User talk:AntiSpamBot/Jul2007

Sorry

Sorry shadowbot I wasn't trying to add inappropriate links I was just trying to add a picture but didn't kow how to do it. But thank you for pointing that I'd be very grateful if next time you can help me on how to add pictures.Perfecttlovee

If you wish to add pictures to Wikipedia articles, you can consult our images tutorial. Shadow1 (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't the spammers you're looking for

Hi,

I just manually fixed the Chendo article, removing four imageshack links. Your bot attempted to remove them by reverting the page here(1) and here(2). The problem is, your bot reverted to versions that still contained the imageshack links! Furthermore, the poor anonymous user your bot chastised was not the user who added the links. It appears that this is the edit where the links appeared, back in January!

Perhaps you need to apply your regular expressions to the proposed revert pages as well as the original page?

Ken g6 23:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

incorrect blacklist

I recently tried to add a link from artist Hedi Slimane's entry to a recent interview he has done on the dazed digital website and received a message saying that all external links added going to www.dazeddigital.com have been blacklisted as spam. Please could you change this? This website has very relevent features and interview relating to contemporary culture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dazedgroup (talk • contribs)

Please refer to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. Advertising and self-promotion are not permitted on Wikipedia and will be removed. Shadow1 (talk) 13:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addicting Games

7/8/2007 I tried posting a website called www.addictinggames247.com on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addicting_Games and it called the site spam. The website is not spam nor does it contain any adult content on it. I play games on there everyday and I would consider it a site that has addicting games. All the games are in flash and load within seconds. It also has the word in it's domain. Let me know what you can do. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.16.128.90 (talk • contribs)

That website has nothing to do with the article in question. The article is about the website "AddictingGames", and not any website that contains addicting games. Please do not re-add your site. Cheers. JoeSmack ^Talk 02:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petitiononline link

My recent edit to Parents Television Council was reverted due to the inclusion of PetitionOnline.com. I would like to know why Petitiononline.com was considered "spam" and would like to bring up the link again...[ http://www. petitiononline.com/Sk33t3r/petition.html] and please let me know if it's releveant to include in the article. 198.189.198.2 19:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Petitiononline.com is on shadowbots revert list because its inclusion is not permitted per WP:SOAPBOX/WP:RS/WP:EL. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new name!

I see the bot has a new name, how literal! ;) What reason struck you to change it? JoeSmack ^Talk 03:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People were starting to get confused between my bot names. Oh crap, I need to change the code to log into this account... Shadow1 (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sputnikmusic links

Hey I'm a staff reviewer at sputnikmusic.com. I was recently adding many of my 2007 reviews to the "professional review" section of the albums on wikipedia and was banned for repeatedly linking to the same external site. It was spamming like the bot assumed. In terms of the links themselves, they are completely legal as seen below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums/Archive_17#Sputnikmusic.27s_placing_on_non-professional_list

It's just unfortunate that I was picked up by spambot. Maybe authorize certain users to create unlimited external links on wikipedia. My account name DFelon204409 and I'll also edit and repost with that account in a moment (forgot to sign in). Thanks.

-Nick— Preceding unsigned comment added by DFelon204409 (talk • contribs)

May I ask you to review our conflict of interest guideline? This is just the type of 'spam' shadowbot was supposed to revert. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, we are writing an encyclopedia here. Some links may be permitted, but it is not in the scope of wikipedia to have a complete list of all possible links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry man. I'm not thinking of it in terms of linkfarming. When I write reviews they are not little blurbs like you'll find on allmusic (as well written as those blurbs are) but large scale reviews. I'm writing for the band more than for the site or myself so I don't think of it as self-promotion. Sputnik is a pretty significant review site and I'm just trying to flesh out the band pages. I usually only review bands I really care about anyway haha. Thanks for having patience with my ignorance as to the rules of wikipedia. I'll be sure not to go on linking rampages in the future. -(DFelon204409 19:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Glitch in Advanced Stream Redirector

Looks like the bot reverted a legitimate edit (attempt to correct syntax rather then spam the URL). CoJaBo 18:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot reverts "example.com" entries. However it appears in this instance, it has been corrected [1] ;)--Hu12 19:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Human review requested

The explanation message was clear enough, but I decided the reason wasn't applicable in this case and overrode AntiSpamBot's revert of this edit. I don't think anything further needs to be done, but if someone would like to take a manual look and verify the outcome, that would be appreciated. I assure you that Good Faith is present, but I still could have made a mistake!

My apologies. The libsyn rule has been causing a lot of trouble lately and I'm going to take it out. Thanks for reporting the bot's revert! Shadow1 (talk) 12:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link rejected by AntiSpamBot in the Daria Article.

Hello. I appretiate the efforts of the wikipedia creators to keep spam out of the site, but I am really interested in putting the petition on the article, and by no means I intend to create spam. The AntiSpamBot reverted my edit on the Daria's article. The link of the edit is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Daria&diff=144955274&oldid=144934646 , although it seems it actually put the link again (I think so because I just searched for the article on the search bar and it displayed it with the link and the info I had added to it). I just would like you to know that I don't want to create spam, and that if this edit is considered spam, please tell me so, and if possible let me know if there's any way I could still put the information (and the link), since I am very interested in putting it. Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.136.158.178 (talk • contribs)

Petitiononline.com is on AntiSpamBot's revert list because wikipedia is not a soapbox (see WP:NOT#SOAPBOX). Hope this explains, thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The European Library

Why is theeuropeanlibrary\.org on your "list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia"?

Blocking this address means that you are saying no to all the material of all national libraries in Europe. I can't imagine that you wish to do that.

Please correct your list. Thank you. Fleurstigter 08:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...A SECOND TIME....

PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTION

The question is not 'please revert' but - why is theeuropeanlibrary\.org on your personal little blacklisting?

Chill. Why is it so important that you add this link? Wikipedia is not a linkfarm; there isn't any reason why it's necessary to add this link to every article you come across. Please see Wikipedia's spam policy for more information. Shadow1 (talk) 16:14, 23 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]

From Johnny542

Sorry about that, I wanted to add a new link so people can read it and see that Tyson's beyblade's and attacks are not fakes at all. Johnny542 19:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]