOT LEAVE ME ALONE —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.168.142.226 (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This has been fixed. It was not Shadowbot who did this. Heimstern Läufer 08:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would hope so. Shadow1 (talk) 13:07, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect reversion

Hello, Shadowbot just reverted my edit to the Everybody Loves Raymond page on account of the url apparently being black-listed as spam. I can assure you that this external link is no more spam than those to Tv.com, Tvguide.com, Imdb.com or any other link in the section. I look forward to resolving this issue in the near future. Andrewtarantola 00:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been classified as spam, and it was removed from the article more than once, not just by Shadowbot. If you can use a different resource such as imdb in future, this would be much appreciated. --Kind Regards - Heligo land 00:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if you are aware of this but IMDB, TVguide, TV.com and LifetimeTV are all commercial ventures and rather large ones at that. So please, enlighten me as to how their listings on every TV show and movie entry in Wikipedia are not considered commercial spam while my links are. Or do you get to pick and choose who the rules apply to? Andrewtarantola 18:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowbot just reverted an edit on AH-56 Cheyenne based on a link to cgsc.cdmhost.com. http://cgsc.cdmhost.com is an official U.S. Army subdomain for storing scholastic documents used and provided by various military schools and organizations. I am going to use an old webcite link I have for the document. We'll see how the bot handles that. --Born2flie 18:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

myspace link

I recognize that this bot can't read the talk page at talk:United Church of Christ, but the bot made a bad revert and then sent me a message. Unless the bot participates in the discussion in the next five minutes, I am going to revert the bot's edit there. MPS 23:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was an appropriate removal, see Links normally to be avoided--Hu12 20:22, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added them back in. See Wikipedia:use common sense and Wikipedia:ignore all rules and wikipedia:wikilawyering If you want to participate in discussion, why not go the talk:United Church of Christ page. One size does not fit all, and in this case, these links are appropriate. MPS 20:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you why those links and not other links? Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 20:54, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Loop Ash Edit

I didn't mean to spam. -__-;; I just didn't get how to put an image from imageshack.us on the page. But I fixed it just now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ChiruCat (talk • contribs) 04:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Your edits to Colombia

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, F3rn4nd0! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 07:52, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not posting any of that I reverted vandalism!!!!--((F3rn4nd0 ))^{(BLA BLA BLA)} 07:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Your edits to Arch of Constantine

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arch_of_Constantine&diff=102781053&oldid=102224073

The non-commercial page I linked to contains 10K of text and 70 detailed photos on the Arch of Constantine. It has 50+ references and is indexed by Google Scholar. It is not spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bill Storage (talk • contribs) 23:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It also has amazon.com referer links and google ads... Femto 12:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bug in the bot: Didn't revert far enough back

Notice that shadowbot reverted teh IP edit, but that IP made two edits in a row, so it reverted to the first edit by that IP, which was also vandalism. It should have reverted back two , not one revistion. See Silver history to see what I'm talking about. Thanks. --Rajah 01:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot malfunction

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, 0dd1! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 02:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks. Shadowbot 02:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I was not spamming; I was trying to correct the citation of a source. The link was already here, for crying out loud!! - Noone 02:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your bot is bugged!

My edit to Fitz Jocko was to revert back to a version with a speedy delete tag (which happened to include an external link). Please modify or shut down this bot! exolon 02:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eti Ankri

What are you talking about? There was not spam in my change. Not even any additional content. It simply wikified the entry. Please explain your thinking.--Epeefleche 05:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Bot reverted edit that didn't add a link

The edit is here and the revert is here. Obviously this was vandalism and needed to be reverted, but it certainly wasn't spam as no external link was added. Raven4x4x 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot reverted paged that isnt spammed!

i5 (girl group). I was trying to edit the box and for reasons beyond me it says Im 'spamming' it (despite *I* created it LOL!!!) Please fix...it was looking nice tell it reverted...--Thegingerone 10:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Spam

What are u talkin about? I added no links at all.--Giovanni Giove 14:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask u again: which spam?? I added no spam. Stop to revert my edits, thx.--Giovanni Giove 14:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you to stop to destroy my edits. I've already asked you whick kind of spam I've introduced according to you. I had no answer.--Giovanni Giove 14:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have diffs to your edits? Its hard for the bot op to tell what is wrong with the bot without those. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 03:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever

Shadowbot was a bit off with it's revert here [6], I was actually reverting garbage inserted into the external links section at the time. I did manage to revert it in a less obvious way without getting Shadowbot's wrath however. FredOrAlive 01:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Tire Money

Um... it's a fact that UK eBay accepts Canadian Tire money. I think that's notable enough to be worth mentioning. How am I supposed to mention it *without* linking to eBay.co.uk themselves? There's already a link to eBay.ca there - why are they okay and the UK site not? 86.143.53.226 01:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Arnold Zamora

Hello! In line with this - If you click on this link, it will show you 2 works arranged by Fr. Arnold Zamora, which can definitely show verifiability of his works/arrangement. There is absolutely no way we can use the link in wiki assuming good faith? --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 06:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa Highway 183

The two links I provided for the article are legitimate, relate to the article and should be kept in the article. DandyDan2007 11:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two links in question:
- Iowa Highways: 180 to 199
- End of Iowa 183

I believe part of this is because I'm on AOL at the moment, and I've read AOL does some screwy things on here, but I have no doubt anyone would think these sources are legitimate. DandyDan2007 11:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Lasallian Schools Press Conference links

Hello! The link I added here is a link to a Multiply page. Since such a link is related to the article, I added it to the page. Pardon if I forgot to add a name to the link. I have reverted it to the last edit I made. Just go to my talk page here for any clarifications. Thanks! Heraldo Filipino 13:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Black Book

In my opinion bots should not remove references to sources. Why was Black Book (film) still reverted? - Ilse @ 19:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 33 (Ontario)

It is not spam to add that it carries the designation of Heritage Highway, and link to a website that shows it. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine of New York City

Shadowbot reverted my edit in which I added several links. My guess is that it is upset with external links I added to the http://www.urbandictionary.com/ site, though I don't see that site listed on the Spam blacklist. I have re-reverted the shadowbot reversion, but feel free to take out any offensive links I have introduced. Shadowbot's reversion is here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wtmitchell (talk • contribs) 04:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It would be the urbandictionary link. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 04:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowbot does not enforce the Spam blacklist. Those links are enforced by the MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia. Shadowbot uses a separate blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]