Jump to content

User talk:XLinkBot/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10

Thank-you for your help

Thanks for your courteous response. I would like to delete my account completely and remove the record of attempts I made to edit, as I can't tolerate the free ability of other editors to be rude any time they like. No business would allow employess to be rude but I guess that's the problem, unfortunately anyone can say whatever they like on Wikipedia to anyone else. I could find no way to report rudeness. Could you help me find a way to delete my account? I've searched and can't find a way to do this. Thank-you very much for your for your help. (Wildmint (talk) 19:22, 19 August 2009 (UTC))

You're welcome. I am sorry to inform you that we can not remove the record of your edits, nor your account. Off course we will take any effort to stop rudeness against you, as that indeed can not be tolerated. Please inform me when that happens. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

New Kensington, Pennsylvania

I'm contacting you about NK15068's changes to the New Kensington, Pennsylvania article because I see that you've warned him/her recently on his/her talk page about self-promotion and posting his/her personal blog in the External Links section. Since this user has continued to do so after repeated warnings, I request that you investigate the case. Thank you. --Mikhailovich (talk) 13:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I've left a spam4im, I would suggest to notify an administrator when the link-addition repeats without discussion. For what I saw, the site redirects to a blogspot, and hence is almost certainly not suitable as an external link. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar awarded

The Anti-Spam Barnstar
I just love seeing this bot do its work, it's soo... satisfying! :) œ™ 03:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

WTF?

[1] That proof of a release date of the game.Magicdata (talk) 23:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Proof? Of what? On a website where everyone can upload images without control? Who says that that image is correct? And why not mention the original? Please have a look through: what we consider a reliable source here, the citation guideline .. and possibly others, which were linked through the welcome message that was left on your page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:05, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Problematic false positive regarding twitter

In this edit, which was reverted by XLinkBot, the editor made several useful changes to the article text, removed a good deal of spam from the External links, and corrected one Twitter link in the External links. Because they touched the Twitter link, the entire edit was reverted and the editor was issued a warning. It seems like XLinkBot has a bit of a hair-trigger when it comes to Twitter URLs. Is there any way that it can made more intelligent about cases like this? Kaldari (talk) 20:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes, that happens sometimes. I am afraid that that will be very difficult to catch. It is why the bot is very soft afterwards (forgets quite quick, does not revert again, does not revert undo-actions), and it does not issue a warning at the first revert (merely a remark). I hope the IP did not react negative to the revert .. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. It's a bit disappointing, but I understand that bot intelligence has its limits :P Kaldari (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Gettier problem

Hi, XLink,

I'm French and I'm writing my (second!) PhD on the relations between Utilitarianism and realism, both moral and epistemological. There's a special chapter in it about the Gettier Problem which plays a very important role to justify an endorsement of moral and epistemological realism against its ethical contenders and to improve some current flaws of Cornell realism. As a matter of fact, moral realism isn't defensible without a robust epistemological realism which, in turn, must get a robust theory of justification, an issue at whose heart the Gettier Problem shows up. So I linked your article to my site where I publish some chapters of my PhD for the sake of truth and science. If you consider it improper, or a conflict of interests, so be it. I won't resent it, but it'd be a pity. Best regards, Fabrice Descamps (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that you discuss the addition on the talkpage. I do find it a pity that you would leave, as you are, obviously, an expert in the field, and I am sure that you can contribute significantly to the subjects. Just be careful when linking to own work. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Don't revert harmless edits, please

Hi, in your edit of Edward Wightman you not only removed the addition of a link which you considered improper, but you also reverted Benelohim74's typo correction. Please do not do this any more. Thank you. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 13:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That is impossible to filter, and that is why the editor is asked to undo the edit, less the offending links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:20, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean by "impossible". User:Benelohim74 made 4 consecutive edits; the second corrected a typo by adding a single letter, the third corrected wikisyntax by removing "]]". The fourth and last edit added an external link. You could have chosen to revert the last edit only. --The very model of a minor general (talk) 13:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that I did not see. Yes, that is possible, and that is actually a setting in User:XLinkBot/Settings (<revertoneedit>). But it has been tested both ways, and this way is generally the least disruptive. There are two scenario's,
  1. people who try to add an external link, but do it wrong. In a next edit they correct. Reverting one edit would result in a broken page.
  2. people who do a couple of edits and in the end add an external link, where reverting all removes also good contributions (the same happens actually when someone is doing something good and adds a 'bad' external link in one edit, and I though you meant that, sorry for the misunderstanding).
Reverting all clears at least all, and generally leaves a clean version again, whereas reverting one edit does not do that always.
In all cases, the bot leave a remark on the editor page, explaining to just use undo on the edit of the bot, with optional cleaning inbetween. The bot will not revert again when undo is used (nor will it revert single edits to itself). I hope this explains. Again sorry for the misunderstanding. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:52, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

MurmurHash

I believe your bot was in error when it reverted my changes on MurmurHash. I was restoring a paragraph that referenced different parts of the official home page for a project. 208.80.104.2 (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, not really, googlepages are not good references at all, please see our reliable sources guideline. You may have to find better sources than this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jessica Stam - Twitter

You erased my Jessica Stam page which was verified by fashion industry people. It is legit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.242.81.22 (talk) 02:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Please see the [[WP:EL|external links guideline], we are not an internet directory. Twitter is especially named there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Odd revision by the bot

This obviously should have been reverted because of the French; however, it looks like your bot saw the space and considered the YouTube link as 'new' (I'm guessing). Now it's probable that it shouldn't be there anyway, but either way it seems like a slight bug in the bot. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes/no. The bot detected a change from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1F9YjilCnqM, and hence, a 'new' external link was added. This will be totally impossible to detect, and as you said, the links should not be there anyway (the external links guideline says something about links in the body of the text). Good catch! --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Brian_Boru_Irish_Pipe_Band

Good morning. The bot recently reverted some edits because it detected a false myspace link. The link was [http://www.brianboruirishpipeband.com http://www.brianboruirishpipeband.com] and the bot's revert message was "BOT--Reverting link addition(s) by 64.122.237.82 to revision 314354157 (http://www.myspace.com/brianboruirishpipeband, http://www.myspace.com/brianboruirishpipeband.com)) ". I am not sure why it thought it was a myspace link but I editted the link back in since it appears the bot ignores established users (which I assume includes me). Is there a bug in the programming logic or am I missing something? Thanks. v/r-TParis00ap (talk) 15:32, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This one gets me confused as well. The bot detects redirects, and until now I have not seen any mistakes in that. The reasoning is, that when someone uses 'blah.com' as a redirect for www.myspace.com/blah, then that should not be linked, the external links guideline discourages redirects, and discourages myspace. But why did it now detect that this was redirecting to myspace.
Strike that.
The bot saw this edit, and before the edit was reverted, the editor removed it. It then appeared as if the bot was reverting on another link than the ones you saw in the actual revert. In principle all correct, strange error, though, the link was already removed so the bot should not have tried again to remove it. I could do something about this (rare) error, will have a look one of these days. Thanks for showing me this! --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits erased after hours of work

I just spent about 1 1/2 hours working on the Goenka page and all my work has disappeared! WTF! --Snapdog10009 (talk) 21:24, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not gone, just read what the bot says. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:13, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Dharma

Thanks for suggestion.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Mahavir Saran Jain (talk • contribs)

You're welcome. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:20, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Screwed logics

I only corrected a youtube link that was already there, but did not lead anywhere because of the slash at the end, which thus I removed. So if you leave the youtube link in there, but only if it remains incorrect, you are a pretty stupid bot, human, or whatever. Next time I won't waste any of my precious time on your ridiculously clumsy site. 85.241.160.62 (talk) 16:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Solved, I have removed a number of those links, as none of them should be there. Thanks for pointing me to the page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Giorgi Latsabidze

Hi XLinkBot,

I have added media section to Latsabidze's article. I would appreciate if you gave me some feedback. Thanks! --Alikspasitel (talk) 02:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

There is quite some inappropriate linking there, please have a look at the external links guideline. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:56, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Rick Buckler

Bad bot... Very bad.

The link was used to verify the fact Rick Buckler has left the band From The Jam. Thanks to your revert, that whole thing has gone, leaving the page outdated and incorrect. Not prepared to redo it to satisfy a bot. Bad bot, bad, bad bot.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.31.97.129 (talk • contribs)

That is not a proper reference for that, please see the reliable sources guideline, nor was it properly formatted (but that does not matter now). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:58, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

What?!? His own blog is not a proper reference? I give up... you're welcome to this thing, I can't be arsed trying any more. Too many soft-arse rules for my liking. *Plonk*—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.31.97.129 (talk • contribs)

nope. Anyone can say anything on their own blog, that does not mean it is true. If an independent source says it, yes. Then it is another story. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:53, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Widelux

I have not added any link to Widelux article. All links were already there, and I've just corrected their code, inserting brackets. Your reversion didn't remove the problematic link, but I did it now.Eamaral (talk) 06:43, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

No, you are right, you merely changed the link slightly (in the eyes of the bot). Don't worry about it, and thanks for the removal! --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:52, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Devobaby

As a new editor I have found it extremely disconcerting how the bot removed not only the external link (which I concede probably shouldn't have been added - you live and learn) but every constructive link on the page I had made up to that point, even those from a previous editing session. I spent a fair while working on those edits, and it's all very well to say "if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link", but I think the onus should be on the bot to only remove the questionable links and not indiscriminately remove work which adds to the quality of an article. I feel a little better having got that off my chest, thanks for listening! Devobaby (talk) 10:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

In principle, you are right. The problem is, that there are so many different ways of linking, and so many different ways of incorporating links (inside text, or in a bulleted list; with or without square brackets; with square brackets with extra text, with square brackets without extra text, inside templates, inside references, to name a few), that it is technically impossible to only take out the offending link (yes, one could take out only the offending link, but that leaves in many cases things behind which 'break' the page or leave things behind that should not be there).
On the other hand, it happens not that often, that an editor has added a fair bit of text in combination with an 'offending' link, in by far the most of the cases, all of it just needs to be reverted. I am really sorry, that you are a victim of the case where there is a large part of constructive edit, but as the bot explains, a simple undo with or without removing the link (the bot will in no case revert again anyway) is a clean and good solution. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:47, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: August 11

Hey you messaged me from like August 11 and i haven't had time to reply. So sorry, I just wanted to put a site up that was more reliable for the warrrior cats. Well since I can't, do you think you (or someone else) can revert edits in the minor characters tables? People keep saying false stuff like Willowpelt and Patchpelt are the parents of Graystripe (Which is false), and Ravenpaw are the younger siblings of Frostfur and Brindleface (Which is false), and all the other nonsense? That would help alot. 66.27.159.220 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess you'd want to go trough the reliable sources guideline. If you feel that the sites do abide by this guideline, then try to use them as references (see the citation and the footnotes guidelines). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

HAS XLINKBOT GONE BAD? Deleted links that seem to comply with all wiki rules - Deleted valuable content

It seems as if XLinkBot has become a bit too draconian. Has it turned into a bad bot?

04:07, 2009 September 26 (hist) (diff) Operation MAR LEWE ‎ (BOT--Reverting link addition(s) by Citizen-of-wiki to revision 316247234 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKcDQT8qTTs, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8wCVwlNjGQ&feature=related, http://www.youtube.com/wat), I took some time to look at the external links & spam guidelines. I feel this links are within the above policies and guidelines and are Reliable and Verifiable, and do not violate Copyright. Please let me know if you agree that it is OK to undo the above changes made by XLinkBot.Citizen-of-wiki 04:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, Rich media sites (and Youtube is one of those) are discouraged per 'links to avoid', and they do have an extra section lower. However, it seems you are right that these are official movies, maybe you could consider using them as references, or undo the bot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Pardon?

I *corrected* a link that was *already there*. Good job! High fives all around! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.238.160 (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Live and Learn

We want to stick to the Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks for the edit on Richard Shaw Brown. Now I know. Thanks.--125.24.114.15 (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the understanding. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

why the revert

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Power Rangers has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.hulu.com/mighty-morphin-power-rangers (matching the regex rule \bhulu\.com\b). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The link I posted for Power rangers the moive on the Hulu site i don't see what is wrong with it being on the power ranger's page seeing as HULU acquires the right to post the movie form Twentieth Century Fox . read Hulu's about page (link http://www.hulu.com/about) and it tells you all about how the site works. i was only trying to give fans of power rangers the link to the movie on Hulu. sorry if i cause any problems.

Hulu is free and legal through an advertising supported model. Videos are available for unlimited streaming; watch favorite shows and clips over and over, for free Videos contain fewer ads than on TV. Advertisements appear during normal commercial breaks Hulu acquires the rights to distribute its videos, making them available to users legally

oh and as for the vandilsm warning sent to this IP i'm not the same person who has been posting stupid stuff. the IP is used many students at Macon State College

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.16.190.96 (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, this link still fails our external links guideline, and we are not a linkfarm. The revert of the linkaddition seems quite correct IMHO. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

{{Talkback|GadsebyE}}

Answered on user talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Pro Bono Publico

I'd appreciate some guidance on the Pro Bono Publico external links that were removed. The article's very general nature had encouraged the addition of many links from those providing pro bono services, legal or otherwise, and as a participant, I enjoyed the variety of pro bono initiatives reflected in those links (e.g., I didn't know about Taproot). I refrained from deleting links that were not for legal resources.

If the link that remains is appropriate because it points to further relevant data on pro bono (lists of organizations), I'd suggest that the www.lawhelp.org link is as useful since it would point individuals to locate their particular state's website to help them find legal information and connect to pro bono organizations.

As I understand your external links policy, it's better to work relevant items into the actual article text and footnote them--so I'll try to describe these resources that way, if that's okay. Also, would you please consider the wording of the one external link - there is no "Access to Justice program" at the ABA (though there are many at the state level)--that link is pointing to the American Bar Association Center for Pro Bono (thanks for that) but we provide more resources (for free) than just the directory of organizations.

Ctrprobono (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that is correct. Next to the external links guideline you might also want to see this section from 'What Wikipedia is not'. I'll have a look myself as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, Ctrprobono (talk · contribs), please do not d redirecting links as you did here and here thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the following links are almost essential to the topic Rotterdam as not much other video and photo material is shown or linked to right now

, greetings Floris5 (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not linked because most would violate our External links guideline, just like these. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sterling Long-Colbo

my name is Sterling Long-Colbo

I added a link to one of several fan sites to our book

one is from Facebook and is a Facebook Fan Page - not a personal page - and i do believe taht it complies

please advise otherwise as I am re-adding

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-7-Scouts-And-The-Mystery-Of-The-Commie-Spies/143989574856/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterlinglongcolbo (talk • contribs) 18:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they do not belong there, per our External links guideline. Also, you might want to have a read through our conflict of interest guideline. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
Agree a Book Fan Club, Fan Page and FaceBook are all WP:ELNO's. --Hu12 (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think your bot should scan the version it reverted to for the same stupid links it warns about, since if they occur, then obviously, there's a problem in the reverted version already. Perhaps it should add an external link warning template to the page it "reverted" to since it is already problematic. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a good suggestion, though a bit difficult to implement (as the offending links can be in so many places in the document). I could try a not-revert and issue a message on the talkpage of the user. Often the link simply should not be there anyway. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reporting mistake XLinkBot made

[2] The old link is to a website that links to the new location. That new location was thus used to replaced the old link as is proper. XLinkBot mistakenly reverted it. So I undid that mistake. Dream Focus 12:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

But to say that this is a proper link .. this does not add anything more than what reproducing the same 5 sources in the text would do. Unsuitable external link. Both should go. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

posted on complaint boards on internet

Im confused.

UFO Research Network has articles related to the Gulf Breeze Hoax. MIG has investigative reports on Missouri cases.

Why do you allow UFO INFO and ABOUT( which is clearly a money making webiste) and not mine?

BBecker BBecker (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


I am the owner of two websites, MIG - Missouri Investigators Group (http://ufomig.bravehost.com) and UFORN - UFO Research Network (http://uforn.bravehost.com) both of which have been up and running and on the Internet for 10 years. MIG is dedictaed to UFO Research and Investigation with articles and investigative reports. UFORN has articles on the Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze hoax.

Wikipedia has a search category called UFO Groups/Organizations. Under this category they have allowed UFOINFO and ABOUT (ABOUT being clearly a paid website) which are similar in content to MIG and UFORN, however neither MIG nor UFORN are allowed in Wikipedia. Each time I have uploaded the URLs they have been removed saying that Wikipedia is not "a repository of links section", if not, then why allow ABOUT and UFOINFO? I have been through this before with these people on another issue and the UFO article I submitted on the Gulf Breeze hoax was denied admittance. Wikepedia is nothing more than a bunch of arrogant, egocentered males who use the "guidelines" any way they want to to keep out anything they dont like.

BBecker BBecker (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, BBecker, saying that we are nothing more than a bunch of arrogant, egocentered males (sic) who user the "guidelines" any way they want to keep out anything they don't like, while you are arrogant and egocentered enough to link your own websites at the top of the external links sections, as you apparently are the one to decide that the link is the most important one (diff. Use the guidelines, BBecker, well, they are written by many, many wikipedia editors, both male ánd female, and are generally agreed upon by even more editors. Who are you to decide that they hence don't make sense. And, in your response, you clearly do not consider that a) maybe those other links do not belong there either (see WP:WAX), or that maybe they were included after discussion (as said guidelines suggest). Thank you for your attention. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Monica Sone

What is wrong with incl. the link to Monica Sone incl. her comments, interviews and thoughts?

Monica Sone http://monicasone.blogspot.com/

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigglewigglefans (talk • contribs) 06:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a primary source.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Image delete messages

Hi, I created a new wiki page for Melinda Caroll (she is my wife). I wasn't certain what to use for 'license' on the images I added thru the wiki common vehicle and when I click on the photos there is a 'subject to deletion message' in red. How do I get rid of that message? I don't want to see the images deleted. We own the images that I used. Also, I would like to create a link or reference for the comments about One Warm Coat, a charitable organization. Would you direct me to the proper guideline page for doing that? Thanks, George (gerosete) Gerosete (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not a specialist in this, but does Wikipedia:Uploading_images help? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Pozzetto Massacre

I edit all very good, you are the son of a bitch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.79.46.254 (talk • contribs)

See item below. And please remain civil, there are issues with those edits. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Earliest uses

I've undone this edit. I find these "earliest uses" links useful. We should not have a bot undoing them without human attention, nor a human undoing them merely because they're links to that particular site. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot reverts edits in which links to specific domains are added. Experience has determined that removing only links or reverting only the edit in which the link was added when the editor has made a series of edits causes more problems than it solves.
The domains which XLinkBot reverts are listed at User:XLinkBot/Revertlist, Any administrator may edit this list, it's format is the same as the Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist. Domains such as tripod.com and youtube.com are reverted when added by IP editors or non-autoconfirmed editors because they are more often than not, used inappropriately. --Versageek 19:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In this particular case, only the link was removed, not other material.

So you're saying if an editor adds a lot of good material to an article, and also a link that is frowned upon, then all of that editor's contributions to the article need to get deleted? Can you explain that? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that is not what we are saying, and it is also not what the bot says. I also has a reasonable catch built in. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Also, because you now found one bad edit, below (which however is duly explained by the bot as well), while it is doing, at least that is the impression I get from others, a lot of good work, you feel it necessary to block it? --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Where was it "duly explained"? I haven't seen that. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
This line about "you have found one bad edit neglects several things:
  • I pointed out two bad edits.
  • Those are the only two edits by this bot of which I am aware (I could look at the edit history, but to introduce oneself to a stranger by calling attention to one's mistakes is never going to go over very well).
  • The last time I heard that line, I heard it dozens of times from Wikipedia's CSD community: "you have found only one bad edit" iterated dozens of times for different bad edits, when the only edits from the CSD community I'd ever seen were those dozens of bad edits, when they spent six weeks deleting several articles on mathematics every day because they were article on mathematics, and must therefore be speedily deleted, after which my harshly rebuking them caused them to clean up their act absolutely abruptly, even while they told me that such rebukes couldn't do any good. Eventually the CSD community became civilized. The same still needs to happen with Wikipedia's anti-spam community, as I've pointed out elsewhere. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Elsewhere? --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about two bad edits at least, and possible newbie-biting.

I'm really lost as to what is being said here. In one article the bot not only deleted a link but also deleted most of the article along with it, on the grounds that the link was a link to youtube. So the bot's owner says deleting only the link would cause problems. I don't understand that, so I asked for clarification. You responded that that's NOT what is being said. But you don't offer any alternative interpretation. You also say there's a "reasonable catch built in", but I'm wondering why I should believe that just after I see an edit where the bot deletes most of the article because a link to youtube was added. If there's something wrong with linking to youtube, the bot could delete just the link to youtube. But the alleged "reasonable" catch didn't stop if from deleting the whole article. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if leaving a friendly message as it does is newby biting .. Do you think that the message is unfriendly? Does it not explain what the issue could be, and what the user can do?
We did not say that if an editor is adding a lot of good stuff and a bad link, that then it bot SHOULD revert. It does, and it gives an explanation what the editor should/can do after that. You say 'the bot is bad, because it reverts all', you have not yet asked, why does it revert all and you did not ask why we do not try to remove the link only.
The reasonable catch is that when there is a lot of data added, the bot does not revert. It also does not revert twice, it does not leave a warning on first edit (but a remark), etc. etc.
The other case it removed only the link, on a free hosting domain, where links, generally, don't add to the document.
I am sorry, you block the bot before asking questions, you say that it makes two mistakes. For one the solution is a discussion if that domain is really OK to revert. For youtube, I know that in a lot of cases, the bot is correctly reverting it, as there are problems with it, but there there is another issue at hand.
Generally, bots get blocked when owners don't respond, and not because they make a mistake. You have assumed here that the bot only makes mistakes and blocked it quickly. I am sorry, I find this a bad block. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Duly explained: "If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information ..." .. is that not exactly the issue you block for? --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I started a thread below. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This bot is brainless

This was an incredibly bad edit. Clearly this bot both lack and badly needs human supervision. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Mwaagh, in that edit three youtube links were added, which are discouraged. Yes, it also reverted earlier edits, but the tags should have remained as well, as those issues were not resolved. Some seem official movies, is the copyright on these videos OK? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What "tags" are you referring to?

Why would there be a copyright issue on youtube videos? That's an issue for youtube, not for Wikipedia. If the videos are not on Wikipedia, but rather on youtube, then Wikipedia doesn't need permission.

The edit not only deleted some links; it deleted most of the article's content. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, see WP:COPYRIGHT, and WP:ELNO, they still are discouraged. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Just in case: "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
The tags {{unreferenced}}, {{cleanup}} and {{orphan}}, I meant. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
I have re-removed the external links. The first one seems professional, and has an unknown copyright status, the second one has a tag that the soundtrack has been removed, while of the third one, the Beatles track is not; still the copyright status of that is unknown. All three are not in English, the last two are original research. Though you are right about the content of the article, XLinkBot seems quite right to call these links questionable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what Michael Hardy is saying is that the bot should just remove the links, not revert the entire edit. I agree. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree as well, but that is simply impossible, as there are too many ways of inserting external links, and where removing the link only would leave 'debris' (empty tags, an opening asterisk on a line without content, etc. etc., or simply leaving the rest of the spam content). Gentlemen, it is a bot, bots make mistakes, they all do. We have done our utter best to make that a minimum. IMHO the bot leave a very friendly explanation of what to do when one gets reverted, explaining exactly what you here describe. Blocking this bot for that results in a lot of external links going through for the next two days, many of which violate our policies and/or guidelines. I know that it is a WAXy answer, but all of our antivandalism bots have this or similar problems, so I am tempted to say, if you want to check it all by hand ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
(as a note, I don't believe that removing this youtube links was a mistake, removing the rest of the edit, yes, and I think that that is where the problem lies). --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Started a thread below. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Fresh start - explanation of reversions

It is over bedtime for me, but let me try and explain (most of these are also explained in the bot-approval):

  • The bot reverts only new editors and IPs, when they insert a link. It only reverts once, will not revert a re-insertion, except when that happens after other edits. It will also not revert undo-like actions.
  • The bot on first revert leaves a welcome message and a message (not a warning), and tries there to be as not-bitey as possible by explaining why an edit was reverted, and what the editor can do.
  • It obeys a strict 3RR (3 edits in 30 hours, not one more)
  • It does its utter best to see if a link was inside a template or a reference
  • It does not revert large edits (the one example above was deemed too small)
  • It does not revert after other antivandalism bots
  • The bot reverts all edits by an editor, and asks them to re-evaluate. Why do we do that:
    • an editor can add "* example.org" to an external links section
    • an editor can add "[3]" in the text
    • an editor can add "spam company" in the text
    • an editor can add "Please find our product at our company website" in the text
    • ... more examples ..

That is impossible to filter. You can not just remove the link, as that would, expecially in the last example, not remove the spam.

  • reverting only a last edit, and not all edits is a setting, and has been tested both ways. It is then seen that what happens is that smart spammers are splitting the two edits, so that the rubbish stays (they do first "please find our product ar our company website", and then turn the 'company website' into a link), or they do it because they find out that "www.spamcompany.com" does not result in a working link, so they have to add 'http://' in a next edit. Or they make typos. It is found that it generally works better to revert all, and ask the editor to reevaluate.
  • Important note: it does not have a bot-bit. That is so its edits are visible to recent changes patrol, I don't know how much it happens, but then regulars can quickly revert the bot when it does a mistaken revert.

Now, there are domains where there are good cases, but where the majority of the links on a domain fails, WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM, WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:COI, etc. (not all, if it was all, we would probably blacklist them). Youtube is an example, myspace another. I have done a list of myspaces some time ago, and found that on 30 reverts, it made one 'mistake' (where the link appropriate, though there were already better ones, but lets put it in a way of: I would not have reverted that one edit). 5-7 were questionably OK, the other 23 were absolutely improper external links. You are right, there will always be cases where it reverts a good link on such servers, but if that becomes too much, then that rule should be reverted. I have planned for some time to do the same for youtube, but, as in this edit, there are often links which are questionable (here I am afraid that two break some form of copyright, one was repaired on youtube not to break copyright). Generally, the youtube links that do not break copyright and are good external links are exceptions (as they often make good references, anyway), for the rest, if they don't break copyright, they generally are not suitable as an external link because of content (a video of granny making cake is not a good external link on Cake...).

I hope this explains a bit further. This should probably be included on the userpage, though most of it is in the BRFA (the bot has actually mellowed since!). --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You could take a more middle route. For example, it is not too hard to detect (most) links that are items in the external links section. If removing all these gets rid of all the bad links on the page, then it isn't necessary to roll back the reset of the edit. If there are still bad links after you remove lines from the external links section, then reverting the rest of the edit is more justifiable.
When I looked into one example, I found there is an even simpler improvement: only revert the actual edit that added the links. For example, the bot reverted this edit because of this edit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
Whatever algorithm is used, there will always be cases which "should" have been handled another way. XLinkBot is very commonly seen in edit histories and the small number of problem reports indicates that people are generally pretty happy with what XLinkBot does. The message left by the bot is very well crafted and it should not concern any good-faith editor. If this bot were not running, there would be hundreds of youtube and other dubious links added within a week, and like all bots, an occasional mistake is considered worth the benefit. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
That doesn't explain why the bot reverts other edits besides the ones that add the links. I run several bots, and am quite aware of their limitations, which is why that practice seems strange. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
That is a setting, CBM. It can be changed in runtime. As I explained somewhere above, it has been done both ways in the past, and this seemed to give less problems with pages being broken than the other way (we are talking here about the optimum between 'a spammer testing some edits and finally managing to insert the working link; reverting this results in the test edits still remaining', and 'a good editor who adds quite some data and a link that offends the bot; where all gets reverted and the editor is asked to re-consider everything'. The first situation leaves debris (just like taking out the external link only), the latter leaves a clean edit; both need the text of 'reconsider that addition' anyway, both can be undone/rollbacked, etc, but the debris has to be manually removed from the edit. I don't think that reverting all edits is much more bitey or bad than reverting only one edit. We could work on trying to optimise the message and the options.
We are not talking about external links in external links sections only! There are many, many spammers who add in the body of the article 'You can by Viagra at [http://www.example.org our company] for reduced prices' .. so then we revert a possibly good link in the external links section, but not the blatant spam that is in the text. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I could not find an example for XLinkBot, but had a look at VOABot II. It seems VOABot is reverting all as well: offending diff + offending diff + revert of both offending edits. Now I don't know if VOABot actually filters that, but it seems that it also reverts all edits by an editor.
Please keep in mind that spammers are a totally different ballpark from vandals. While vandals are generally uncoordinated editors, spammers know what they are trying to accomplish. Still, we have to make sure that good faith editors do not get a victim of that practice, but it gives a bot more an idea of the problem we are looking at. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Better VOABot example: a vandal here adds some text to a link and removes a template, this edit does not seem too bad, I don't think that VOABot sees this as vandalism yet. In the next edit the editor removes the text, replaces it with 'nothing', a lot of newlines, and 'HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA made you scroll', obvious vandalism. VOABot II reverts all. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

regex issue

Independent of the stuff above, I tried to witelist the domain "jeff560.tripod.com" by adding this regex to the bot:

(?<!jeff560\.)tripod\.com

That does what it should if you test it in perl, but the bot rejects it. Apparently the error message is

ALERT: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/:en:User:XLinkBot/RevertList) edited.
Faulty regex ((?<!jeff560\.)tripod\.com) inserted, see diff!!

The regex is OK, so something else is tripping. Also, the < in the message should be <. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

huh .. that is curious. Think this is a real bug. I recall something similar in another bot, lately, which may come from api-results. I will have a look at this, and also at 'real' on-wiki whitelisting of links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't see it alerting on the regex at the moment. If the bot regards the regex as broken due to some conversion (and it should work, the external-link extraction process works with lookahead and lookback regexes), then it will simply throw an error message in the log, and not revert (it actually should crash on it, as I missed two 'eval { };'-statements around two regex-testing-if statements. That crashing has happened before with good-faith admins who wrote broken regexes, so the crashing works ;-).
Still, that alert is worrying, there is something wrong there. I presume the alert was given by COIBot? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Yes; I had contacted Versageek to say I was putting the new regex in, and she passed along the error message. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Well, the bots are still running and operational. I'll have a look where it is broken, but I think that it is all fine. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Melinda Caroll wiki page

Oy Vey! I don't know where to place 'hang on'. It says under the 'tag'...where is that? You have a lot of rules but not many instructions that are easy to follow.

Now you want to delete the page I created because it violates copyright of information on a web site that WE own and operate. I'm about to give up. We own www.gsmusic.com. Much of the information for the wiki page created about Melinda comes from that web site (as well as other web sites noted and referenced). This is becoming much more difficult than necessary. Do you folks receive money from people who want to have information added to wikipedia? Is that it? I'm sorry, I can't afford it. If you wish to delete the information and the page I created with text and info from a web site that we own (we own the copyright - it's OUR material) then go ahead. Thanks anyway. gerosete George Rosete 07:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerosete (talk • contribs)

The tag is the thing that makes the message, the 'speedy message', but I see it is already gone on Melinda Caroll. Regarding your website, you might want to consider reading the external links guideline and the conflict of interest guideline. Also the business FAQ could be good to read.
I think that the problem was that it seems to be copied from your website. That is, generally, a case for concern, because when you have a copyright on it, and Wikipedia copies it, then that would be a violation of the copyright, even if you yourself are giving it to us. You might want to read through the copyright policy and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission (I think those are the two). You might want/need to transfer that permission (but I am not sure). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Page Deletion

This is the page of artist Aunia Kahn, I don't understand how this is not wrtten well it is exactly like many other artists pages on Wiki. Can you help me, thanks.

  1. The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since May 2009.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunia_Kahn —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaraElis (talk • contribs) 21:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a look. Your argument is not a reason to do the same, maybe those other pages have issues as well. I have retagged the article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

welldone !

hi ! i've been watching ur anti-vandalism effort's around the clock ..... all your revert's here ( 319843685 ) were amazing ....no human could imagine working so in a jiffy ..... good luck ....& btw i wish to award u this barn star but ur user page is edit protected so im putting it here ....kindly accept ..... --Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 02:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
for ur instant & productive revert's in the Hogenakkal Falls article . good luck & kind regards Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 02:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

why revert hot100brasil ?

I'm adding the external link: http://www.hot100brasil.com/chtalbums.html, but is reverted by bot. Why can't I quote the chart result and add the reference link?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicemanpower (talk • contribs)

hot100brasil.com is a depracated chart, as it has apparently a 'dubious methodology', see Wikipedia:BADCHARTS#Deprecated charts. Hence, it should not be used as a link, nor as a reference. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with my contribution on Copenhagen?

I am of good faith and I have difficulties in understanding your policies of taking off contributions without the smallest explanation

Luc Aleria —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucAleria (talk • contribs) 10:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it too difficult to justify your position? Which is your position? You are not clear!!!!

Luc Aleria—Preceding unsigned comment added by LucAleria (talk • contribs)

Well, it is a bot, so it does not answer by itself, the operators have to do that, and that may take time.
I have disabled the bot, it should not have reverted your edits. I have to check. I have also reverted the bot on your edit. I am sorry for the inconvenience. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Luc Aleria—Preceding unsigned comment added by LucAleria (talk • contribs) Thanks. I am ready to improve and to learn.

I had a bug in the bot, which now has been resolved. I had a look at the two movies, are you sure they would pass our reliable sources guideline?? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Another Flawed Correction by XLinkBot

XLinkBot failed yet again at correcting false external links: On Martingrove Collegiate Institute, it claimed that my updating of a math teacher's website for homework was in reality a bad website that should be automatically reverted. Does this bot have issues with the webs.com domain? If so, could that please be added to the list of domains this bot doesn't like?

Thank you!

JamesB (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Webs.com is a free hosting site, which is, at the moment, plainly spammed by a socking account. If you look at Special:Linksearch/*.webs.com there are many that fail our external links, conflict of interest and, as I mentioned, spam guidelines. However, there will be some which do pass, and hence it is on XLinkBot, and not on the Spam blacklist (which would simply disable all linking).
If in your case you feel that the webs.com is indeed a proper and good link (I will have a look as well), then please feel free to undo the bot. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
As I said, I would have a look, and I did. I have removed a whole list of websites there, as most of them are not directly linked to the subject of the page. E.g. the website of a teacher on the school does not belong on the wikipage of the school, it belongs on the wikipage of the teacher. Also the website of the library of the school does not belong on the wikipage of the school, it belongs on the wikipage of the library of the school. If neither have wikipages, then that is not an excuse to put them on the wikipage of the school, the page of the school should link to them. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have some further questions about the links you deleted. 1) I can understand how you may have a valid argument regarding some of the teacher-related links. However, since the classes themselves are directly tied into the school (for if there were no classes, there would be no school), would it be allowed to have the external links lead directly to the webpages of the classes themselves? 2) Again, the library is a critical part of the school. Embedded near the center of the building, it is not a public library, but one run solely for the students. Why can the library be classed as 'not part of the school'? Would it be better to create a two-line stub page about the library and put the link there, and why?

Regards, JamesB (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Replies:
1) No, we are not an internet directory. We provide information on the school, not on its classes, as the classes are hardly ever notable enough for an own wiki article
2) If the library is a critical part of the school then it is prominently linked from the homepage of the school (and the toilets, the head office, and the archive are also critical parts of a school). There is hence no need to provide extra links. We are not an internet directory for the school. Nowhere did I suggest that they are 'not part of the school', but where to put the line? Do you want every part of the school that has a separate page on the website of the school to be linked from here? So for the head office, the archive, the library, and every teacher that has an own page. And for a school that may be a reasonably limited list, for a university (which is basically a very big school) ...
It is made quite simple, the pages linked should be directly linked to the subject of the page. Hence: School <-> school website. Teacher is not directly linked: School <-> teacher <-> teachers website. They are closely linked, that is true, but that is not the same.
I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:11, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

some more references?

I guess you would require some more external references on the benchmarking method? May be then we could add references from Mc Kinsey about their cost curve and from ICCA that commissionned to Mc Kinsey a world study on carbon abatement see http://www.icca-chem.org/ICCADocs/ICCA_A4_LR.pdf. What do you think? Luc Aleria—Preceding unsigned comment added by LucAleria (talk • contribs)

That seems a better reference. By the way, you can sign automagically by typing '~~~~' at the end of your post (don't include the nowiki tags you see in the code, just the 4 tildes). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:20, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hero Quest boardgame page of wikipedia

There is a spammer that uses the ip 204.58.233.6 (ip of a national bank) that deletes every day the link of the site http://heroquestbaker.altervista.org/indexenglish.htm the only with the permission of Hasbro, publisher of Hero Quest. Can you block this spammer ?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroquest89 (talk • contribs)

Eh, I think you are the spammer here, Heroquest89. Did you actually read the external links guideline. Unofficial fanpages are certianly links to avoid, especially at the top of the list, and even more since you seem to have a conflict of interest. Please do NOT insert that link again, but discuss the link on the talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why the site http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/lm.broers/download.htm that is illegal for Hasbro, remains in the Hero Quest page, while the site http://heroquestbaker.altervista.org/indexenglish.htm that has the permission of Hasbro, has been deleted. Hasbro is the publisher of this game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroquest89 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I have explained that to you last time. It is, however, NOT a reason to keep spamming YOUR link, disregarding discussion, warnings. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
And while you are here, may I ask you, as you seem to be a specialist in the field, ask you to actually improve the article, instead of only pushing a link? The article has been tagged since almost 2 years as being unreferenced. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:38, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You have right, I'm a specialist in the field, I know everything about Hero Quest. But why I would have to help wikipedia, since wikipedia deletes the ONLY link with the permission of the Hero Quest publisher ? Give me one only reason.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroquest89 (talk • contribs)

Of course you don't have any obligation to help us, just as we don't have any obligation to include that link. It is not like 'if you help us, you can have your link'. Fine with me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:03, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

"My link", as you call it, gives all information about Hero Quest. Information that does not exist in Wikipedia. That link gives better information about Hero Quest than Boardgamegeek. It is absurd that Wikipedia ignore "My link". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroquest89 (talk • contribs) 13:12, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that is all fine, and I will adapt my wording. If that site 'gives all information about Hero Quest. Information that does not exist in Wikipedia.', why do you then not incorporate that information on the page, but insist in adding the link only. Whatever, whether you are involved in the site or not, also that is not a reason to insist in pushing the link, neither is 'That link gives better information about Hero Quest than Boardgamegeek'. Compare what we are not vs. what we actually are. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

At this point, delete ALL external links for ALL pages of Wikipedia. The section "external links" has not sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroquest89 (talk • contribs) 20:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

No, some do actually follow our guidelines. However, other editors are just interested in linking in stead of trying to improve the article by expanding it, they just want to tunnel people away to other sites. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

inappropriate comments and false external links!

Re: Wikipedia Page “EccoPro”.

I am the owner of the original still existing EccoPro Yahoo User Group "http://groups.yahoo.com/group/eccopro/". We not only tried to correct the false link (ecco pro, with a space!) placed by a competing Yahoo User Group owner who owns “http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ecco_pro/” but also the false and misleading claim of “(where any members are advised to use the 'hide email address' option to avoid a known problem with email harvesting bots in the group).” Please see below:

/* Ongoing EccoPro community support */

--- " ... More information is available in the following community-based support groups:

A downloadable archive of the ECCO Pro forum is also available. __

Furthermore, the competing group copied all of our original messages and offers those without giving the source as an archive in their file section. (see above!)

While we were not successful to implement the changes and link updates, Wikipedia should allow us as much space and links as they - according to the published policies - inappropriately gave competing web site and Yahoo group owners.

Charlie1945 (talk) 00:18, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

And they are all inappropriate external links. Yours as well as the others. I'm sorry. I'll have a look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dirk ...

As far as I know, we don’t have any links on that page. The “false” link was intentionally placed by a different writer. You clearly detect the blatant ideological slant of the page creator connected to all the present links.

We are not only the owners of the original Yahoo User group, we own CompuSol. Nowhere is our membership driven EccoPro support site mentioned. Given, we do not need to promote our site per Wikipedia, we are already on top of all search engines. Why? We were resellers and connected to Arabesque since the very early days. We pushed NetManage in 2004 to put the program in public domain (see NetManage Mail Additionally, we created in August of 2005 the EccoPro Wiki Home while NetManage considered the move to release the EccoPro source code. That is why we know of your problems of spamming and vandalism on Wiki’s and created membership requirements to access parts of our site. Please have a look at the Wiki, just hit “cancel” at the login prompt.

Thanks, Charlie1945 (talk) 14:20, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not promotion does not make much of a difference, links to yahoo groups, like you inserted here are inappropriate links. That there are (now:were) other links in that document that are (were) also inappropriate is then not the point. Also, Wikipedia would not improve your google ranking, so I'm not worried that one becomes or is the top ranking site. The information that was kept in the article was as a whole inappropriate and not encyclopedic, it does not belong here, that is information where google gives better results, or which belongs on an internet directory. I have therefore removed all of it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Charlie1945 (talk) 17:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Concerning: Adrenaline (Connecticut Band) page

I believe this page should not be deleted. Although it may be seen as a promotional advertisement, it is more than meets the eye. Musicians and singers on wikipedia have an overview or a summary of who they are, and then important events in their life and that's what it shows for Adrenaline. Additionally, they are an upcoming band so they have limited information right now. The sentences I put up are facts and not just a promotional gig. DombroskirnDombroskirn (talk) 12:44, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Just add {{hangon}} and make your case at the talkpage. I will have a look as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:15, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

No Subject/headline

Hello, XLinkBot … there appears to be a small problem with the bot not creating a Subject/headline, such as this entry. Happy Editing! — 141.156.161.245 (talk · contribs) 10:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm .. yes .. hmm .. XLinkBot detects if there is a header for the month on the page, and if so, does not create a new one at the bottom. But you are right, in this case that goes completely wrong, as it is not posting in that section. I will try to resolve that. Adding such a header would create a duplicate, not having the header results in the item to become in the wrong section .. this will need creative thinking. Thanks for showing me this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:28, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
I'm confused … why should it matter if there is another header with the current month in it? For this type of message, the bot should always insert a header, e.g., Revert by XLinkBot, just like many templates do by default … if you're worried about a duplication of the header because of a previous notification, well, it happens all the time with WP:PROD and WP:CSD template warnings about recreated articles … BTW, I somehow missed that this bot is one of yours … long time no see, amigo. :-) — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 19:26, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
No, the problem is, that if the bot then reverts a real spammer, you might get to a handful of the same headers, each with their own warning, that becomes also confusing. There is somewhere a bit of guideline, where warnings are put into the same section with month/year in it. I am following there the same strategy that other antivandalism bots use, and maybe even Huggle and the like.
Well, the bot is technically Versageeks, it is her account. However, I am, after Shadow, the active programmer behind the bot. Bit of a joint venture. Hope to see you around! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:24, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
OK, how about Revert of [[ArticleName]] by XLinkBot? There is still the possibility of duplicate headers, but the bot could easily detect its own previous headers and add (2nd warning), etc. when it encounters them … as for "confusion", the reality is that multiple tags are a flag that maybe the user should be blocked, right? It should be easy enough to have the bot ping an admin or notice board when it encounters a previous tag. — 141.156.161.245 (talk) 12:40, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

I am thinking to try and detect the last header on the page. If that is not the standard heading, then it creates a new one, otherwise it uses that section. I'll stick to the date-format, as that most closely resembles Wikipedia:UWT#Layout. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Need help urgently

i added and contributed information about Daraban Kalan, my native town, on Wikipedia, but the information pasted doesn't have classical Wikipedia formate. i teach English in Islamabad Pakistan and have contributed lot of articles in English dailies, my information is authentic and want to seriously contribute about the things and places i know. But i dont know the method of putting information in Wikipedia format. please help —Preceding unsigned comment added by Salahuddin sikander (talk • contribs) 17:52, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you should have a look at our manual of style. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Revert entire change instead of just removing link?

Did you really need to undo my ENTIRE change just to get rid of what was a correction to somebody else's MySpace reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.42.109.100 (talk) 01:34, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is impossible to remove only offending links, the change of leaving 'debris' is too big. It is better to ask the editor to reconsider. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have added three links to the Faculty of 1000 page [4] and the link bot tells me there are spam links or listed as links to be removed, why? These are links to a corporate website, which many companies listed on Wikipedia have, a blog and a Twitter page. What is wrong with including those: they directly reference the material being discussed? This is an example (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendeley)I was using for what information to include, there seems to be no problemn with the links included here. Please let me know what the issues are: the link bot message is very difficult to read and comprehend. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevepog (talk • contribs) 12:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the bot did not tell you they were spam. The bot told you that these links fail our external links guideline. And if I see you adding a twitter and a youtube, those both fail our external links guideline. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:21, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I had a look at Mendeley (which I think you mean), besides that using another page as an example is not the best, I do see quite a difference between the links you added to Faculty of 1000 and the links there on Mendeley. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


OK, i must have misread the spam comment then, I didn't know about the twitter and youtube links not being allowed so will remove them. But you say using another page as an example is not the best: how else am I meant to know what is okay to include? If Mendely did it, it should conform to the guidelines, right? They have linked to their website and their blog, the same as I was doing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevepog (talk • contribs) 12:38, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

No, that it is somewhere else does not have to mean it is correct there. But the blog indeed may be OK in both cases, they are on the same domain. Questions that may remain, does it add, and is it necessary (as they are likely prominently linked via the main page anyway). But the bot reverts on the twitter and the youtube, which are very likely not appropriate. I hope this explains, happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
I had a second look at the links in Mendeley, and I removed the how-it-works and the blog there, they are indeed prominently linked from the mainpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:14, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


OK that makes more sense. I'll read through the guidelines properly before attempting editing again! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevepog (talk • contribs) 13:16, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Leonard Bailey

Your bot just removed the links that were already in an article, that had to be fixed when someone vandalized the article.

This bot of yours is a nuisance. Look at the Leonard L. Bailey article *history*. You'll see I simply restored the article to its previous state. You need to pay attention, or have the bot checking against the recent versions of an article.

Bots are useful EXCEPT when they start making editorial decisions that can't reasonably be programmed. 130.111.163.179 (talk) 14:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I repaired the edit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

My Wikipedia entry was dated and partially incorrect. I made some minor corrections and added a few links to relevant online resources. I did not realize this would incur a "possible conflict of interest" label. I hope this will be removed. Hhgould (talk) 18:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the bot did not add it there, that was done by another editor. However, I do think that you may be of further help on that page, but I'd suggest you make good use of the talkpage (I saw you were already there). It only has one independent source, it could need some more. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Stupid machine!

I added a book reference and a wikia reference for the grammar of Papiamento. They were deleted by your bot. The book is the most used source for the grammar, and the wikia entry is the only source on the internet. Why is it a good idea to keep wikipedia users from relevant information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.202.116 (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I reinstated the book, the external links are inappropriate, and I removed them. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:13, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverted

Just wait until I find a way to turn you off you stupid bot! I'm trying to build and article and you are being disruptive.--Spoon Maniac (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

You don't need to anymore. But Youtube links are strongly discouraged by the external links guideline. Also, we are not a linkfarm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:08, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

This is getting very frustrating

Your bot seems to assume that every link to MySpace violates the Wikipedia standards. However, the rules clearly state that Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject. It is very frustrating to spend hours trying to contribute Wikipedia and then only later see that all the changes have been wiped off by some stupid bot that works against the rules. Fine, I'll focus on something else from now on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.255.231 (talk) 19:36, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

And the rest of the guideline? MySpace is still a discouraged link, and we are not a linkfarm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi XLinkBot Since I'm a new member in Wikipedia I spend quite some time to read all the advice and rules you mentioned in your message to my reverted external links. You advised me to have this subject discussed here. Ok. As far as I have understud, links into YouTube are not welcome because of uncertainty of violating copyrights. Now in this case they say: The 3D animations can be used without restriction in their full length provided the place of publication is specified". As written on the cover of the original DVD. And because this would be just a link into YouTube I guess this is perfect. In my opinion, this animations would be a perfect visualised supplement to the theory on the Wikipedia pages. Therefore I ask you to have the two pages undone. And all the same, thanks for your work. Greetings. --Ursus.Bear (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. Copyright violation is just one of the things, and unfortunately for the more interesting links often thé problem.
This seems indeed one of the cases where the link may be of interest (though, not at the top ... I think that there are other links there which are more suitable then the YouTube movie). As a side, Wikipedia does allow for animations to be uploaded and directly linked in the page, and as at least Magnetic flow meter, it would be better to try that. That would enhance the article really a lot, more than just a link. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Just as a remark, the movies do start with a company name, they do seem a tad promotional. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. But since I just have this DVD with the original files (and here we're talking of huge files, they do not make any sense for Wikipedia) I can't get access to the YouTube files. This is the reason why I still think it would be more useful as a link. No? --Ursus.Bear (talk) 17:21, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

That is what I said, this may be a case where they are of interest, though maybe a bit advertising. Maybe a suitable WikiProject can help you further (Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics or Wikipedia:WikiProject Mechanical Engineering or something similar?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It was not an external link, it was a source. Now wikipedia works like that: first of all, EVERY contribution that I make is reverted because of lack of sources. Secondly, when I quote a source you revert it anyway. Tell once and for all that only people who know the formatting and everything else may contribute to wikipedia and change the name in wikipedia the UNfree enciclopedia. It is the fourth time that my contributions are reverted in a week, and each time it was valuable information with a source quotation. Ok, let's keep the page without these information and enjoy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.131.237 (talk • contribs)

No, that is not a source. Documents on typepad.com are not a reliable source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:03, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Mass flow meter

The link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIIViaNITIw is being repeatedly removed in the Mass flow meter article. I don't know how the XLinkBot algorithm works, but I've watched the video and found it quite relevant. At 0:50 it illustrates the workings of a type of meter we don't have good wiki illustrations of yet. EverGreg (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The bot reverts new users, so therefore it reverted the editor again (it would not have if the editor would have used the 'undo' function, as suggested by the bot .. It's fine, I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:21, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi and thank you to both of you. But there is one question left, do I have to undergo the same proceedure for every new link I want to poste (means getting reverted and so on)? I fear the worst, but ok, shall it be this way. Greetings --Ursus.Bear (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the question. No, you don't have to go through that. The bot ignores everyone whose account is more than 4 days old ánd who has more than 10 edits. Moreover, it only goes for a subset of domains, where the domains on the 'revertlist' generally fail (significant parts of) our policies/guidelines. If you would insert an 'offending' link the bot would now revert you in the next 2-3 edits, however, I have whitelisted you on the bot. No worries further, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:15, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
Thanks a lot and have a nice day. --Ursus.Bear (talk) 11:58, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi XLinkBot,

I've noticed you reverted a link on the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concerto_For_Constantine page (Brief History of Concerto for Constantine 2007 -2008 (Tickets There at Wordpress.com)). Why did you do this? The link you reverted it to doesn't bring you the the article about the band, just the Tickets There home page. The link I included brigs you to the correct location.

Why did you make this change? I'm undoing it and adding the correct link again.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.68.97 (talk • contribs)

Hmm, I am not sure if either should be there, anyone can write anything on wordpress. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:23, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

True, they can. But this history was credited by the band when it was first published (have been following them for awhile). So it's authentic.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.125.68.4 (talk • contribs)

About my page - Demonic Resurrection

You did delete the link to the blogsite, but you also deleted the links to other two sites - emusic.com and cduniverse.com, please explain why?????--Bdwolverine87 (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, you added all three, I guess. It is impossible to remove only the 'offending' link (due to the many, many ways that links can be added that would generally result in a broken page), it is better to revert and ask the editor to reconsider. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:24, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
May I ask you to have a look at the external links guideline (especially the links normally to be avoided section), and consider which links generally are suitable and which not? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:26, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Mark T Barclay

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mark T Barclay. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark T Barclay. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

And this is a bot as well .. :-D. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:21, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I made an edit to your entry on model comp cards, adding information on the growing trend use of digital comp cards and websites instead of printed cards. I added a link to my blog, which goes on further to explain to models why digital comp cards are now taking over from printed ones. The information contained in this blog would only bee of interest to professional models and as such I felt its inclusion in the main article would be too much. I have not included spam or in fact any link to my business web page. Fatjim (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Per the external links guideline, the article is on Comp cards, not on photography in Nottingham (and even on a page on the latter would a blogspot or a personal page probably be out of place). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of roller derby leagues

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of roller derby leagues. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of roller derby leagues. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Heh .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Dillip Kumar

hi, i am trying to make page about an individual famous person. I do not know how to make the first step where we can see the person picture, and in a table about his/her date of birth, name, spouses, childeren and current activties. e.g Dillip kumar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nawab Umar Farooq (talk • contribs) 10:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what you want, I'll have a look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

I don't suppose the fact that this is a recording of a LIVE performance makes any difference.

Incidentally, I've seen many articles where people have placed numerous links to copyrighted material on YouTube, though they seem to be in the reference section, which I'm guessing is where they're not meant to be...

Toloatzin (talk) 00:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

There are good YouTube links, sure, but many, many fail the external links guideline in some way. Regarding references which include links to material which violates copyright should be removed (probably the best is to remove the working link, leaving the reference in tact where it is at least giving correct data). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:47, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I'm editing the page for LeTourneau Empowering Global Solutions. Did you remove all of my references, or just the reference with a link to the you-tube video? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.16.98.203 (talk) 01:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the bot, it removed all. I also cleaned the article a bit further. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:15, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Change a photo

Ok...how do I change a photo of a topic on wikipedia? It is very frustrating, I just wanted to change a photo to a different one cause it looks better than the onw already being used... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Milokori (talk • contribs) 06:02, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

As the bot left on your talkpage: "Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file.". I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of existing articles which link to www.geocities.com/radiojunkie1 subpages which contain descriptions of long-defunct UHF TV broadcasters. These links were broken by the October 2009 permanent shutdown of GeoCities. The content still exists as radiodxer.bravehost.com/ but any attempt to link these gets reverted by an ill-behaved 'bot which re-inserts links to the dead site. This is not constructive. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 01:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

You mean a link to WICA.html on WFUN (AM). I am sorry, but the article on, now, bravehost, does not even mention WFUN? Not sure if it should be there anyway. But I see the problem. I would suggest that you contact someone who has access to AWB to change these links, this can be done automated, and editors who have access to AWB are not subject to XLinkBot reversion. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

From WFUN (AM)#History "The station signed on the air in 1937 as WICA (its call letters having stood for "Industry, Commerce, Agriculture"). WICA started an FM sister station, WICA-FM...[and]... would change its call sign to WFUN on July 3, 1978" with one other intervening callsign change. So yes, WFUN was originally WICA (AM) and their FM station still has the calls. --66.102.80.212 (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Una Healy

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Una Healy. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Una Healy. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

.. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Youtube

Hello I see from the above that you don't allow YouTube videos, so understand why you removed that link. I added other information pages on the locations, I am unsure why these were removed maybe it was the filter. .User:Sarah Griff, 26th November 2009.

No, we do not disallow YouTube videos. There are videos which are allowed per our external links guideline, though many are indeed inappropriate.
The bot probably reverted the whole edit, I would suggest that you undo the edit, but before saving, reconsider the use of the youtube video. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I am webmaster at Slowness for Sustainability at www.slowsociety.org. We have been represented in the external links list at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_Movement with the following link: www.slowsociety.se/eng. This is now a broken link, since we have changed address to www.slowsociety.org. I edited the external link list so it would correspond to the web address change. Please, remove us from the revert list. /Tomas—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tmoberg (talk • contribs)

Please see, as the bot also suggested, the external links guideline. Your site is not on slowsociety.org, your site is a googlepages site. I have removed your link, like many others on that page, as most, if not all, fail said guideline. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:00, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
To be precise: http://www.slowsociety.org-a.googlepages.com/home. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:01, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting way more than is warranted

I see that a user named User:Ridgegrove has twice tried to make a series of constructive edits to the new article The Charles Causley Trust, only to have XLinkBot revert the entire series the instant it saw him add an external link to a WordPress page, rather than just reverting the edit in which he added the link. Please stop this. —Largo Plazo (talk) 14:47, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read the archives. Yes, both have their problems, reverting all of the edits, and asking the editor to undo (with, if necessary, removing of the 'offending' link) is the one that leaves in by far the most cases the least problems/broken pages (it is a setting, and we have tried them both ..). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

How to Edit article Pakistan?

In your article Pakistan, you have not given option to edit it. Regarding history of Pakistan, there is an important debate these days which has appeared in national newspapers and recently published books. The debate is if the creation of Pakistan was an error of Muslim League and Jinnah. The sub-article "History" will be incomplete without giving a summary of this debate and the proper references. So please guide me how to edit article Pakistan to add this analysis.Nazarulislam123 (talk) 15:22, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

It may be protected. You can request changes on the talkpage there. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:19, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

youtube links - it seems useful to me

This bot removed an external link I added and I'd like to make an argument in favor of allowing it.

The wikipedia article containing the episodes of All in the Family is complete and quite useful. I use it mainly to know what the title of the episode is so that I can watch it on YouTube. I am curious about the copyright issues of putting all the episodes on YouTube. They're all there and have been there a while so I assume that any such legal issues have been resolved.

I put the external link on one episode to test whether it was okay to include it. For someone who DOES wish to view the episode it reduces the trouble they need to go through to see it on YouTube.

I think the external link would be useful to many people and hope that it can be allowed. Please consider my appeal carefully. Thank you.

Jonb107 (talk) 08:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

So, that is just the reason not to include it. I am sorry, Jonb107, this is a plain violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. I am sure your browser has a bookmark function for the YouTube link, which is more in line with the use you have in mind, we are trying to write an encyclopedia here. Just to be sure, the video on YouTube is not a copyright violation, is it (see our copyright policy for explanation of this question). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Water of Life

Sorry I was just looking at the source for Water Of LIfe from http://web.archive.org/web/20001208155800/www.drjoshuadavidstone.com/intuitestimony.htm way back machine —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tryfl2655 (talk • contribs) 13:08, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

No, you added a facebook link. Generally not suitable as reference or external link. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

twitter

hello. you automatically removed a twitter link that the artist has publicly announced on television numerous times, as well as mentioned in this newspaper article: http://www.mb.com.ph/node/221912/ruffa-gutierrez-rai so, why is the Neil Gaiman article allowed to have a twitter link in the "external links" and this article not? GrammarEdits (talk) 09:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Twitter links are generally not suitable as external links, though there are some exceptions. Hence that twitter links are automatically reverted when added by new editors and IPs. This one seems an exception, it is the official twitter, and there are no other social networking sites mentioned (question remains, does the twitter really add something to the page? An example I used earlier, was that the twitter of Britney Spears told us at a certain time that she was going to be home to have dessert with her father .. what does that add ..). That it is somewhere else, is not an argument (see WP:WAX/WP:OTHERLINKS), it may be not suitable there (I will have a look).
I have reverted the bot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Further reading - External links

Hello Xlinkbot, I needed a year to translate the biography of my father. Marvin Herndon was so kind as to put it in. Now I try to copy "Further Reading" and "Weblinks" from the German Wikipedia article. But it is too complicated! The rules are different. Ninjalakie (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be an exception, you can just undo the bot's edit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Bot reverts fixing of vandalism back to vandal edit

Please look at the sequence of events beginning at [5], followed by [6] and then XLinkBot reverting to the first vandalism here [7]. There is an intermediate edit as well, however the bot had "fixed" an IP repair of the vandalism by reverting to it. The result was a gay porn site posing as the band's myspace site for nearly two days, I imagine that is not what you intended. Sswonk (talk) 20:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Very difficult to catch. Sometimes things go wrong in this way, indeed, and this is the reason why XLinkBot runs without bot-bit: its reverts are visible and can be checked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Charlie Webster

I have edited a wikipedia page as some of the facts were incorrect, for example dates. I have also added 2 pieces of information in that can all be verified which explained...i also corrected an official website link as the old one wasn't working you can clearly see that this incorrect when you click through so i put the correct one up. However despite saving changes, the changes haven't been made. Why is this? (Callelabolsa (talk) 14:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC))

The link youtube.com you added triggered the reversion. youtube.com type links are Links normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy.--Hu12 (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Multiple edits reverted, but only the last included bad URL

It appears that this bot has detected and reverted the addition of a YouTube link to Shakespeare and Company (bookshop). However, I noticed there was some "collateral damage" - non-suspicious edits also reverted - which on closer inspection was from a separate edit, 3 days earlier. What appears to have happened is this:

  1. 8 Dec: Anon user re-formats some ext links, adds some categories - no bot response is triggered
  2. 11 Dec, 15:56: The same user adds one more link, this time to YouTube
  3. 11 Dec, 15:57: Bot spots YouTube link, and reverts both edits

Presumably, the bot spotted that the 2 edits were by the same (anon) user, and "decided" they were thus both suspicious. But with such a long gap between them, this seems a rather poor assumption - it might not even be the same computer assigned that IP, let alone the same person editing; besides which surely even bots should Assume Good Faith? I think the behaviour here needs review. - IMSoP (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it is actually a feature (one can set it in the User:XLinkBot/Settings, and has been tested both ways. In this case generally no 'broken pages' are left behind, and the editor is asked to review the edit but it sometimes reverts too much, in the other case it will never revert too much, but it sometimes leaves broken pages behind (editors first trying to add a link, seeing it is not working, and then updating it; reverting would revert to the not-working link). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Ah, OK, I guess that makes sense. I was particularly wondering if the time delay could be detected and factored in somehow, but thinking about that scenario, and the observed behaviour of occasional users (e.g. looking at a page they edited a few days ago, thinking "oh, I broke it") I'm not sure it would help. Thanks for the response! - IMSoP (talk) 20:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
I could make that into a setting, putting it at say, 3 days and see how often it goes wrong. If it breaks too often, we set it to indefinite and we have the same behaviour as now. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:00, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Lavagance - translations and actualization in English

I've translated (and updated) the entries about Slovak band Lavagance into English, almost fully corresponding with the already existing entries in Wikipedia in Slovak language.

Now I struggle to move it to "live" environment. I'm doing it for the first time, all facts are true (see wikipedia.sk and listed external references).

Can I get help on how to proceede?

Many thanks in advance,

Tracey Blash —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tblash (talk • contribs) 13:01, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

You're asking that to an automated account, but could you guide me to the page, and I can give it a go? Or maybe you could ask your question at an appropriate Wikipedia:WikiProject, where you are likely to find 'specialists' in the subject. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

blanking?

In this edit XLinkBot left a message on a user talk page, but in the process also removed all existing content of teh page. I cannot see any reason for that: is it meant to happen, or is it a bug? JamesBWatson (talk) 17:16, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

No clue, maybe a strange type of edit-conflict, where XLinkBot noted an empty page, you left messages, and XLinkBot saved the new page? The two edits have the same timestamp. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Xlinkbot

I believe I've just met you today for the first time. But I love you. Deeply. And no, I'm not drunk.

One question -- you gave only a level one warning here, where I had already warned the editor. Kink?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, not a kink. XLinkBot 'forgets' after 4 hours (IIRC, is somewhere in the settings). No need to escalate on someone who does a mistake every now and then, and IPs may change, so then they would quickly amount to level-4. Note that the bot starts for registered users with a {{uw-spam1}}, not with his own custom good-faith none-warning (as it does with IPs) (also a setting). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
Tx. New question. Is there a way to set the bot so it also gives a welcome template, where none has been given? I ask only because I've noted at least one admin hesitant to block, where there are enough warnings to warrant it, just because there never was a welcome.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
The bot leaves a welcome template if the page is empty, it is difficult to detect if there is no welcome template (as there are so many). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Yep. That's better than never leaving one! (for those who require it for a block ... which I personally think silly).--Epeefleche (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Re Peter Head revisions

I am unsure why my additions have been deleted and feel they have been deleted erroneously. I have meticulously cited references for all the info included from verifiable sources such as national newspaper articles, both in print and online and from published books and album liner notes. No copyright has been infringed in the quotes included. The external links that I provided were to illustrate information included in the article.

If you could please advise I would be grateful as I am wanting to add further information sourced from newspaper articles as i know that this historical information is of much interest to many people. Thanks.--Personneltrain (talk) 08:00, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Youtube links are not suitable external links in general. They are not to illustrate, they are to provide more information, per our external links guideline. I have reverted to another version of the document, and have cleaned out the external link section. Please consider to discuss the youtube links on the talkpage, as I am afraid that they should not be included. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RGSSA

What's the problem with the Royal Geographical Society of South Australia? DuncanHill (talk) 22:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Eh, no clue. What is the domain? --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Oooh .. you mean this. That has nothing to do with the rgssa .. that is the email address that was added. We are not the yellow pages. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:05, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Trouble is, it wasn't just the email address removed. Looks like a good faith newbie trying to add information and a means of verifying it to me (and for what it's worth, yes I have checked and RGSSA does have some of Banks' manuscripts in its catalogue). DuncanHill (talk) 23:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
I'll add, to give a warning quoting BLP as reason for removal seems just weird. DuncanHill (talk) 23:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
It is impossible to only remove 'offending links', there are too many ways. Just revert, and leave a friendly message (at the first revert) and ask to reconsider is better then having the bot vandalising the page. And I think that the message is friendly enough so it does not seem to bitey.
It has to do with protecting people, it are not only people who are posting their own email address. Then it can be a BLP issue. The warning can be adapted in the settings, if you think it needs to be worded differently. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:15, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Hello. How can I obtain semi-protection for my page? Thank you. --Apartment60 (talk) 17:54, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Your page?. Why would you want that? Is it being vandalised? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:00, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Edits in the Article Lal Jose

The edits done by 170.224.98.48 were including information (please check this) and is not seems to be an attempt for vandalism. But all the edits were reverted by user XLinkBot. can you please explain?? Hbkrishnan (talk) 15:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't own XLinkBot at all, but looking at the other posts about him reverting edits, it's probably because of the wordpress link this IP added. I think that whenever the bot sees a link, it reverts the whole edit (and it doesn't use the undo tool, so it reverts all the edits made by the user). I think that the bot can't do an edit like a human and only remove the link. I think it can only either undo the edit or revert it (I have only seen it revert the edits, however). --Hadger 17:10, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Likewise I not associated with XLinkBot, but the owner has previously explained that both kinds of "undo" have been tried in the past (rollback vs. undo of just the edit adding the link). It was found that the undo method often left broken editing because the user usually is intent on adding a link, but they do not format it correctly on the first couple of attempts, and it might be the third attempt when they get a functioning link. Having automated link removals of inappropriate links is extremely helpful to the community and the price may be to have some occasional glitches, although if editors are watching the article in question, they will presumably notice and take any corrective action. Johnuniq (talk) 01:14, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

XLinkBot

XLinkBot 'reverted' the edits I made to the article Dietrich v The Queen and because I thought the reversion may have been made because the content I was positing confuted the material included in the article, I again edited the article and this time included my name and email address in case any one wanted to contest the edits I had made by contacting me. The article as first published relied upon newspaper articles which it cited as if those newspaper articles were repositories of facts that could not be confuted. But they were newspapers published in Australia where 'fact', 'opinion' and downright 'fiction' are often published as if they were fact. This is particularly so where the newspaper article deals with 'criminals' and their crimes. The transcripts of the trials and appeals are a much better and more reliable guide as to what Courts found. In this case the newspapers simply published things that were demonstrably false and those matters were included in the article. I have again edited the article. This time I signed in first and did not include my name or email address. XLinkBot Stay away Mark A Clarkson (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The bot operator may be away, so I will comment. I see that your new edits were reverted by Barek – I checked the edits and Barek is totally correct: we do not put personal information in an article. Ask at Talk:Dietrich v The Queen or on my talk if you would like more information. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Template

Have you thought about trimming down the amount of text that your bot posts on user talk pages after reversions? It's a lot of verbage to read through, especially for what I expect is the typical target - newbies who post links to their favorite band's MySpace page. Specifically, I've been working with this guy, and there's a definite language barrier. Just a suggestion, keep up the great work! --SquidSK (1MC•log) 04:27, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, the reverts need more explanation than a standard warning, and a short warning would likely give more questions here. That said, I know they are long, and that they get ignored anyway. The warnings can be changed in the settings, any suggestions? --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 19:27, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Aggressive removals

This bot removes links to non-copyrighted material with aggressive "warnings". Please fix. Gych (talk) 09:01, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

From the guidelies for external links

Linking to user-submitted video sites Shortcuts: WP:YT WP:YOUTUBE There is no blanket ban on linking to YouTube or other user-submitted video sites, as long as the links abide by the guidelines on this page (see Restrictions on linking and Links normally to be avoided). Many videos hosted on YouTube or similar sites do not meet the standards for inclusion in External links sections, and copyright is of particular concern. Many YouTube videos of newscasts, shows or other content of interest to Wikipedia visitors are copyright violations. Links should be evaluated for inclusion with due care on a case-by-case basis. Links to online videos should also identify the software necessary for readers to view the content. For example, all links to YouTube videos should, if applicable, indicate that Flash video software or a web browser supporting H.264 is necessary to see the content.

I know. Problem: the links which are official and useful are often covered by copyright, those which are not are generally not suitable as an external link, and youtube, besides having problems with copyright, is still a strongly deprecated external link anyway. However, it can be changed in the settings. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 19:29, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of every single reference I added

Yesterday I painstakingly added a reference to almost every sentence of the article Ricardo Cabanas, because of the message that appeared on top of the article ("Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous or harmful."). I was dismayed when I saw that this morning this bot had arbitrarily deleted every single reference (they were mainly references to Spanish and Swiss media). --94.193.118.110 (talk) 10:33, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've undone this bot´s changes. I don´t see any reason why references to articles published in the Spanish and Swiss press (eg Blick, La Voz de Galicia, El Faro de Vigo or El Correo Gallego), references to information on the BBC website or adding a link to his official website should be deleted, but please let me know if there was a problem. (And it´s not self-promotion, as I´m not Ricardo Cabanas, I´m not related to Ricardo Cabanas, and I can´t even understand football).--94.193.118.110 (talk) 10:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The bot tripped over the youtube external link you added. YouTube fails very often our external links guideline. You are free to undo, as the bot suggests, but please consider if the youtube link is really something that should be added according to our external links guideline. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 19:31, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Verbiage

I also feel that the bot's teemplate message is excessively worded. Also the bot is over sensitive. Please put this link on the white list: http://siamsmile.webs.com/isaan/isaan.html. Thanks.--Kudpung (talk) 09:59, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

We have had recent problems with webs.com, there is even a blacklisting request for it. I am sorry, it fails our external links and our reliable sources guideline too often, as well as that it has been aggressively abuse by others. I hope this explains. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 19:32, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

My edit to Tony Sparano

That's absolutely cool. I was just attempting to replace a broken YouTube link — the user (on YouTube) had removed the video that the page originally linked to — but I do understand the copyright issues that may arise. It's my fault for not checking first.

— 66.31.127.134 (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, your comments certainly make sense.

Thanks.

...and thanks for wonderful set-up in the edited version in wiki. Looks really great.

Wayne Keon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keonw (talk • contribs) 01:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I cited American-Automobiles.com on an article about the Gaylord (automobile) and it was bot-reverted. Does that site have a reputation for unreliability? If I add it back, will the bot just revert it again? If I add the information without the citation, that's not good. I don't think I'm going to monitor this space for a reply, so if you decide the link and content were appropriate, you can put it back yourself.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.208.240.121 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 4 January 2010

Farber and Associates, LLCs
ebay.com 711-53200-19255-0
Accounts

Slick57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
24.208.240.121 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
--Hu12 (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

European Klassik Rock

I understand that you are not a complaints department, however, you are the only connection that I have to Wikipedia. I also respect your comment regarding EKR's myspace site which I guess is fair enough. BUT the fact that the EKR (European Klassik Rock) page gets consistently removed is becoming highly irritating and we can see no logic as to why this keeps happening. It is true that, on the last occasion, several of the organisers wrote a factual placement. This had been done to assist listeners who want a page who had claimed to have had the same trouble. I can now only agree this problem has foundation. Any placement that does eventually remain will doubtless be edited by listeners. In the meantime, the constant removal of said page would appear to be discriminatory without reason. Please advise (John Brocks (talk) 04:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC))

There is a discussion Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:JohnBrocks_and_EKR--Hu12 (talk) 06:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Laura McCullough

This edit was not very helpful. A bunch of edits were removed based on the addition of one reference which included a link. The editor reverted was the subject herself making a few minor additions and corrections. All she sees, or understands, is that everything she added was reverted. Fred Talk 13:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It is a setting, and the choice was made to revert all edits made by the same user, and to ask the user to reconsider. This seems more bitey, indeed, but reverting only one edit leaves often debris or broken pages (or smart spammers who do two-step additions so part of their work would remain) .. I hope this explains. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 14:54, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding a too-low level warning

Just a heads up that XLinkBot gave someone a weirdly indented level-1 warning here, instead of the level-3 they deserved. XLinkBot had already given them a level-1, and I'd given a level-2. --McGeddon (talk) 10:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

XLinkBot does not detect earlier warnings, it follows its own counting. This merely since otherwise it might go too quick to high levels and report the user to AIV. I will see if I can do something about it, actually, parse the edits to the talkpage of the last hour or so, and see which warnings were given, and use that as the starting point.
By the way, XLinkBot starts with a 'level 0' warning, a good faith remark. Most users don't even get to official spam warning levels, the bot assumes a lot of good faith, especially since links here are sometimes fine, even if the bot reverts. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 14:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Jalaj

Why is my entry removed from the wikipedia always ? the name of the link does not contain any suspicious matter. Even though there are some non-useful entries on the page named Jalaj --Jalaj Mathur (talk) 08:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Because you are spamming an unsuitable external link (as the bot also suggested to you), we are not an internet directory, we are writing an encyclopedia. May I also ask you to stop creating sock accounts?? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot undo did something wrong

Please check out this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TT-34

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41OO (talk • contribs) 22:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems correct. The bot is designed to revert edits that introduce external links which do not comply with our external links guideline. such as your addition of myspace--Hu12 (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree, since the bot erased also the band's main site link, which isn't hosted on MySpace or any prohibited host listed on external links guideline. Bot should have a black list with forbidden FQDN's to avoid false positives. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41OO (talk • contribs) 04:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
See FAQ, second box, top of page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

My addition of an external link to the musical band Rootbeer's official MySpace site was removed. The band Rootbeer itself does not have a Wikipedia page and I do not feel qualified to write one; however, its founder, Flynn Adam, does have a Wikipedia page to which I added the external link. Before doing so I carefully read the guidelines for adding External links and found them vague and extraordinarily hard to understand. This makes it unlikely that I will add additional information to Wikipedia in the future which seems to be the opposite of what you would want for this amazing resource. Following is the message I received (sorry it is so long but I think it will help illustrate my point):

January 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Flynn Adam has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.myspace.com/rootbeersound (matching the regex rule \bmyspace\.com). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 20:08, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

The part of this entry that reads "(matching the regex rule \bmyspace\.com)" may as well be Martian as far as I am concerned and means nothing to me or likely any other average editor especially considering that it seems to be related to the fact that I referenced MySpace and MySpace is referenced on the page in an earlier external link. Perhaps a more understandable explanation would be easier for most to understand. Again, I will probably not make another edit, entry, or content contribution to Wikipedia as long as this situation persists even though I do believe in Wikipedia and will continue to support it financially (that's right I did contribute a large sum (for me) to the site in its recent financial "crisis"). I look forward to a more editor friendly site in the future. Good luck. Rookk (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

'I removed the following link(s): http://www.myspace.com/rootbeersound' .. that is clear. Regex is explained via a wikilink, and is not needed (though may be handy to know why something gets reverted, if not for the user, then for the operators). For the rest I do not understand what you don't understand ... But I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Continual reversion of my correction to incorrect, uncited information on Pekin, Iowa

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pekin,_Iowa contains an incorrect statement about the school being built on a former Air Force base, with no citation. In reality, it was built on a former Naval auxiliary landing field, which I corrected, and cited with TWO supporting citations, as well as provided a link to a page with further well-cited supporting information.

Each time, my changes were reverted before I could complete editing all sections, with a cocky note from a moderator saying "A naval base in iowa?".

EXCUSE ME, but I am intimitely familiar with the history here, and put in well-cited information. My changes were ripped out within SECONDS, and reverted back to the incorrect, uncited version.

is this why Wikipedia can not be relied on for accurate information? Any bad information cannot be corrected! Ridiculous! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.194.20 (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The bot tripped over a tripod link, and explained that to you. The bot there also asked you to reconsider the link, and to undo the edit.
The edit was already undone, minus the tripod link. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Kasia Madera

Thanks so much for you help on my Kasia Madera page. I am a new contributor so all help is greatly appreciated. I have made a few changes so hopefully the page is ok but please have a look. Kasia is a great presenter and deserves her own entry. You can actually see her for yourself on BBC World tonight from 0100 BST. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinarekawek (talk • contribs) 15:04, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems fine, could need some wikification, please have a look at our Manual of style. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

hello please help me

hello now am the public realtion manger of egyptien artiest tamer hosny he had a pager here in his video clips when i make reference to you tube its refunded can i know is it acceptable to add you tube links or not and about his awards also each time i add them its refunded can you help me please thank you so much —Preceding unsigned comment added by Halllaomar (talk • contribs) 16:55, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Youtube links are strongly discouraged, we are here to write (notable things!) about the artist and/or his songs, not to link to his work (except if there is something that the video can prove to us ..). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Inaccurate "after final warning" report

FYI - this report stated that the IP user "keeps adding external links ... after final warning", yet the talk page edit history and contribution history for 172.130.121.227 (talk) shows no edits since the third warning. -- Tom N (tcncv) talk/contrib 02:01, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me see:

  • this edit is at 1.30 and the one mentioned in the 4th warning.
  • so this edit is after the fourth warning, and earned them a report to AIV. Seems fine. Maybe the bot was a bit 'slow' so that the edit after the edit which earned him a level-4 warning was already done before the bot warned him, but the sequence is fine. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking further, I see 7 edits, of which 5 reverted by XLinkBot and resulting in a message/warning, one reverted (citing agf) by another editor, and the 7th edit.

I have seen more of these links '(TV-program)##################.webs.com etc. I am almost tempted to not agf on those anymore, if it were (TV-program).webs.com, it may be somewhat official, but is this the 80048436282250th page on webs.com dedicated to Bones? I think this is serious spam, not good faith anymore. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

it leads to:

As they are all cross-wiki, I have gone ahead, and blacklisted the whole lot on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

External link on Taarak Mehta Oolta chashma page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taarak_Mehta_Ka_Ooltah_Chashmah - why you removed it. it is giving the opinion of people. Do you know what is it all about. Arbitrary editing will not be help readers who like to know almost everything about topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LoveIndia (talk • contribs) 05:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You say it: "it is giving the opinion of people". However, it is a wordpress document with no editorial oversight, and hence likely not a suitable external link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Please add

Please add www.disease.com to the list. It's not really dreadful spam, but I'm tired of removing it from Disease, and the anon, who appears to have a significant COI, has previously indicated that if other (e.g., government) websites are listed, then his/hers ought to get just as much free advertising. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, the anon seems to be spamming hospital.com[8] and counselor.org[9]. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And way more:

Links
IPs
users
article

This may be all, I am waiting for the reports to finish, to see if there is more. Looks like all can go on the list, indeed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nicky Quba

I wanted to put up my references FIRST, I wanted to make sure you would see the validity of the story about Nicky Quba. You didn't give anyone time. YOU wnat this ro have validation and thats what I'm trying ro provide..these are exceprts from an upcoming BOOK. I am only allowed so much time on the computer to do this..not like some who have the priviledges as you do. I would like to finish my article on Mt. Nicky Quba —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolwild (talk • contribs) 02:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I see the article has been deleted as having no notability. You might want to read Wikipedia:My first article, and see what is needed. For what I have seen, the list of links you added contained quite some links which are simply not suitable external links, nor suitable references. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:55, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I am new..

I am new to this. I am trying. In your rules and guidelines. It states. Be kind. Be polite. You should read them. I am not as prolific as you are But I'm learning.

carol Wild —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolwild (talk • contribs) 02:25, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to look up come of your reference internet codes. When I do I understand better. I am a journalist not a programmer.

Carol Wild —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carolwild (talk • contribs) 02:28, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

See above post. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:56, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia should go back to banning fully automated bots

Approximately every couple months I get the impulse to help Wikipedia, and every single time I am reminded why I left. (Obnoxious bots and stupid administrators) Of course, when I left, Wikipedia did not allow fully automated bots. Either that policy has changed, or the bot's operator is woefully inept. Any English-speaking human editor can see that the link and the edit are both relevant. I provided a link because otherwise, the edit would either be reverted or citation needed. --64.254.165.55 (talk) 05:21, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that you should have a look at the reliable sources guideline and the footnotes guideline. I would also ask you to assume good faith, if there are fully automated bots who do some certain task, then they must have been approved somehow, and doing something that is deemed necessary. And no, wordpress.com ('Get a Free Blog Here') is not a reliable source, especially not on a controversial topic. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:00, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear XLinkBot -

Dear XLinkBot -

I am trying to insert credible and relevant links into appropriate articles but they are being rejected because some are stored on a "typepad" website. What can I do to resolve this problem and insert these external links?

Thanks, Tusha —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tushayakovleva (talk • contribs) 21:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you, or are you promoting, Hannah Wallace, the author of these articles? Please take a look at your talk page to understand what the actual problem is. Changing the article title in a spammed link won't make a difference in whether it's retained. --CliffC (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Bot error

Here the bot removed a different link than what it was trying to remove, just thought you might like to know. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 00:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It detected the addition, and reverted to the version before you started. I see you indeed already removed the link again, which the bot did not detect (it tries, but sometimes fails, depending on the 'speed' of following edits and how fast the bot reacts). As a side, I am not sure if the ...pedia-link is suitable anyway, you might want to check that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Numbered warnings?

It's possible that the bot has been doing this for a while, but I've just noticed it recently: some of the warnings it's putting on user talk pages start with a #. Consequently, the warnings end up prefaced by a "1." when viewed.

Some examples: here, here, and here.

It only happens when a Welcome message isn't being left at the same time, if that helps in tracking it down. Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 01:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the bot numbers the 'official' warnings. IIRC that is suggested for these templates. Makes it easier for admins to see how often an editor has been officially warned, and if further warning or blocking is warranted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood my question, so let me show an example of what it's doing. The bot reverted this anon IP user four times. The edit summaries were:
  1. welcomemessage + good faith remark
  2. first warning
  3. second warning
  4. third warning
But the numbering on the talk page showed:
  1. (unnumbered)
  2. 1
  3. 1
  4. 1
Numbering the official warnings - dandy. But what's written on the talk page (with warnings 2, 3, and 4 all displaying #1) isn't what is supposed to be happening… right? Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 03:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
No, indeed. You're absolutely right. That is not what it should show. The numbering does not work when there is an extra line-break. That is annoying. You know what, I'll consider to get rid of it .. I don't like it, it does not work properly. gone.  :-D. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Hey, glad I was able to help (ok, also glad to know I wasn't the only one who thought it looked off). Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 08:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
I never noticed it. Hardly any new user gets to a level-1 warning, and the few that do are still in good faith. Only a few manage to get to 2, 3, 4 or AIV, so I never bothered to check those pages to see how they looked like. Thanks for the help! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Need Help with This

Not for sure what i have done wrong. I left a talk page called Cebu's Cultural Center. I hope you can read that and tell me where i am going wrong. I just want to do what the others i have spoken about have done...... Cebuexpat 14:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebuexpat (talk • contribs) You can find the talk page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Cebu%27s_Cultural_Entertainment_Center —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebuexpat (talk • contribs) 14:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC) You can find the Mactan Island Aquarium here at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mactan_Island_Aquarium

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Karenjc" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cebuexpat (talk • contribs) 14:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what you ask. I see you added a link to http://thejunglerestaurant.weebly.com, somewhere in a reference section in combination with a wikilink. weebly.com links are generally unsuitable as links, and also generally bad references. Seen the warnings on your talkpage, and on the talkpage of user:Karenjc, I would suggest you to read a bit about our policies and guidelines. A good start may be following the links left in the welcome message (welcome section, on your user talk here: User_talk:Cebuexpat#Welcome). I hope this helps, but if you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for an improvement to the coding of XLinkBot- perhaps it shouldn't aggressively delete links to external websites when said link is replacing an already extant link to that website. For example, I replaced an authorised (but broken) YouTube link with a new version that linked to the same video, but at a different URL. Due to XLinkBot's aggressiveness, the new link was reverted back to the old (broken) link. Perhaps this is something for XLinkBot's coders to look into. Much appreciated. JMS3072 (talk) 12:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, that is very difficult to detect, some links should not have been there in the first place, and updating does not make them more wanted (though at least they are not broken). But I understand, that sometimes links are good (otherwise they would already be blacklisted, and not here), and when those get updated they stay good. I think this is impossible to catch or to say 'lets leave it' without having the same problem with 'the bad stuff'. Maybe it is just good, XLinkBot would generally just leave a friendly remark (not even a warning) and I hope that editors will indeed consider it to be a plain 'wrong reversion' by the bot, and that they will just undo the bot-edit (or, if the old ánd the new link would be inappropriate, remove it). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

XLinkBot appropriately reverted my changes to Corsair Memory as I had not realized that I should avoid social networking and sharing sites (YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, et al) when editing a company page. I went back and did my homework after that, in order to comply with Wikipedia's guidelines.

However, in reading the External Links guidelines, I am left with a question: blogs are not recommended, however, in the case of a company page, the company's official blog seems to be reasonably excluded from this rule. I recognize the blog falls under the definition of self-published, but I would consider it authoritative in the sense that the company is creating / maintaining / editing the content. This link would allow someone with interest in the company to get timely information that would not be appropriate for direct inclusion in the Wikipedia entry, but may be relevant to them.

I've removed the link while waiting for clarification. Thanks in advance for your feedback.

Carltonjim (talk) 18:54, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blogs can be appropriate, and the official blog of the subject hovers between WP:ELYES and WP:ELNO. It is an official link of the subject, could be included, but on the other hand it is covered, not only by the blog-ELNO, but also in a way by 'we don't want all possible external links', 'does it add something', etc. etc. Also, often important subject-blogs 'blog.subject.com' are also linked already from the mainpage of the subject (subject.com).
This is the reason that the bot is telling to reconsider the edit, sometimes subject.blogspot.com is thé official, main blog of subject (or its only blog), and then it is appropriate (though maybe superfluous or not adding anything). If it would be really bad, it would be on the blacklist, as there were no reasons to link to it.
I would consider this a case of 'use common sense', taking into account the policies and guidelines, and if you are still in doubt, raise the issue on the talkpage. I hope this helps, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your feedback. After consideration--and careful reading of WP:ELYES and WP:ELNO--I've elected not to include the link to the blog. It is prominent enough on the company's webpage for someone to find easily if they are interested. Carltonjim (talk) 01:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

dogoowners.proboards.com

Who is the administrator of this nutty bot? Removing a link, but removing everything!! Fix or disable this bot please.

  • (cur) (prev) 07:34, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (10,311 bytes) (Undid revision 342890059 by XLinkBot (talk)) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 07:29, 9 February 2010 XLinkBot (talk | contribs) (9,503 bytes) (BOT--Reverting link addition(s) by RedThunderBuster to revision 340654637 (http://dogoowners.proboards.com/)) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 07:29, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (10,427 bytes) (→External links) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 07:23, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (10,228 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 07:21, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (10,228 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 07:08, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (9,910 bytes) (→See also) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 07:07, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (9,897 bytes) (→See also) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 07:06, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (9,879 bytes) (→Breeding standards) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 07:03, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (9,944 bytes) (→External links) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 06:59, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (9,977 bytes) (→See also) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 06:37, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (9,958 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 06:36, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (9,958 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 06:26, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (9,954 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 06:21, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (9,954 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 06:18, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (9,946 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 06:17, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (9,945 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 05:52, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (9,663 bytes) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 05:40, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (9,651 bytes) (→History) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 05:37, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (9,635 bytes) (→Temperament) (undo)
  • (cur) (prev) 05:35, 9 February 2010 RedThunderBuster (talk | contribs) (9,624 bytes) (→Temperament) (undo)
  • —Preceding unsigned comment added by RedThunderBuster (talk • contribs)
See the FAQ linked in the top of this page and the remark on your talkpage. I see you followed the latter already. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

FROZEN (2010) Movie listing

The Wiki page has an incorrect FACEBOOK link to a fan page for Frozen, NOT the OFFICIAL FROZEN Fan page created by the movie studio, Anchor Bay Films. My edits to correct the incorrect listing have been deleted TWICE. Wiki has links to the official FROZEN website, and you can verify from going to the official site that the link that I provided to FACEBOOK is the correct one--not the one you are allowing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeLynchFrozen (talk • contribs) 00:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Facebook links are generally superfluous (and/or not allowed) by nature. See the links to avoid section in the external links guideline. As the bot suggests, consider if the link is really adding to the page and correct, and if so, undo the bot edit, otherwise delete the whole link. I'll have a look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

YouTube video of NE storm

Hello, can you please explain why the bot made this deletion "http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=North_American_blizzard_of_2010&curid=26088168&diff=343108955&oldid=343108878"? Are YouTube videos not allowed? I appreciate it. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 08:10, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Youtube video's are allowed, but there should be a good reason for their inclusion. The external links guideline has information on YouTube links. Generally speaking (keeping in mind that there are always exceptions): if the video is 'home made' then it is not encyclopedic (e.g. the video of your birthdayparty), if the video is made by an official organisation then the video might be fine if (and that is a big if!) the video has been uploaded by the organisation itself, and/or if the copyright is properly transferred (many 'official' video's are uploaded in violation of copyright, and those are strictly forbidden). And then there are quite some other rules which often apply to the video's: the subject of the video has to be the subject of the page (not 'you can see the subject in the background of this video starting at 5 minutes 11 seconds, ending at 5 minutes 26 seconds), files tend to be huge (which is fine behind a high-speed connection, but renders the link rather useless for those behind a dial-in connection, and yes, they are still used), in principle, one still needs to install software to see the movie (though >99% of the people have it installed, that still amounts to, probably, millions of computers that don't), etc. etc.
In short, if you think that your video really adds to the page, just undo the bot edit, if you are in doubt, discuss it on the talkpage, if it does not, just don't include it. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Looking at the specific example (I have now seen the video), it shows a movie of the snow in (for me) 'a city'. One has to rely on the landmarks that it would be Baltimore (for me it could be Moscow), and if I am honest, it does not add to the page, 'just a video of a city with a lot of snow'. I am really doubtful if this would pass WP:ELNO #1. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
Alrighty I was just wondering. The undo seemed a little out of the ordinary, then I saw it was done by a bot. I have to agree with Beetstra. To me, the video looks like the Soviets moving into Berlin. Haha. Thanks to you both for answering my question. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 08:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
You're welcome! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

WGRZ TV

I noticed that an update to the page yesterday showed a Facebook link discussing their new Weather Center. I was able to log on and verify the information as being correct as there is an over 3 minute video with Kevin O'Connell (their chief weather anchor) discussing the new technology being introduced. In the video, they state that the video was done on Facebook only. Therefore, I do not believe it is advertising the social networking service but instead is simply using the site to show the changes. My question is how would be the best way to share this information even though it is verified through the Facebook site as being factual and not available on the normal wgrz.com site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Babyox4420 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Facebook links are not forbidden, there are cases where the site does provide good information. If you believe that the bot was in error, please undo its edit.
I find it difficult to say how to use this specific case, I think the best place to discuss is on the talkpage of the page, or try to see if there are regular editors of the page (use the history tab) you can contact, or a wikiproject. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:00, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Rohan Marley article

Why does the bot keep deleting verified information about Rohan Marley that comes straight from the Marley Coffee Website, the Marley Family Website, The Jamaica Gleaner, and out of Rohan Marley's won MOUTH in interviews posted on the Marley Coffee Website? This is ridiculous. What is wrong with listing the twitter account of Marley Coffee that is indeed controlled by Rohan Marley? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.167.187 (talk) 09:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Because such links generally fail our external links guideline. We don't need to link to every social networking site of the subject (and actually, most of the external links there are not of the subject, but of his company, they might have a place on a wikipage about the company, though there is already an official site available, so most, if not all, social networking sites are superfluous; and when I look at the twitter, I expect to find more information about the subject, this is mainly advertising and/or random chat). For more information, please read the external links guideline. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:03, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

{{helpme}}

? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:40, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Question for administrator

{{adminhelp}} How do I become an admin for the article chamillionaire? I run all his digital work. --Digijeff (talk) 10:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't use the adminhelp template for this purpose. See WP:RFA. Ks0stm If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. 10:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Albino squirrel revert

I had an edit reverted by the bot in a way that I believe is not fair. It is in the article: Squirrel, sub-section: Albino squirrels, under the larger section called "In culture". There were a couple of instances cited where albino squirrels have created a cult following in local areas, including the University of Texas. I wrote about another such cult following in and around the Michigan Tech University campus in Houghton, Michigan, where an albino squirrel has become locally famous and inspired the creation of an online group where people post stories and photographs of their albino squirrel sightings. In referencing this cult phenomenon, I included a link to the web page where these stories and photographs are posted, which happens to be a Facebook group. The bot reverted my edit because of the Facebook link, which I believe was a legitimate use for the reference. I will go ahead and place the link to the Facebook account back, and if anyone has a disagreement with me about it, let's discuss it, either here or on my Talk page. --Saukkomies talk 00:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You might want to review the reliable sources guideline. I am not sure if a facebook group would pass. The fact is also not notable enough if there is a facebook group (every hoax can create a facebook group, so that fact alone is not enough). Is there independent coverage on the facebook group? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:12, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Beetstra - you're missing the entire point for inclusion of the Facebook group link. It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever in the context of using that link as a reference to support the thesis in the article's subsection on the cultural impact that albino squirrels have on human society whether or not: 1) albino squirrels even actually exist, 2) that they exist in the neighborhoods that have formed social groups around them, and 3) that the source of the reference (in this case a Facebook group) is "reliable" or not. THe fact is that the albino squirrels seem to influence human society, and using the Facebook group as a reference is simply supporting that thesis, nothing else. If you want to see a more in-depth discussion of this subject, refer to the article's talk page: Talk:Squirrel#Albino squirrel discussion. --Saukkomies talk 14:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with the point, that the mere existence of a facebook group supports some thesis. I'll have a look at the discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It supports the fact that there is a community of people concerned about something. Not every Facebook group could be cited in this way, but simply dismissing all uses of citing Facebook groups out of hand is overly pretentious, in my opinion. Some Facebook groups are by every definition "communities", and just because they are on Facebook does not negate that. --Saukkomies talk 20:11, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Only because this is a talk page will I add: Oh my god, there are albino squirrels?

On a more serious note, I think Saukkomies brings up a valid point on the Facebook group. Now, I haven't done extensive research on whether a consensus on Facebook is enough to add as a citation for something in article. If there is no rule on Wikipedia preventing such citations or points, then I think it would be a very interesting proposal to explore. After all, social networking, media, et cetera, is ever changing and ever-influencing on society. Wikipedia should evolve with the mainstream.

At this point, if there is no rule, in my opinion, inclusion or exclusion should really be discretionary; however, a responsible administrator, I feel, would make an effort to explore these new ideas by seeking an inquiry into amending the quality and citation standards of Wikipedia. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a slippery slope, GnarlyLikeWhoa. Facebook communities can be created by anyone, we don't necessarily know who is behind it, and who are member. Assuming good faith is fine with them, but still, there is no way to distinguish the good from the bad ones. To stay with the example of the albino squirrels: Say I am a popular student on the Campus of Whereever, and for a game of something I visit a rivalry school. I talk with some people there, and see that they have a white squirrel there (they actually take me to the park, and I see the animal), and a facebook group. I think 'that is something we need at home!'. What keeps me from a) starting the facebook group for albino squirrels on my Campus of Whereever, and invite my friends to join, even if there is not even a decent park where the animal could be ...? Someone else, in good faith, notices the facebook group (friend of friend of a friend?), and edits it into Wikipedia. Questions: a) is it true? b) is it notable? c) does it belong on Wikipedia? And if there is independent coverage: d) when we cite the independent coverage do we have to link to the Facebook group, or use that as a reference as well? I think that most questions are answered with a 'no' after reading the guidelines and policies regarding this (undue weight, reliable sources, original research, notability, verifyability, ...).
I am not saying that Facebook can't possibly be a reference, I am sure there are possible cases. But if Facebook is the only reference, in many cases I am afraid we are walking on the edges of reliable sources, verifyability and notability. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
This same line of logic could be applied to many sources, not just Facebook. I believe that it is very bureaucratic and simplistic to establish a hard-and-fast rule where all references to a Facebook page would be automatically rejected out of hand without due consideration. This is not in line with the underlying principles that govern Wikipedia. I openly contest the application of this Bot, and the fact that this Bot automatically reverts entire edits that have used a Facebook link - without giving a chance for a human being to review the use - I believe is destructive of the philosophy that we try to uphold here. I'm not being argumentative about this - I simply believe this Bot is destructive in how it is used currently. It is an example of someone who can design a program usurping the rights of others who actually use their brains to determine whether a source is valid or not - all for the sake of expediency and standardization, which flies in the face of the "Five Pillars" philosophy.
This Bot must be changed so that any edits of Facebook references need to go through a process of evaluation by a human being, and that a dialogue between the Bot's administrator and the editor who used the Facebook reference must be given a chance to happen, before a deadline would result in an automatic revert. This is the procedure used by other similar systems in Wikipedia (for instance, in the case of a downloaded image that is being contested on the basis of open use policy). Whoever designed this Bot did so without regard to established procedure here in Wikipedia, and it needs to be fixed - NOW - before any further damage to the community takes place. --Saukkomies talk 15:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Note: a) that you were not adding a reference in the sense that Wikipedia calls it references, but an external link, and b) XLinkBot does not revert references, it reverts only external links (well, depending on the revertlist, but facebook is on the revertlist for external links, not on the revertlist for references). Nothing to fix. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Moreover, even as a reference, you had a couple of editors saying that that section was not properly referenced, and that, also in this case, Facebook is not a sufficient reference. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll tone down. XLinkBot is written on the basis of the external links guideline, and the sections 'wikipedia is not a linkfarm', and 'not an internet directory'. It is also suitable to 'fight' cases of spam, which basically follows from the first three cited parts (other parts where the function is looking at is Wikipedia:Copyrights). XLinkBot is specifically written not to revert references, and it also will not revert templated links (for references, see WP:CITE and WP:FOOT, those are the references XLinkBot tries to detect). Note that inline-links are discouraged, per our manual of style (see Wikipedia:Layout#External_links). Although they can (and are) used in an appropriate way, those links are often misused as well. Since some time XLinkBot is, based on a separate revert-list, capable of fighting 'reference spammers' (see WP:REFSPAM) as well, but that functionality is only used sparingly until now. Facebook is not on the reference-revert-list, it is on the normal revertlist.

The bot reverts links which, in a very large majority of the cases, fail the external links guidelines (but not in all cases, if that was the case, the link would probably soon be blacklisted). When looking at links to Facebook, YouTube, MySpace, then we do see there is some appropriate use, but, really, by far of the use is inappropriate (on a scan on 30 MySpace additions some time ago 29 failed totally, only one was 'correct' (though pretty superfluous, it still failed WP:ELNO #1)). The bot does not have a bot-bit, so it shows up in the recent-changes-lists, and editors can correct the bot when it does make a mistake, and the bot leaves, on the first revert in 4 hours, a friendly message (not a warning), with a suggestion to re-check the edit, and apologies if it made an error, and suggestions to undo the edit if it was an error.

We are running this system now for several years. I have seen the bot make serious mistakes, removals where the links are appropriate. If I look at the edit you made, and which was reverted by this bot, then I agree here with the bot. The facebook link is not a reference, and the existence of the Facebook group is not proof that the albino squirrel is a 'cult object', it is merely an indication. Even if you separately proof that there is a white squirrel on the campus, then the existence of the Facebook group does not proof that the animal is a 'cult object'. Such information would require a reliable source (i.e. something written by an expert, preferably peer-reviewed. Facebook alone fails that. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your line of reason has its own logic, but it is logic based on fallacy. The standard for all academic scholarly work is very simple: every single time an author (in this case a Wiki editor) makes a claim about something, that claim MUST be supported by outside, verifiable evidence. Now, I made a claim about the albino squirrels having an impact on human society in that there was a group of people who had created an online community to discuss and share stories and photographs of a local albino squirrel population in Houghton, Michigan. This group has chosen to use Facebook as the tool through which this sharing process takes place. In referencing this group, which was totally in keeping with the basic tenets of that article's thesis (i.e.: the impact squirrels have on human society), I supported my claim by including a link to the Facebook page in which this group posts its stories and photos. This substantiated without question the existence of this online community, since the link was directly to the community's page. The fact that this page was a Facebook group should be entirely irrelevant to the thesis. This is totally in keeping with universally accepted academic standards of scholarly research - universally, apparently, except for the idiots who developed and run this abusive Bot program. Hence - this Bot must be changed to comply with accepted standards. End of debate. --Saukkomies talk 22:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, when the facebook was linked as a reference, the bot would not have reverted. In the edit you did not link it as a reference, you linked it as an external link. It is a style of linking which is not in line with the manual of style, and it is unclear if the link is used as a reference, or as a 'promotion' (I see from your edits that you did not mean it as a promotion). The bot is designed to revert deprecated external links. It is simply impossible to see the difference between the code '[http://yourcompanyname company name] (in the body, which is clearly promotional and well in line with reverting under the bot's BRFA), '[http://www.facebook.com/groups/yourbandname your band name]' (which is again promotional, and might well be for a non-notable band who does not have a wikipage), and '[http://www.facebook.com/groups/yoursquirrelgroup your squirrel group], which you used to assert that white squirrels are having an impact on human society (which is 'reference like', though, again, the existence of this facebook group does not assert that they have an impact; I think it is a matter of WP:EXISTENCE). Moreover, the style of linking is not in line with our manual of style (and the first two examples clearly show why). The bot gives a clear explanation and suggestion what to do when the bot is wrong. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

to whatever idiot who controls this thing

My adition to the tamden McCory is legit the man fought on a television series & I have no idea how removing that & the cited, accurate information improves this wannabe encylopedic source.

I'd thank you to revert it back you pompas ass —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.40.66 (talk) 03:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there is no reason to issue personal attacks on the owner of the bot. There was a reason for the revert, namely that there is a referrer in the url. I have been looking at it, and that is absolutely not necessary. Moreover, the reference you supplied was not correct anyway. McCrory is not a fighter in the lightweight class, but in the middleweight class (as you actually mentioned in the text...). The edit was already reverted (you could have done that as the bot suggested to you), but I have removed the referrer part, corrected the link and removed further typo's from the text. I hope this helped. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Cheeses Christ, what is this, the DMV? Let's be civil. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 21:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I really want help (Nick-D remove all my edits all my struggle to make wikipedia better)

Nick-D is now out of control.He want to stop me to saying this.He remove all my previous information from these articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Afghan_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29 Whats your reaction.He said that all information is copyright violation.What a new propaganda.From 2 months he doesnt watch copyright.He only watch my copyright yesterday.He only block my user.Yesterday he block my user becausse of a copyright violcation.I just make a paragraph into a sentence.SO he see that i violate.He quickly block my user and today he remove all data which i write. Anyways i have record of Afghan security forces casualty from January 2010-present. But i have no data of civilian casualties. If Nick-D type peoples are on wikipedia then wikipedia will not promote. Nick-D doesn add any information in those articles which i edit.He just watch my activities.And search as small mistake which block my user. Stop Nick-D before he remove any other previos data from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nick-D —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.25.99 (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what help you expect, I guess you will have to discuss this with the editor in question, or ask knowledgeable editors in the field to help you (or come with good references). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:15, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey

The site that I had as external links was a blog- Roblox had one as an external link, so excuse me, but I do know the site well. --by GameEnforcer

Well, blogs often fail our external links guideline, having only one external link, or even none, is certainly not a reason to add more. But when the blog does not fail the quideline, please feel free to undo the bot edit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:53, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

ySpace, Facebook, YouTube, Blog Spot, and Twitter to Wikipedia

I didn't see anything about not adding MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, Blog Spot, and Twitter to Wikipedia. Ergo it's OK to add Janna Long's Twitter site to her page and it's cool to add Greg's MySpace site and his Twitter site to his page. Same thing with Avalon and all of the other pages on Wikipedia. Curt Long's web site should be on Greg's page so that his fans and all Avalon fans can find out more info about his late dad. R.I.P. Curtis Long. May you sing with Jesus forever. Adding MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter is not inappropriate and you know it. You're going to put Janna Long's web sites back wheter you like it or not. Have a good weekend. Sincerely, 71.68.211.187 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.211.187 (talk) 09:16, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You'd better read the policies and guidelines again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi,

I have had an external link to Mr Lewies "official" Myspace page removed twice now. I have managed to get in touch with Mr Lewie who has requested that while I am updating his wiki page in correspondence with my research notes for my studies that I make available his official myspace link, as this is where information about himself is provided. Under the external links guidelines it states that:

One should avoid linking to social networking sites such as myspace. "except for a link to an official page of the article's subject."

Although this mentions "avoid" it does not state "disallowed", and as this is Mr Lewies "Official" page and has been since its inception in 2006 I request that it not be reverted when I next make the change unless I have missed something in the guidelines. In addition the concept of this element of Myspace is purely to give information about his work and is not used or intended for social purposes. All activty on his MySpace pertains to his reputability as a musician, songwriter, and singer etc all of which has caused him to become a subject for Wikipedia inclusion.

Kind Regards, Rave.ac.uk953 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rave.ac.uk953 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You indeed read correctly, except maybe for skipping the intro of WP:EL. External links should add to the knowledge that one can get over the subject, not only because it is an official webpage (in line with: 'we are not a linkfarm'). Myspace links are on the edge of that, very often they do not add anything more than the already linked official homepage (which in also linked in this case). Also, the url-field in the infobox should only contain the official homepage, not all of them. In this case the myspace link might be a good addition to the external links, but maybe it needs to be discussed on the talkpage. (May I ask you to have a look at our conflict of interest guideline, by the way ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

need help

{{helpme}} I have been trying too add this artist's bio as one of my contributions. I have a newspaper clip as my refrence source. I don't know how this bio could be considered as my user page while it is only one of my contributions. Could you pls help me to move this page to where it belongs and help me fix it's errors? Thanks a million. Tana Tanatana1 (talk) 17:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted this user directly about the article. As for XLlinkBot, it appeared to be removing the slide.com page that Tanatana1 has for the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 17:42, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

re: Faranak Siami

Is newspaper artcle and an accompanied photo in that newspaper sufficient to keep this artist posted in wikipedia? thanks for your reply. regards, Tana Tanatana1 (talk) 18:37, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I see it was userfied (User:Tanatana1/Faranak_Siami), please read the notability guideline, and the reliable sources guideline. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:00, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
See previous post. I see the article got deleted 3 times (?) .. I'd suggest that before you started the second time you actually tried to insert the data first. Or use the {{hangon}} when a deletion was requested. Please note that we have to be VERY careful with biographies of living people. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why so fast

Hi! I am new to this complicated editing system in Wikipedia. I was trying to add an article which was a bio. Before I finish and while I was trying to find my way through it, I got warnings and boom my article was deleted. I have been trying to add my refrences as for proof that the person I was trying to post it's bio is a notable person, but the time was too short and my article got deleted. Didn't they have the courtsey to even move it to my wiki space section so I could re-edit it. Very disappointing from a free web-based encyclopedia! Tana Tanatana1 (talk) 19:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Tanatana1 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear C.Fred

Could you pls move my deleted article to Wikispace section so I can re-edit it? I could not find any link on your page to open a talk box. Thanks Tana Tanatana1 (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

That was already done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:05, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Translation to other languages.

Hello. I would like to know why my Kay Rush page does not automatically have the links to the pages in Italian and Spanish? Thanks. Kayrush (talk) 15:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

That does not happen automatically, you need to include 'interwiki links' (generally at the bottom, format '[[de:Kay Rush]]' (omit the nowiki tags). May I point you to the conflict of interest guideline?? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you XLinkBot

Sorry that I linked a video and sorry for my motivation to "expose" and ridicule General Atomics as the builder of the Predator. The video was a newsy thing with Cindy Sheehan at the Predator exhibit at the Smithsonian. Just the facts ma'm. (76.180.164.161 (talk) 18:45, 5 March 2010 (UTC)) ( Martin | talk • contribs 18:46, 5 March 2010 (UTC))

No problem! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:04, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Suboptimal revert by XLinkBot

Hi, I just wanted to point out the following suboptimal revert that I just noticed performed by XLinkBot: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Heidi_Mortenson&diff=next&oldid=348026373 This revert did remove possible linkspam, but also unfortunately restored a likely BLP violation. Actually, I'm not sure whether the link that was removed in this case was even inappropriate to the article; I've restored it for now, since the edit looks good-faith overall. I just thought I would make a note of this here, in case the bot maintainer is interested in cases in which the bot's reversions were less than optimal, or in case there is some problem I'm not aware of with the link I've restored. Thanks! CordeliaNaismith (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, suboptimal, you did good reverting (as the bot also suggests in the message it leaves on the talkpage). Youtube is hardly ever useful, the majority of the videos are are homemade and therefore questionable, or when they are official they are often in violation of copyrights (and hence a big no-no to link to). Leaves only a small subset which actually pass the external links guideline. Not sure if channels are better. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:01, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Nodarius24

Hi

I thought I would report this incident in case this is an issue with the bot. This user received a final warning but for some reason instead of reporting the user, the bot has simply carried on warning them? In a second I will report the user to WP:AIV in case further action is needed on the user, but thought I should also make bot aware :) --5 albert square (talk) 13:27, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The bot is designed to give a LOT of leeway, and hence does not follow previous warnings, but rather adds its own, using its own counting. If it should react on earlier warnings, it might report immediately while the issue is not spamming, it might even report on a bad chosen good faith edit of someone who ran into a level 4, while the edit itself would not be bad. I'd rather be conservative, but since the editor seems to be here only to advertise, the next warning after the level-4 indeed warrants immediate blocking here .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:32, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah thanks for explaining that, I've reported the user for the reason that you've listed there. I was just worried there was an issue with Bot :) --5 albert square (talk) 13:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I did not look at the report, I deleted the page they created, left a warning, had a further look and saw this, so indeed decided to indef the user. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:38, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Carmelo Barbieri

Settle down! Listen, you idiot. Keep your hands off my edits. The Link I gae to Barbieri's facebook page is legit. It acts as is home page. Get a life and stop being so anti-Canadian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.138.33 (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read WP:NPA, and the full text of the remark. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:53, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I just inserted a link to a website about Rachmaninov i made 8 years ago that contains scores, photo, midi, articles. Well, the website is in italian but still useful since many of the scores and midi name are in both languages or only in english. So, can I undo my change? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.49.98 (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Altervista is not a server where most data is reliable and correct, and I would here expect that the information is also available from official servers (which would then be preferred). But have a look at the external links guideline and 'what wikipedia is not'. This looks like it is an exception, indeed. If it is conform the guidelines/policies, indeed, revert the bot as it suggests. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:55, 17 March 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for the information. Anyhow I'm really trying my best to insert more and more accurate information (comparing different sources and consulting online books from Googlr books) and resources, and as soon as I make a complete italian version I will translate in English. Bye —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.198.49.98 (talk) 03:19, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Probable Malfonction

I suspect that this bot is malfonctioning. It's been replacing ponctuation marks and special characters with & codes, or with other characters. Most notably, these type of edits mess up references. Can someone please do something about it. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I saw. I reverted a coding change. I'll try and check. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

J Krishnamurti youtube video - external link.

As far as I can ascertain by reading Wikipedia policy on rich media links, this does not pose a problem. I do not see any copyright issues with the linking (or the online content) either. I will therefore undo the bot revert. If there are any more specific objections, I'll be glad to consider them. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:07, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, the bot was too aggressive, and messed up the page. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you quoted the guidelines. Youtube video's are not the best, it still needs Flash (even if most people have it, millions don't), and most of it does not add anyway (see intro WP:EL). But it's fine if you revert after consulting the guidelines.
I have resolved the bug, but that was a separate issue. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:59, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
I did read the guidelines carefully. I believe that videos are appropriate for this subject. He was a public speaker, and the linked videos capture emphasis and tone that cannot be easily described otherwise. Surely the fact that some people may not have Flash is not justified as an argument vs. linking? Millions of people do not use computers at all and therefore are missing out on Wikipedia as a whole, to say nothing of the Internet. Same applies to technology in general. Should we scrap the whole thing? And why stop there? Some people can't read...etc etc :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.127 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
Nono, WP:EL is a guideline, and exceptions exist. WP:ELNO talks about 'avoid', and the 'rules' set up there are discussed and established by a large number of wikipedians. The argument that some people can't read or don't have internet is not an argument, of course, those who access Wikipedia could in principle follow its links, those do have internet already.
In basis, the information linked to should be accessible, to the point, etc. etc. Unfortunately, the external links which rely on non-standard applications like Flash (which has, if I recall correctly, now 97% coverage, but there are more) are therefore not the best things to link to, someone being able to read Wikipedia articles may not be able to get the information then (a blind 'reader' would use a screen-reader, but for those an external link to YouTube may be of less value, as they would miss the images there, could only hear the text (if there is any)). And for all those who do not have (access to!) Flash, the link would also be useless. Nonetheless, sometimes a YouTube video really adds something that can't be found anywhere else, and then they do pass the 'avoid' rules.
Now, sites like YouTube have more problems. There is a lot of non-encyclopaedic info there (no, we are not interested in the cake you had for your birthday, and how many people there are on the party), and quite some of the really interesting information is from, in principle, reliable sources, but an uploaded video from a news-broadcast is often in violation of copyright (and should hence NOT be linked to .. at all!). Which leaves only 'officially' uploaded movies which are to the point. It is therefore that we decide to revert YouTube links by 'new' users and notify them of the case and the worries there are, and ask them to re-evaluate the situation (the bot will not revert you again if you undo the edit .. only if you add the link to the same page again after some time).
I hope this explains a bit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
This is user 65.88.88.x from another machine. I don't dispute the Ext Links guidelines, and I was not refering to the particular subject (J Krishnamurti). I was just pointing out that the justification against linking is a bit shaky. Basically because it censors. That is, if EVERYONE can't have information first-hand and in a format accessible to all, then NO-ONE should. As a justification for (imo) censorship, it is insidious, and a bit strange, considering the flash player is free. Anyway, the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and all that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.15.200 (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
Heh, sure, but those things have been decided in the external links guideline, so in saying that YouTube should (always) be linked, you do dispute the EL guideline. And no, it is not censorship, when a link really adds then it is appropriate and should be added, problem is, that by far the majority of YouTube is not, for the reasons stated above. And no, the point is not that the Flash player is free, the problem is a) that it needs to be installed, it is not a standard like a web browser, b) it can not be installed everywhere (certain computers can't handle Flash!), c) the files are generally big, which is a problem behind a dial-up (yes, people use that still), and the other problems of YouTube (copyrights, or not appropriate anyway). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
No, it doesn't, and I think I explained why, but that's ok. In the end this is a philosophical dispute best settled elsewhere. Admittedly, my bias is towards adding information rather than withholding it, but I never claimed items of any kind should always be linked to any article. That's another blanket statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.88.88.126 (talk) 15:52, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
Then you'll have to explain me why this is 'censoring', I would call it 'being selective'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:55, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
And regarding another point, I am also biased to inclusion, if it actually adds to the page. Otherwise it may become a linkfarm, and editors would not be able to find the external link that actually adds between the many. Matter of considering what is the purpose of Wikipedia, I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:59, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Markup messed up

As someone already said, the bot messes up with some <ref> markup, see Singleton_pattern. Davr (talk) 16:27, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I see it was turned off, I'll check and then reenable if it is working fine. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:56, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Same goes on Telugu language. I reverted the bot there to restore the article. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 19:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I reverted a good handful reverts. I messed up the code for a bit (until it got turned off). Will try to be more careful with it.  :-( --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nominations

I got reverted for adding a Db-g12 template (speedy deletion for copyright violation) linking to the Wordpress site lifted. This might be worth adding as an exception to the bot's logic.128.12.147.98 (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I added it to the exceptions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Dabboo Ratnani

The data /description of Dabboo Ratnani is incorrect. I am trying to rectify it, but the changes are removed by your server. Pls explain —Preceding unsigned comment added by ManishaDRatnani (talk • contribs) 04:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The explanation is on your talkpage. Facebook links are (generally) not appropriate. I hope this helps, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

re. Paul Martin listing

Hello, I am the one writing the listing on Paul Martin (illustrator). I just started on this a few days ago. I noticed that you or someone deleted a line addition of mine and a link to a picture. I would like the double (line and picture) deletion to be reverted. I'm new at this (my first attempt to write a listing), and the deletion makes it difficult. PS. The picture was actually uploaded from my scanner to my image editor to my image hosting software (Photobucket). That's the link being used. I am not smart enough (at least yet), to figure out how to do it any other way. Thanks. (JimPercy 15:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JimPercy (talk • contribs)

Well, we normally don't link to images, as they fail our external links guideline. Also, this link is not a reference. This image can be anything, and all we can do is in good faith assume it is correct. Maybe you could upload the picture and use it to add to the section, and properly reference the information using a proper source? Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

automatic reversal?

Hi,

I did some work using verifiable sources but this bot reversed it. can you please have a look at it and let me know if I have done anything wrong. Please explain if the sources I put in are not up to your rules and what exactly you need.

regards

Robert--Robertpriddle (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Please read the FAQ at the top of this page, as well as the note that was placed on your talk page. —Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) talk 21:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
That edit is not exactly conform our policies and guidelines. We are not an internet directory. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


Edit "Year-end Chart" on Party in the U.S.A.

Phantastic Phantastic95 (talk) 08:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC) Help me to split the columns as well as the content "Charts". I can't do this because I've just started to learn to edit Wiki page. Thanks and I hope we can make Wikipedia much better.

I'm not sure what you want me to help with. Maybe you can explain on the talkpage of the page you want to edit, and someone familiar with the subject can help you? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:21, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I mean the url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_in_the_U.S.A.#Year-end_Charts and look in the url http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_in_the_U.S.A.#Charts . The Year-end Charts isn't as good-looking as Charts: too short and the column Billboard Hot 100 is row, not column. Too bad that I can't fix. Somebody please help me with it ! Thanks.

Phantastic95 08:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Btw, I think you should add some alternative cover on those pages. I can't be able to upload because I haven't known yet. So here the artwork and source I've taken on Amazon

- Party in the U.S.A. http://www.amazon.com/Party-U-S-Miley-Cyrus/dp/B002Q4RLGO

- Poker Face http://www.amazon.com/Poker-Face-Lady-GaGa/dp/B001Y5W7RY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1269852430&sr=1-3

- The Time of Our Lives http://www.amazon.com/Time-Our-Lives-Miley-Cyrus/dp/B002VCE4HK/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=music&qid=1269852501&sr=1-3

And some official artworks - So Yesterday http://www.amazon.com/So-Yesterday-Hilary-Duff/dp/B0000DJKGO/ref=ntt_mus_ep_dpi_12

- Come Clean http://www.amazon.com/Come-Clean-Hilary-Duff/dp/B0001XQ8V6/ref=ntt_mus_ep_dpi_1

- Fly http://www.amazon.com/Fly-Hilary-Duff/dp/B00066J1VW/ref=ntt_mus_ep_dpi_12


Thank you so much. Phantastic95 08:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I comment a few things

am a user of the Uncyclopedia, and my idea is to provide real information of the artists I'm not satisfied with the English page of dulce maria there are things that are not true and the idea is that people can see the biography, with real information II like to help you see in the history of the biography of many people who do not register, and the places and sources of information pages that are not approved, if you help me I would appreciate thanks.

who edited this part is false, the artist never offered Anahi production stars Peter Damian, the one that was selected for the character was the producer of Dulce María only offered the role to her.

In 2009, his bandmate Dulce María and co-star in Rebelde, Anahi was offered the lead role in Peter Damian's last novel, Summer of Love [5] Anahí rejected and the role was offered to Dulce María. [5]

from this source is one page in Spanish does not act to get the information that he says is also known as false

http://www.elnuevosiglo.com.mx/notas/noviembre/20/espectaculos/rechaza.html

There are pages where you can get approved information without damaging the biography of the artist.--Isabela Moreno (talk) 20:24, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Hamtechperson"--Isabela Moreno (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess you want to put this on the talkpage of Dulce maria. I am not sure what I, or this bot, has to do with this (and neither are a specialist in the subject). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Too difficult to contribute

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

I was looking at gymnasts and tried to help improve the Wikipedia article.

- I added the name of her child. That was undone.

- I found that her official page seems to by a Facebook page that she updates several times a week. That was undone.

I'll stop wasting my time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.230.116.18 (talk) 18:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

As the bot suggests, if you think that the link does comply with the guidelines, then just revert the bot edit. I have done so. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

RFC 2606; "example.com"

May I kindly suggest you change your bot so it will in the future ignore links to and email addresses of the domains example.[com|net|org]? These domains are officially reserved for use in documentation and examples, so I believe it would be safe to assume no one will use them for spamming (which would be totally pointless anyway, as it is not possible to register these domains). I made a (legit, IMO) addition to iCalendar and the bot reverted my change because the example had an email address @example.com. I was able to undo the bot's revert and I don't want to make a big matter out of this, but the process of undoing is a little bit complicated for inexperienced users, so I think it would be in the best interest if the bot could ignore such changes in the future. thanks --84.163.75.113 (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, the bot reverts because of the email address .. I did not think about email addresses with @example.com (as 'example.com' is not reverted by the bot, but has been). You are right, this 'link' is certainly not spam and should not be reverted due to any other concerns (WP:EL, copyright, blp, linkfarming, yellow page concerns, whatever), and as such, the bot should indeed not have reverted.
I have added '@example\.[com|net|org]' to the whitelist, that should solve things. Thank you for your understanding and patience, and for reporting this to me. Although you stumbled onto a rather 'unique' situation, we should do all we can to minimize such cases. Happy editing!! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:15, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
same problem at NZB maybe somebody should look at that page mabdul 20:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
that is not the same RFC 2606 '@example.com', but another fake 'email address'. In this case I would just suggest to undo the bot edit (which I did), this one is not really suitable to be excluded. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:13, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Abortion in Panama

Okay so I do not know why the progress made on the "abortion in Panama" page was reversed. I am working on this with classmates for a school project and I was adding GENERAL information on the religions in Panama. Again this is for a CLASS and the progress that was done has been edited. What was done wrong besides me not signing my name on the talk page? Tameika05 (talk) 00:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)Tameika05

I think the bot explained it quite well, you were inserting a link to an about.com site. I am sorry, but that link is generally not acceptable. You might want to try to incorporate the rest of the data you were incorporating, as part of that seems appropriate. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

K Brosas

The actress has publicly discussed her twitter account. It's her official account. Please do not revert. Thank you. Joanouvair (talk) 03:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Still we are not a linkfarm, and we don't need to link to all possible online sites of someone/something. If there is the official site, then myspace/twitter/facebook etc. become not necessary. But I see here in this case that there is no 'official site' listed, so then you can consider to undo the bot-edit (as the bot suggests). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

buddhism in argentina-autumn bridge dojo

This is really veeeery tiring and discouraging. WHY the links i add are deleted? the article talks about a person and i just want to give more info about it!!!!!! They are links to non commertial websites.

So the idea is to name the person but not to add n o info about he/she? people has to go to other web searc engines to find the very same thing?

I am really discouraged, using up my free time on trying to improve your site.

Zplinter —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zplinter (talk • contribs) 21:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

The blogspot, there where you linked it, is clearly inappropriate (that is not a reliable source or reference, it is a link to the person - we have the internal wikilinks to link to the person, and blogspot is also generally unsuitable as an external link on other pages as well. Please have a look at the reliable sources guideline, and at the external links guideline. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick Joaquin

Why is the May Day Eve on the works of Nick Joaquin was on the end of the list? Well in fact, it is one of his very first work. I'm really discouraged that I'm making the article clear while you guys are putting it back. I even give you a link of the short story itself. I'm using my free time on this and I realized that I'm just wasting it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Greatgabriel (talk • contribs)

Nope, it is not wasted (hardly any edit here is). As the bot suggests, you can undo the bot edit (I have done so, but with removing the blogspot link, which is inappropriate. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:29, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XLinkBot/Archive_4&oldid=1076481704"