Jump to content

User talk:XLinkBot/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8→Archive 10

List of SMS gateways (redux)

While other recent additions to List of SMS gateways were left alone, the very next addition after my recent reverts was reverted. The address was of a different form than usual, info@ibs.com.jo rather than number@domain. I'm not sure about the correctness of the entry (I can't find any details in English on their web site to explain what that info is), but again this is a false positive on the e-mail address. Not R (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Whitelisting 'number@' (the whitelist rule is '\bnumber@') does not cause a lot of harm - not many regular e-mail addresses will start with number@ and will be spammed. However, 'info@' would be a problem - 'info@company.com' is a regular email address which one could spam. I would be less eager to whitelist this. I will however start with an extra addition to XLinkBot I think, which may be a better solution - excluding certain rules on certain pages. Will come soon, the basis is already there, but I have to figure out how to do it in a nice way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:42, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
I've removed the whitelist rule, and have now created User:XLinkBot/PageExcludes. I now test it with \bnumber@ and \binfo@ .. later we can, and maybe should, change it to the email-catch-rule and exclude all - but now it should show whether these two are left alone and others not (so a testcase for this new function). I'm not sure if you're an admin, but feel free to make use of the page if needed. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
Doesn't look like this new exclusion is working--two number@ additions were reverted in the past couple days. Not R (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2011 (UTC) (no, not an admin)
Argh .. it is not "number@" .. but "number@" ... pfff .. changing it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a pilot study

I am a Wikipedian, who is studying the phenomenon on Wikipedia. I need your help to conduct my research on about understanding "Motivation of Wikipedia contributors." I would like to invite you to a short survey. Please give me your valuable time, which estimates only 5 minutes. cooldenny (talk) 19:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm .. bot generally are very bad in thoughtful responses to surveys. But maybe I will have a look. Do you want me to fill it in for the bot, or for myself? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:41, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, XLinkBot, you brighten my day. :-) Tengu800 (talk) 01:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Christina Petrowska Quilico - Official YouTube Channel

This edit removed a link to the subject’s Official YouTube Channel. She owns copyright on the video(s) uploaded. While I understand that YouTube content is often copyright-impaired, such is not so in this case. I’ll revert it to include the link, and hope that the explanation here is considered, if this matter is revisited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.42.109 (talk) 03:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the remark and your thoughtful response. However, I have again removed the link. If you read the remark on your talkpage, you see that indeed Copyright violations are one of the bigger problem with sites like YouTube, but it is not the only concern there may be with YouTube. Here specifically, it is not Wikipedia's target to link to all official sites/channels/webpages etc. of a subject, or even everything about a subject. As the official site (which is on top in the external links section) already has a whole tab with the same embedded YouTube video's, and also a link to said channel, this YouTube link is on the Wikipedia page simply superfluous, it does not add anything that is not covered already. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Kansas City, Kansas

I believe that XLinkBot should not have reverted this: [1]. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 17:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right. Thanks for catching this! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:10, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
Do you know why it reverted this? Is the bot being a little to liberal in it's reverting? Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 05:24, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
No, there was a bug in the reverting mechanism. It did not properly detect that the link was in an added reference. It did a couple of similar reverts for a couple of hours (not that all of them were wrong .. but well .. it should not do it like that). Sorry for the inconvenience. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:22, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. Cheers, — sligocki (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

spiderbait wikepedia

hi there i dont understand why i cannot direct fans to the official spiderbait facebook page? when this is generating more interest than our website?

(Miriamwallace77 (talk) 01:44, 17 April 2011 (UTC))Miriam Wallace

We generally don't link to fanpages, and we generally don't link to facebook pages. Also, there is the official page, and that is what counts (we are not a linkfarm). For more information, please visit our external links guideline. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:40, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Camera-wiki.org

Why is this camera wiki blacklisted by XLinkBot? Dr.K. λogosπraxis 20:29, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

External links to wiki's are discouraged per our external links guideline, and camera-wiki.org was inappropriately updated/spammed throughout many wikis (note, updating camerapedia.org to camera-wiki.org is NOT appropriate - camerapedia.org is legally camerapedia.wikia.com, en-masse moving that to the (even identical) camera-wiki.org is a form of link-hijacking). The site has even for some time been meta-blacklisted, but since we did have discussion with editors from the site and I hoped that that warning would help. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation. Dr.K. λogosπraxis 19:54, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Pakistan spam

Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Brian Sherwin blog needs to be whitelisted

The link I added to VIP Art Fair was written by a recognized, reliable source. It was written by art critic Brian Sherwin. His writing for Myartspace and his personal blog has been featured by Huffington Post, The Boston Globe, Juxtapoz Magazine and several other reliable sources. I’ve even found references to his writing on Mashable. He interviewed Wikipedia’s Jimmy Wales for Myartspace in 2009 after the Wikipedia Art controversy. The challenge of art coverage on Wikipedia was discussed.

By Wikipedia consensus Sherwin is a notable writer and art critic. Considering the number of interviews he has had with artists that have helped strengthen Wikipedia articles it would be a shame if links are not allowed because he uses Blogspot. Wikipedia stands to lose a lot of art coverage if links to his writing are blocked. The irony being that Sherwin discussed that same problem with Wales in 2009.

http://www.briansherwin-artcritic.blogspot.com/ and http://myartspace-blog.blogspot.com/ should both be whitelisted. From what I’ve seen the myartspace blog switched to Blogspot after having a personalized url for 5 years. http://faso.com/fineartviews should be whitelisted as well for articles written by Brian Sherwin. I don't know the process for whitelisting.

The field of art criticism has changed dramatically over the last decade with writers like Sherwin, Paddy Johnson and Jerry Saltz contributing heavily online. These are established writers who have decided to work independently from, or in addition to, traditional print. I've been trying to help improve Wikipedia articles involving these writers and the art blog article itself.SunRiddled (talk) 01:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

They are not blocked, you can always revert the bot. And it still is a blog, which is down to pretty strict rules for external links (and the bot will not revert if it is properly used as a reference, nor when it is used by an established user). I am not very tempted to whitelist this. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

+

dont sing me man the next time,cause I m an anonumos (and i ll always be) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.38.64.156 (talk) 16:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

We'll keep on welcoming you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

My Thanks

XLinkBot, it has been about a year since I first started editing Wikipedia, but it wasn't until a few days ago I saw your comments about two breaches in Wikipedia policy I made. I thank you for clarifying your actions, and they have given me a great incentive to return to editing on this site, provided I carefully read and understand the merit of this site's policies in regards to keeping neutral points of view towards a subject, and fighting copyright infringement. On the first regarding the Facebook link I put on the Earl Wooster High School page, that was a clear mistake on my part that should never have been attempted. On the second, as being one of Kelsie B. Harder's grandsons, I should hope to find a picture somewhere in our house that can be used on his page, rather than the one used in his NY times obituary. I do hope individuals like you will continue to offer such crisp and gentle honesty in their job as editors of new contributions from people like myself, as I wish to return the same through good and quality contributions to this site in the future. Thanks for your time. Tanaka Harder (talk) 03:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:19, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

the bot is malfunctioning - autovandalising pages, reverting edits for no good reason

[2] and such.

Or this. What a f-g stupid bot. WTF?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.145.185.229 (talk • contribs)

Wikis are not good external links, and are certainly never a reliable source. Good reverts, maybe you should read the remarks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:18, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

A BOT out-of-control

Well done - a very effective BOT. When someone hires you for housecleaning, do you just blow the place up? Stevenmitchell (talk) 09:29, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you referring to something specific? I don't see any 'blowing up' .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Failure to notify at user talk pages

I see that only about 20% of the bot's recent reversions are followed up by a message at the user talk page. Is this intended? You may wish to comment at this help desk thread. -- John of Reading (talk) 09:52, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Auw .. what happened. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Broken database results in broken bot .. need to 'fix' this so it will shut down if this happens again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:56, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thane District Demographics

I had Updated Thane Districts population figure released by the government of India, Its Population density and Sex ratio which are relevant in Demographics of Thane. And had also added an image of present Thane District which was earlier not available on the page. U seem to have removed these updates. Justify your actions against something correct on wiki talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.194.100.143 (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

The external link was superfluous, I have removed that again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

XLinkBot reverted my addition of an external link to the Eucharist page entry on 10 April 2011, presumably because the link was to a WordPress site and the bot automatically assumed that this source was a blog. However, the source cited is not a blog. It is an E-book that was incidentally published on the WordPress platform. The author, Fr Frank O'Dea SSS, has authority as a former co-ordinator of the Life in the Eucharist (LITE) movement in Australia, which is sponsored worldwide by the Blessed Sacrament Congregation (of which Fr O'Dea is a member). The source provides a comprehensive introduction to the spirituality of the Eucharist from a Catholic, and wider Christian, perspective. It would be a valuable external link to provide in the Eucharist entry. Could consideration please be given to undoing the XLinkBot reversion? With thanks. Keystone123 (talk) 03:03, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, you can do that yourself. But I see there are quite some links there already, I am afraid that the wordpress simply fails our policy 'what wikipedia is not' - we do not need to link to all that is available about a subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:11, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice, but it looks like I can't do it myself. When I try to undo, the bot reverts it. As I said, the link is NOT to a WordPress blog. It is to a scholarly book that has been published on WordPress. Because the bot does not discriminate between what is published on WordPress, I have tried to undo the reversion as you kindly suggested I could, but to no avail. Keystone123 (talk) 11:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, you re-added, not undid. And when you did undo the bot, I reverted you. As I explained, there is a plethora of links there, this site simply does not add. Actually, I have asked other editors (knowledgeable in the subject) to remove more of the links there, as much is superfluous. Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:34, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Hey man why did you deleted all my changes on Demarco (musician)? There was nothing wrong with it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blood claatGER (talk • contribs) 13:59, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, there is, we do not link to YouTube like that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:28, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blood claatGER (talk • contribs) 15:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Bagoong

Why is this guy Obisidian allowed to delete the bagoong created and edited by many contributors. He came in like snake, crrrrreep in, revised a little and in one swoop substituted his article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Diegosil (talk • contribs) 21:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it is explained on your talkpage. And I don't think he was coming 'in like snake, crrrrreep in, revised a little' .. etc. etc. If you disagree, please go to Talk:Bagoong and explain your edits. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:02, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

May I enter a link to the artist's IMDb page?

Thank you. (Csunstudent123 (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2011 (UTC))

Well, it depends, but generally we allow imdb as an external link, even though the site is basically functioning as a wiki (see the external links guideline for more info). Thanks for the question!! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:03, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

The link I posted was relevant to So SOlid Crew and covered one of the members that had no info on them, thus enhancing the page? Why remove the link?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.3.158.213 (talk • contribs) 08:32, 13 May 2011

Well, it is a wordpress blog .. it may be relevant, but is it adding to the content of the page? We are not a linkfarm. If you think that the page adds, and follows all the rest of our external links guideline .. then please, revert the bot. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

this bot reverts thousands of words' worth of legitimate content simply because the IP added a SINGLE fb link

This seems out of line. Why can't it just remove the facebook link? here is an example. A whole wealth of information got deleted and was not recovered until I personally dug it up two months later. This is quite irresponsible. Can the bot be more discriminate in its actions? Is it only capable of reverting? Elle vécut heureuse à jamais (be free) 12:03, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

See User:XLinkBot/FAQ. And the bot suggests a solution ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:39, 15 May 2011 (UTC)`

Southern Pacific 4460

Hello! I'm rather new at Wikipedia and didn't remember this guideline about videos. My intention was to show beautiful machines, not to divert this encyclopedia from what has been decided. Please, Excuse me. --78.123.104.87 (talk) 10:49, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Of course! Happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:41, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Blanked an article

Blanked an article reverting an EL to hypoikon.altervista.org—Machine Elf 1735 17:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

That is curious .. bug. I will investiate this. Thanks for reporting! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Very strange, I can't really find the error. It looks like XLinkBot tried to load the previous revid, but instead of getting the page, got a blank page (and not, as usual, an error from the server that it could not be served with the right page). I have built in a catch, that if it (tries to) revert to blank, that it notifies the watchers on IRC and does not perform the revert. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:24, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Ridiculous. If a famous person (in this case footballers) have a twitter account why is it not sensible to add a verified account on to Wikipedia. There's places for soccerbase and other external features whereas Twitter actually is 'personal' and in the instance of sports people adds further insight that Wikipedia will never be able to verify.

This is way over the top. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Maffff (talk • contribs) 22:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

We're not a linkfarm, Maffff - it is not in Wikipedia's target to link to anything related to a subject, if you want to know that, then dmoz and google are the way to go. Twitter hardly ever gives any information on the subject, and when important enough, often linked from a subjects official site. That makes twitter hardly ever a suitable external link. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

May 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Kale, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you! -- Jncraton (talk) 10:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly a test, vandalism would mean intent so that also not, nonetheless, a bad edit by XLinkBot .. thanks for catching this! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Owen Hatherley

Re: removal of blog links, please note that these are Hatherley's own blogs, are mentioned in the text, and have received wp:v and wp;n coverage in their own right.FrFintonStack (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, that's not the only reason why they could be there, but WP:ELOFFICIAL seems to go here. Good revert (ignore my edits to the page .. sorry). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:35, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Requests about page Arthur Sarkissian

User:Svguitar Hello dear XLinkBot thanks for editing my add to page Arthur Sarkissian and sorry for the facebook link but can I ask to add few web pages from gallery that i found from internet that Arthur Sarkissian is exhibiting because I think it'll give more information to the reader. And please can you help me to add few paintings in gallery section I don't know what exactly copyright do i need to use. Thanks In advance also I have a permission from artist to add the photos! also the section with taxes is about other Arthur Sarkissian which is producer thats why I deleted it and what is wrong that I added updates for exhibitions in 2010 and 2010 ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svguitar (talk • contribs) 02:17, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

http://www.deltaculture.com/arts_page.php?artist=arthur_sarkissian http://www.artcubegallery.com/EXHIBITION-APRIL2011/index.htm

Sincerely, Sv —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svguitar (talk • contribs) 02:09, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, I'm not to knowledgeable about uploading images .. there must be links on the Special:Upload page which can help you, or which lead you to discussion places for that. Otherwise, try to be on the save side, and keep an eye if someone comments. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra C 08:37, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


User:Svguitar Thanks for the help anyway!!!! And dear User:XLinkBot I did undo as you sad in my talk page but I deleted the Facebook page as you also sad!!! thanks anyway for help!!!!! and if anything is wrong please let me know first so I will have more experience by making Articles Sincerely, Vahan

Hey there,

Can you help me? I wanted to show the links to verify the information that I posted. If you could do that for me that would be great.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.30.38 (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be talking about the same post as below. Forums are not good reliable sources (see the reliable sources guideline), and that is not the way to reference that. I am afraid that you need more than this. I hope this explains! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:45, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Why? - 2

Why did you remove my post for Sugar, Sugar? You obviously don't know anything about the song and why it was produced to begin with. Read http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?webtag=ab-collectibles&nav=messages&lgnF=y&msg=2296 and feel free to add your revisions since you seem to be a know it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.25.30.38 (talk) 08:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe you should start reading the reliable sources guideline .. having a forum alone is not enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:44, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Request about page Multi-touch

(YahooBot (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC))


Hello dear XLinkBot,

please review Multi-touch. It's looking like user:Alexanderaelberts trys to promote links of his own websides (SEO). I am new on Wiki and don't know how I can deleted this changes from user:Alexanderaelberts.

Sincerely, (YahooBot (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC))

Electric Playground video

I'm not sure why a youtube video recording of a TV show discussing the game would be considered spam? See King's Quest III: To Heir Is Human (Infamous Adventurs) and King's Quest II: Romancing the Stones. Any explanation is appreciated.Questfan (talk) 22:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Answered on my talk page Noformation Talk 22:14, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the question (and Noformation, thanks for answering). I think the answer of Noformation practically says it all - though I hope that if the bot would have reported you, that the administrator handling it would be considerate. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:31, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

That's not fair because all the Muppet characters along with Jim Henson all have wiki links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.188.205.14 (talk) 19:37, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe they should all be removed, open wikis generally fail our external links guidelines. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

website for flashpoint

why cant i add a website — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Fonsworth (talk • contribs) 23:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Maybe it fails our external links guideline?? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:12, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The question here is surely what constitutes acceptable evidence? I am sorry but it seems that nowhere within Wikipedia so far as I can make out is this question tackled in a way recognizable with the traditional criteria on this very important matter. So far as this particular external link (relating in the first instance to the War Memorial Trust, a charity, but also to other bodies within the government of the UK under equitable legislation) is concerned, it is conceded that the presumption must be that what is said by them is correct. In the present instance, however, this can be quite easily demonstrated, on documentary evidence, not to be the case. Until that issue has been discussed in a sensible fashion for all to see on the Talk page I suggest that the removal of this particular addition to this particular section of the External Links on this page West Hartlepool War Memorial is arguably out of order so far as the public interest is concerned.

As the author responsible of this text, can I look forward therefore to something rather different from this entirely arbitrary sort of procedure? I repeat that this is an issue of national significance.

Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.79.52 (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

You may want to have a look at our policies and guidelines (some examples (I'll use shortcuts): WP:MOS, WP:EL, WP:V, WP:CITE). The article needs some serious work I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Twitter link removed from Faisal Qureshi page

I still don't understand, why? Whereas there are many pages, who have the celebrity's Twitter address in the 'External Links' section. If this is inappropriate, why aren't they removed? Foziea (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:OTHERLINKS - maybe we did not get to it, and there are some cases where one can make a proper case for having a twitter there. But we are not a linkfarm, and generally they fail our external links guidelines. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Al-Fatihah wikipedia youtube entry

Hi I posted this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb78icH_v2s&feature=related on the wiki page for surah al fatihah, because there was currently a youtube link there for people to listen to the surah being recited if they wanted, but i posted a nicer recitation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb78icH_v2s&feature=related please tell me why this is on your block list, especially considering its relevance to the wiki article --k6

There are many concerns with YouTube, firstly since quite some interesting material is actually in violation of copyright, but furthermore, it does not add anything that can not be told in the text, it needs software to be installed, it can not be seen on all computers, it generally takes a significant bandwith - several concerns which are mentioned in our external links guideline. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Enthiran

Enthiran page is being owned by hard-core Rajinikanth fans User:Vensatry, User:Bollyjeff and User:Eelamstylez77. They have a conflict of interest in keeping this article neutral. They claim Enthiran is the highest grosser in India (not Sholay and 3 Idiots).

The neutral version is this. Taran Adarash even gives break up. Please help protect wikipedia from such vandalising criminals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kollyfan (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

I am afraid you are at the wrong place, I think that you need WP:RFPP. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:14, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

This link www.archeoetruria etc.. deal with archeological sites of my city no spam, no commercial use, no personal website why did you remove? best regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.10.212.25 (talk • contribs)

Where did the bot remove which link? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hello,

My update to the page Dave Cornthwaite was automatically removed because it contained youtube links which where of coverage on BBC news and radio and other third party media outlets which I was using to verify the information in the article, not to create spam or publicity. Please let me know what i can do to rectify this, I very much want to work within Wikipedia guidelines to update this page, as you can see from all of the press coverage here: http://www.davecornthwaite.com/#/media-press/4548374140 the information contained in the article is true.

Thanks,

Kate

```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kedenham (talk • contribs) 07:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I cleaned the page. Needs some work, though. I don't know if the youtube links are really needed, the Twitter, YouTube channel, Facebook and Flickr are prominently linked from the homepage of the subject, and we do not need to link to everything that is said about the subject - maybe you can use some as a source? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Help

Hi Admin. please tell me how to put those logos or those icons that make my profile stylish, like some have putted that this user supports Afghanistan cricket team or this user comes from Afghanistan or so. Please let me know

--Ahmadfaisalsidiqi (talk) 11:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure what you are asking. I would suggest, if you want to know how other users did it, go to the page where you see an example, and look in the source how they made it. Or ask such a user on their talkpage. I hope that helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

This bot did this but it reverted more than just the external links at the bottom, it reverted changes to the main space of the article too. I hope there is a way to encode it to be more specific and only revert the wikia links in the future. AweCo (talk) 06:55, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, that is impossible since a) spam is also regularly added in the body of the text, and b) there are too many ways of adding external links. That is why we revert, and ask the editor to reconsider the edit. Please see the User:XLinkBot/FAQ for more info about this problem. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

undo Bot

This link provides legitimate information for a reader of this wikipedia entry, and does not violate any Wikipedia rules and guidelines — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ninstints (talk • contribs) 08:39, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the link again, per our external links guideline, and 2 others which are inappropriate per said guideline. I also cleaned up the article, there is no need for the external links in the article body. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

bot errors

1. [3]. Justified BLP prod place, references added, prod remove. the bot put them on again without justification. I am really startled by this one--how can the bot possibly carry out the deletion of sourced content in that article--byt what authority does it do so? DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 13 July 2011 (UTC) ,

Nothing to be startled about, DGG. The editor added a twitter.com link, which is, with good reason, on the revertlist of XLinkBot. It also is a known feature of anti-vandalism bots, that they revert edits by users (and for XLinkBot that is also the case). We know that this will every now and then give some cases of wrong reverts, but that is why the bot is trying to be extremely soft, and does explicitly explain in a as non-bitey way as possible what should be done on the talkpage of the editor that gets reverted.
I do however agree, this seems to be a wrong revert of a twitter link, and I see that the editor did undo the bot edit as suggested by the bot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

Three of the references, and one of the ELs removed were not from twitter, but from RSs for the subject involved. The only twitter link removed was one in the EL. Were it just removal of the twitter link ,I would not have been so concerned. There's a difference between reverting the addition of a link, which is an acceptable task for a bot, because it does little collateral damage, and removing all of an edit that among other things includes a twitter link, which is a less acceptable task for a bot because it can and in this case did involve collateral damage. And the collateral error in this case was to remove all the references supporting a BLP article. Were it a human who did that, they would have received a level 3 or 4 warning for unacceptable editing--some admins I know would have even considered it BLP vandalism, to damage the encyclopedia by removing the support for a valid BLP article. . I remain surprised that such was ever approved, if it fact it was. Perhaps the action of the bot should be limited to cases where the presumably bad link is the only edit. or to just removing the actual bad link, not the entire edit, if such is programmable.. DGG ( talk ) 14:12, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

First, please assume good faith, DGG, you know very well that that is common practice here. 'Perhaps the action of the bot should be limited to cases where the presumably bad link is the only edit.' .. now, that is going to be gamed by spammers. Regarding the removal of only the bad link, that is indeed the best solution, but unfortunately technically impossible (as it would regularly, if not constantly, be vandalism by the bot). And I do think that we have taken all possible measures regarding protections that these edits like you find here are pretty rare, and the bot has, intentionally, a high visibility, so that recent edit patrollers etc. do notice the edits. If this would be a significant problem, then warnings regarding BLP vandalism would already have appeared (on over 170.000 edits), I now only see very, very occasionally complaints about this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:27, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

User Warnings

Is there any particular reason why the bot chooses to warn users with the lvl1 warning every time? See [4] for an example. --EdwardZhao (talk) 13:39, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Eh .. a bug .. ? Thanks for reporting this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:57, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Hmm .. no, not a bug, but maybe the settings are too sweet. XLinkBot 'forgets' that it warned an editor after about 4 hours, and would then restart with a level 1 for users. That is maybe too low, or it should maybe restart with the highest warning. Need to think about this, but maybe after my holidays. Don't want to break this now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:29, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks.--EdwardZhao (talk) 15:34, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hallo respect to revert link archeoetruria of 4 july you can check the voice S.Marinella revision 404595318 best regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.16.239.252 (talk • contribs)

I think you mean this removal. I am sorry, but I do not think that that is a suitable external link there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hạ Long Bay

I just wanted to report a little glitch. The bot created Hạ Long Bay when attempting to revert an edit at Hạ Long Bay. Presumably, it got confused by the non-English letter in the title. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:54, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Argh, comes back every now and then. Will have another look and try to solve it. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:23, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, need to revisit MySpace linking policy

MySpace is hosting licensed streamed copies of albums and songs. Since these are copies of the original source material for articles on the albums and songs on Wikipedia, it seems like we should allow external links to them on the article page, much like external links to literature are allowed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.wong.wiki (talk • contribs) 17:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Err .. just like literature?? Literature is generally on a site with editorial oversight, which MySpace is certainly not and streamed copies of albums and songs on such a host? I am afraid it fails WP:EL in any case. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:52, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Fails WP:EL?? Per item 2 in WP:ELYES I don't believe it fails; it is a site hosting a copy of the work with editorial oversight of at least that page. And as to WP:ELNO, it doesn't directly link to a page that requires a plugin (Flash) (8), and as far as I can determine, MySpace is no longer using Flash to stream music. It does link to a MySpace page (10), but the page in particular is not a normal user page of the social networking site, but one maintained by a recognized authority. As to whether the page exists primarily to sell product, I don't believe that is the case since it also provides access to the media (through a stream) that is the source of the article. - J.wong.wiki (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yes, ELYES#2 applies when nothing of ELNO would apply .. it is still hosted on MySpace, which would make ELNO #10 apply.
If I see it, both the Amazon link there and the MySpace link you added are questionable. My advice: bring it to the talkpage of the page where you want to add the link. I am not sure if these links are suitable within the purpose of Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I understand the original blanket exclusion of MySpace, but I don't think it still applies to the pages I want to link just because they happen to be hosted by MySpace. The Internet is constantly changing. I'll put it on the talk page. --J.wong.wiki (talk) 20:22, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I added a section to the WT:ALBUM page to start a discussion on whether it would be acceptable to add links to source media. If the consensus is "yes", then I'll start another discussion of the MySpace issue. -- J. Wong (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesse Fuller reverts

When you reverted the links I changed on the Jesse Fuller and Fotdella entries you reverted to dead links. Since Fuller was a street musician who invented and built his own unique instrument, the fotdella, I would think a link to a video showing him playing the thing would be perfectly appropriate. Dead links are not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.72.244.157 (talk • contribs)

I think you might be right. I'll have a look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:03, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: July 2011

Hello, XLinkBot. You have new messages at DeshintaChandra's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Replied on user talk page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:13, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Minor Detail

In the settings file, some of the texts (used for commenting) are wrong; there are 4 instances of "First Warning" where it's clear that the comments meant to read "First Warning" "Second Warning" etc. - Penwhale | dance in the air and follow his steps 22:24, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Heh, you're right. Solved, thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
Great work on automatically removing spam links. hydrox (talk) 22:48, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Reverted link on Bob Spear page

Hiya Bot. Pretty sure you are an excellent tool and you removed my link because it went to a permalink on blogspot. The blogging page I linked to (an interview with Bob Spear) is verifiable and non-spammy. The author is respected in our community and I'd like to re-add the link. She interviewed Bob at the Birds of Vermont Museum fairly recently, and her photographs would make a nice complement to the Bob Spear page, especially the ones of his hands.

Thanks -- Kir Ktalmage (talk) 14:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that article that you are talking about could you some more consistent sourcing, it is pretty unclear. Maybe the blogspot there can help as well (if it is, as you say, from a respected author). I have done some cleanup per WP:EL (for some other links), and tagged the article. Just as a note, it is not in Wikipedia's goal to link to every interview that is there, though here a selected few would be fine. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:49, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Changes to the Warrior Film 2011 page - questions

Hi there,

I followed the guidelines and even used the wikipedia page for Social Network and other movies as the basis of my update. Can you tell me why the marketing section on these films were allowed but mine were removed? just want to make sure I can enter this info correctly. Thanks so much! Mediawoman (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC) Mediawoman — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mediawoman (talk • contribs) 19:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

I removed the in-text linking, leaving only the references. It was the linking the bot was having problems with (it does not like about.com links as they are often problematic), not the ocntent. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:37, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Here is a link revert. I didn't make the link, but it seemed at least on-topic. I don't know which of the XLinkBot it violates, so I have no idea whether to dispute it or not. I read the FAQ, and visited the RevertList. Neither one was enlightening.

Please consider adding an optional field to each line of the RevertList saying why that link is commonly reverted. Then that optional field could be populated over time. Then, ideally, when I visited the RevertList, I'd know better why that link was reverted. It could even be added into the revert comment. dfrankow (talk) 15:29, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, don't have too much time to answer, will answer more later. XLinkBot does state which 'rule' it used to revert on the talkpage (in a comment), and the link it mentions should give a hint as well. Like the spam-blacklist (which also just gives a remark for the link, or the rule), there should be a log item for every addition - the log for the specific list should be linked from the revertlists it is using (mainly, User:XLinkBot/RevertList, and a couple of others linked from the top of this talkpage). I'll have a look later at the specific reasons for this reversion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:53, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
I see quite some spammy additions of this, it certainly is pushed to pages where it does not directly belong ('global topics' do not need a link to the US debt clock, it only has a place on the US debt clock pages, the rest should be wikilinks. However, here it looks like the rest of the edit is fine, I would undo the edit, but remove the external link as not direct enough. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:41, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Seems the bot does not know that additions into a references section are not externmal links and thus different guidelines and policies then those that it quotes applies. I reverted a XLinkBot edit accordingly. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 10:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

That a link is in a references section does not make it a reference. Moreover, this is a blogspot, written today, where the intro is EXACTLY the same as the wikipedia page it is on. I am removing the blogspot again, leaving the other info. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:06, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Oh, and the info the editor added in that post is also exactly the same as written on the blogspot .. bit from here, bit returned from there. Badly written as well. Sorry, but I don't see this as a bad revert, at best one which needs to be optimised a lot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:11, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
The editor added content with a matching reference, that is absolutely a reference. Do not try and wiggle out by saying it's not well written, some sort of copyvio etc, that is just a smoke and mirrors excuse. The bot made a bad call, placed an inappropriate message on the users page, reverted a reference and in the process ignored the WP:PRESERVE policy - and thus the bot requires correction. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
You may want to read the whole of the message left, and correcting this (if possible) would just open a hole without end (which some things already are, anyway).
Here, I do agree that this is a bad revert, but the bot leaves a message which does include the possibility that it made a mistake and suggests actions to take. It is what it is in this case, just a message, not a warning or something. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It would be nice to edit the message left and tone it down. Do you know if the message can be edited and if so where to edit it? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:15, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It can be changed in the settings, if you suggest it here, we can see what we can do. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Current text there:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Brazilian snake-necked turtle has been reverted.
Your edit here to Brazilian snake-necked turtle was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://brasilnua.blogspot.com/2011/08/brazilian-snake-necked-turtle-slow-slow.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, fansite, or similar site (see 'Links to avoid', #11), then please check the information on the external site thoroughly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creator's copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).
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) 06:24, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

I think that with wording like 'discouraged', 'attempts', 'probably', 'accept my creator's apologies', 'feel free to undo' it is already pretty friendly (and note that by far the most of the blogspot reversions are external links, and by far the most of those should indeed not be included, let alone other sites which are more problematic, or really spam). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Don't automatically revert

RC patrollers shouldn't 'automatically' be reverting to anything (not just this bot's contributions), which under current wording seems to imply that in some cases they should be.Crazynas t 17:58, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You are right, that should not be done 'automatically'. Where is that suggested? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
It just seems implied in A note for RC patrollers

Due to the nature of what the bot does, it will occasionally revert additions which may have been appropriate. As an RC patroller you are always required to make sure vandalism is obvious and uncontroversial, don't just assume that because the bot reverted it, it has to be vandalism.

how's that?Crazynas t 18:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Ah, that point .. It now reads:

Due to the nature of what the bot does, it will occasionally revert additions which may have been appropriate. Please don't automatically revert someone who reverts or 'undoes' an XLinkBot edit.

.. the point is, it should be clear that this is about the editor who is reverting/undoing the XLinkBot-revert (those get also tagged by one of the edit filters for extra visibility). Though I agree that the old version is maybe not clear enough, I'm not sure if yours is properly clear there. Not sure how to solve it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:35, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
I guess my main issue is by saying don't automatically revert because of this bot... it is implying that it's ok to automatically revert other types of edits. perhaps:

Please don't revert someone who reverts or 'undoes' an XLinkBot edit based solely on the bot reverting the addition originally.(replacing the last sentence)

Crazynas t 18:43, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Hmm:

Due to the nature of what the bot does, it will occasionally revert additions which may have been appropriate. As an RC patroller you are always required to make sure vandalism is obvious and uncontroversial, please do not revert someone who reverts or 'undoes' an XLinkBot edit based solely on the bot reverting the addition originally.

This looks good, I think. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:45, 10 August 2011 (UTC)


Looks good to me... do it :) Crazynas t 18:49, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
Heh --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:54, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Wordpress and user friendliness

I note that Wordpress isn't in the list of frequently reverted sites, but should it be listed along with Blogspot? Also, the bot was giving User:McBarton a difficult time as he was trying to add what appeared to be a legitimate reference from Wordpress, and the warnings seemed confusing, so could something be done to make the warnings more friendly and less verbose for new users? Pinetalk 06:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

That is a freely editable page, maybe you are right, and Wordpress should be there listed with Blogspot, though that list is merely meant to show why some sites are on the list, I hope that people will extrapolate to other, similar sites. But feel free to add it.
Yes, I see it gave User:McBarton a hard time. I don't think that 'the warnings seemed confusing', I think they were just completely ignored. I am sorry, but this is a clear case of what XLinkBot should be reverting, and should be warning editors about. This is a clear conflict of interest of the user, and I do think that since the user did not pay any attention to the warnings, maybe a (short) block to enforce discussion is warranted here. The editor may be right, but continuous additions of links to own work are a problem. Moreover, most of the statements were already properly referenced, and the work was not used to expand on it - it is just another reference to support the statements. That is not how it works, some statements are so general, that although the do need a proper reference, they certainly do not need to be cited to all hundreds of possible references for such statements (we are not at that level here, but I hope this gives the point). I have reverted the last edits as well, and will leave yet another warning on the talkpage of the user. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
The specific warning to which I was referring was not for a conflict of interest, but for a formatting problem with a link. He showed me a copy of it but I didn't see it in my admittedly brief scan of the talk page, so maybe it was sent as an email. I've forgotten what the bot's warning was, but the problem was only due to formatting, and the bot seemed a bit hostile when that was the only problem. Would you look into how this might have happened? Pinetalk 10:34, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that all the links were inside citation templates .. which suggested citations (which the bot should not have reverted, they are in templates and the bot should have detected it - I am working on that issue). Nonetheless, I would personally have reverted these as WP:REFSPAM, and because of the WP:COI. The bot just reverted them because they were wordpress links.
I don't see any 'formatting problem with a link' in any of the edits, so I think the editor misunderstood something there. The problem the bot is referring to is plainly the addition of the external links. I also think that the bot started off friendly enough, but sure it increases its levels (and maybe its hostility due to the templated warning levels) when an editor is going on. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:46, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, thanks. Pinetalk 04:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

how do i communicate directly with you???

i have received my 4th and final warning regarding a doc i'm creating, zeina awad. i am not a spammer. the links i've added are an attempt to tell a complete story. i disagree with your deletions; however, i have tried to comply with your rules regarding outside links (through references cited as i have seen on other entries) and yet you continue to target the information i have provided. i am honestly confused. wikipedia specifically asks for "This biographical article needs additional citations for verification. Please help by adding reliable sources." in regards to this entry. this is exactly what i am attempting to do. please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Happyavocadogirl (talk • contribs) 15:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Answered on user talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

excessive editing

I note "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"

The bot is supposed to revert only links. If it reverts edits that contain other things than links, it should not be doing it. I suggest two possible solutions. The simplest is not to revert an edit if it does more than just add a link. The second, which I recognize will be difficult to program, is for it to revert only the part of an edit that includes a link. DGG ( talk ) 03:52, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

See User:XLinkBot/FAQ - it is not only a matter of removing a link, spam is sometimes / often more than just a link - what would you do with an edit that adds 'Please visit the page of my company to buy our great products', just remove the external link, just remove everything between the two square brackets. DGG, there are not that many edits (relatively) where good information gets added but which include a questionable link. And this behaviour is not different from other antivandalism bots, who also revert the whole edit when only a part of it contains something that it does not like - it will not only remove the words 'shit', 'ass' or similar - it will revert the whole edit even while that word may be appropriate.
Not reverting would make the whole bot effort useless. Do you really think that spammers would care when they get a message 'your link is unwanted' .. they do not even care when their edit gets reverted, they just revert back. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:23, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
Exactly. spam can be many things, some of them complicated. That's why it has to be removed manually. If it is going to be removed automatically, the automatic process can only manage the simplest cases, where the spam can be nothing else. I certainly agree that spam is a serious danger to the encyclopedia , , but it therefore needs to be dealt with by humans. I spend a good deal of time dealing with it, bit by bit, and the time is not wasted. It's too subtle for a bot. All editing, except for things like correcting spelling errors and normalizing dates, is too subtle for a bot. The proper use for a bot is making a list to be examined. It should never be allowed to do anything more. I've consistently opposed the edit filters doing anything more than warn and list, and I feel that way here too. The reason is there's an even more subtle danger than spam--which is the possibility of losing editors. We do know how to deal with promotionalism, by removing it. We don't know how to keep editors once they get insulted and leave. (And, if, as you say, the bad faith editors revert back, what good is it. A human can issue proper warnings, and proceed if necessary to a block. I've converted many initially promotional editors, by a combination of explanations and warnings. I've almost never had to block. A strong personal statement that a real person is watching will convince them to try elsewhere. You are all too correct that standardized machine notice are not very effective. DGG ( talk ) 01:55, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
Many editors here who get the initial message are also converted, DGG, and hardly even people get blocked because of reports by this bot. I know you are categorically opposing against blocking edit filters and automated edits, and that is fine. But the community at large is still considering antivandalism bots, anti-spam bots, spam blacklists and blocking edit-filters necessary (see also User:XLinkBot#Barnstars & such). You might want to follow the reporting of COIBot, there is still a lot of spam there which does not get reverted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Choker Campbell

I actually know him, and he plays the flute. Mystery UkuleleMan | Talk | Contribs | —Preceding undated comment added 16:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC).

Not sure what you are saying. The bot does not have a problem with the fact that he plays the flute, but apparently you added an external link which is generally deemed not useful. Can you elaborate on the problem? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:01, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Samuel Fraunces

Thank you for reverting Samuel Fraunces. The section blanking on that article has been frustrating. And appeals made on its Talk page have had no effect. BoringHistoryGuy (talk) 16:51, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know, I do think everything is back after XLinkBot reverted. You may want to check .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:25, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
I left the below message on Talk:Samuel Fraunces.
GramereC / 71.58.75.28, Please stop your disruptive editing.
1. No one is interested in your fantasies about the portraits. That's why I moved them to the bottom. Note, I did not erase them.
2. You have repeatedly blanked the "Ethnic Identity" section. People ARE interested in what Fraunces Tavern Museum has to say about Fraunces's ethnic identity. The statement from the museum's Website is a summary of its findings based on decades of examining the issue.
3. You have repeatedly blanked the "Presidential Household" section. People ARE interested in Fraunces's service in George Washington's presidential households.
4. You have repeatedly blanked the "See Also" section. This links to information about Fraunces and the enslaved Africans who worked under him.
5. You have been cautioned about disruptive editing elsewhere.[5] You have made more than 100 edits on the Samuel Fraunces article in the past 3 weeks. And your intolerance of the opinions/contributions of others, your introduction of fantasies presented as facts, and your imperious blanking of whole sections of information is the DEFINITION of disruptive editing.
6. I am sending copies of this message to the BOT who cautioned you, and those who reverted your blanking of others' work.
Someone else (above) urged you to go back to your own Website, where you can write whatever you want. I concur. 173.59.124.196 (talk) 00:05, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Is this still a bot issue? What is this about? The bot may have reverted because of an external link which is strongly discouraged or even not allowed per our policies and guidelines .. it has nothing to do with blanking of section etc. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, that I misunderstood. Still, the section blanking on Samuel Fraunces is galling, and a conflict of interest if, as I believe, the culprit is the author of the self-published book she repeatedly cites, and she erases any reference that disagrees with it. 173.59.124.196 (talk) 22:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
I do see that, indeed .. I'll have a look. For such issues, you may want to escalate this to e.g. the incidents board, or request page protection or similar. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:49, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Check your changes

Please check your changes at this edit. I suspect the IP was correct. This is the official blog of the entity that is the subject of the wikipedia entry. You may want to revert yourself, and discuss the matter with the IP further.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:34, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I would revert the edit, but not include the blog .. As the bot remarks: "... Wikipedia is not a collection of links ...". The official homepage is there, which in all but a very, very few cases makes all other 'official' sites superfluous. Here, the blog is prominently linked from that official homepage, making it even more superfluous. I think that this IP still does not understand our rules on linking. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
That sounds fair. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
By the way, I have reverted as suggested, and removed a couple of external links in that process. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

David Hall (tennis)

Your bot had a false positive with this edit. :/ --LauraHale (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. I see the editor followed the suggestions by the bot, I have however removed the YouTube video's, I don't think that those interviews add much which is not already covered by the text and the many references. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I am the Director of Marketing and Communications at State Fair Community College and am attempting to edit our Wikipedia page to make information current and to add a link to our official Facebook page. The reason I want to add the link is that Facebook has created a Community page and it's being confused with our new official page managed by my office. I've been told I can't edit the Community page, so editing the Wikipedia page was my next line of defense. What can I do to ensure folks are getting to the right FB page?Dkelchner (talk) 22:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was exactly what the bot had a problem with, your linking to facebook. Facebook links are discouraged per our external links guideline. I have re-inserted the other parts that you inserted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:41, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

brending Mark Zuckerberg minimalism John Zarlino CEO/Founder Cover Your Assets II, LLC An Ohio Company (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

http://www.facebook.com/markzuckerberg?sk=wall#!/markzuckerberg?sk=info John Zarlino CEO/Founder Cover Your Assets II, LLC An Ohio Company (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC) How does Mark use this word as a personal interest? John Zarlino CEO/Founder Cover Your Assets II, LLC An Ohio Company Branding + Friending = Brending My little brother and I invented the new word brending on March 8th 2011. (I know there is an old word brending but we invented the new one)John Zarlino CEO/Founder Cover Your Assets II, LLC An Ohio Company (talk) 12:57, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I am not sure why you posted this here, but seen your contributions, I would suggest that you first look through our policies and guidelines before editing further. We are trying to write an encyclopedia here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:48, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

unblock

I have unblocked User talk:98.163.75.189, who was blocked by another admin for violations of the EL policy detected by this block. The links he has been adding are not in my opinion violations of the EL policy. I have explained to him that he ought to get an account; he is stubborn about this, but that is not reason for a block. I continue to strongly object to this bot placing unreviewed notices or reverting unreviewed edits--it is insufficiently discriminating. However, to avoid possibilities of a biased view, I shall not be intervening with the use of my admin tools with respect to this particular user again. DGG ( talk ) 00:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Sigh. Well, most of the links added are those which are discouraged by the EL guideline (and I am afraid that I would remove most of them). You might want to consider to comment on WT:EL, or on WT:NOT regarding NOT#REPOSITORY and NOT#DIRECTORY, and on WT:SPAM, and on WT:COPYRIGHT and probably other places .. the moment that humans stop making mistakes I will stop the bot as it will never approach that same level of perfectness. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:32, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Amina Abdallah

Bot is automatically removing links to the blog that the article is _about_! LothianLiz (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Blogs are generally not the links that should be used on Wikipedia .. but you are right, there are exceptions, and you were right in reverting the bot as suggested. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:34, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

false positive

[6] —Ruud 13:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

No, it is not. That is not the way we reference, and I doubt if that is a suitable source for that info. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
OK, checked the source .. primary but suitable for this. As noted, apologies from the owners ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.

In response to automatic reversions to Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Milton_Tinney,_Sr. please be advised that I have no further interest in contributing additional links or information to the said resource. It was my interest only to fulfill the requests previously made to document the record and to add links. I am then burned down for doing that which others demanded of me in the first place. I added pertinent information of a historical/biographical nature for future researchers. Every link was presented to offer validation to content in the record itself and I wish that you would undo and preserve the previous data. I have no desire to do anything less than satisfy the best interests of Wikipedia and request the warnings and "flags" listed on the top of the page to please be immediately removed. Signed: Thomas Milton Tinney, Sr.108.85.168.205 (talk) 15:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. I see you are genuinly trying to update the page, but maybe I could point you towards our manual of style. Moreover, there is genuine concern regarding the 'sources' and 'style' of referencing. There is material linked there which is not verifying the statement, but merely a link to the person data etc. Moreover, you seem to have a conflict of interest - please be careful editing. Please do read the documents linked to in the warnings, especially this and this section of 'What Wikipedia is not', the external links guideline. Also have a look at the documents linked from the welcome template on your talkpage. I hope this helps, and if you have further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

false positive

[7] -- "Summer(at)discovery.ca" is not an email address. It is the title of a TV prorgram. 70.24.246.151 (talk) 11:17, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Will be whitelisted shortly. Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. Thanks for your quick attention. 70.24.246.151 (talk) 11:19, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
That is how it should be .. quick response to mistakes. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

How to report/edit a broken link?

There is a broken link on the entry on Itsuo Tsuda. The link is Reference #2 and is the source for a fact mentioned in the body of the article. Removing the broken link will then remove the citation for the fact. I did not write the original fact or place the original link. I have tried searching within the linked domain for the original page, but no luck. I would like to remove the broken link, but would first like some advice. 

Marco47jp (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
You should just adapt it or remove it. Other options is tagging it (if the link is 'correct', but has gone stale, and you can't find a replacement), I think there is a {{404}}/{{Dead link}}. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:13, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

help updating

I need help updated Good Neighbor Pharmacy page by updated with this content:


About Good Neighbor Pharmacy

Good Neighbor Pharmacy is a network of more than 3,700 independent pharmacies across the United States. Our mission is to offer competitive pricing on a wide range of over-the-counter and prescription medications, while providing the personalized service that people have come to expect from a neighborhood pharmacy. Good Neighbor Pharmacy is part of a program offered by AmerisourceBergen, one of the world's largest pharmaceutical services companies serving the United States, Canada and selected global markets.


Good Neighbor Pharmacy in the Community

Valley Forge, PA (June 13, 2011) – Good Neighbor Pharmacy was a sponsor of the TODAY Show’s “Lend a Hand” program from June 13 -17. The program’s series traveled to five cities across the country, in five days helping support five community charities. This year, Al Roker traveled to Anchorage, AK; Las Vegas, NV; Houston, TX; Birmingham, AL and Charleston, WV. Good Neighbor Pharmacy supplied first aid kits, personal care items, bottled water and other items based on the needs of the charities. The charities also be received a financial donation from Good Neighbor Pharmacy.

Rxwriter (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Have you even listened to the concerns of the editors that are reverting you. Have you read the lines of text around the edit box .. "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted.". Wikipedia is not here to promote your Pharmacy, please stop your editing in this way, listen and discuss, otherwise you are likely to be blocked, and probably for a long time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:16, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi I URGETNLY NEED SOME HELP

HI

If there is anyone out there who can help me I woudl really really be so grateful!

I am editing the page of a journalist who is travelling to a dangerous country to perfrom some undercover work, and we need to remove her Wikipedia page urgently. She is going in as a tourist and will probably be googled at the airport. First thign that shows up is her wikiepdia page announcing her as a journalist.

Please help us with this!

Ines — Preceding unsigned comment added by InesWard (talk • contribs) 11:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry, but this is likely not going to help, if you Google her, many pages stating the same show up, one does not even have to follow links to Wikipedia. Moreover, the results that Google shows will only update after some time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:34, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The goal of Wikipedia is to build a high quality, accurate encyclopedia. Consequently, Wikipedia is not censored for any purpose. Your edits are contrary to this goal, so I reverted your revert of the bot. Has she considered using a pseudonym? MER-C 11:37, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi INES Again

Forgot to sign: InesWard

This is really really urgent

Can you change this text

Ramita Navai is a Britain-based freelance journalist who makes regular contributions to a number of European media outlets, including The Independent, The Irish Times, The Sunday Herald and Britain's Channel 4. She is a graduate of the City University, London. She was the recipient of the Broadcast Journalism Training Council's 2003 Young Broadcast Journalist of the Year award. As she holds an Iranian passport, she writes regularly about the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Works include an investigation into Witch Killings in Papua New Guinea and Kurdish Honor Killings in Turkey for Channel 4's Unreported World. [edit] External links 

   * BJTC's 2003 Young Broadcast Journalist Award

With this text:

Ramita Navai is a London based Interior Designer who specialises in Persian Interiors. SHe regualrly contributes to editions such as Homes and garden and Interior Design.

She has renovated numorous old persian homes and palaces for which she has received numourous distinctions.

Currenlty Ramita is working with UNESCO to promote persian culture.

(And please remove the link)

Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by InesWard (talk • contribs) 11:41, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Why am I not allowed to add links to the Disney Wiki. There's nothing wrong with that site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.192.200 (talk) 11:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

ELNO #12....there may be other reasons but that is one.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 11:43, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The Weeknd

I was making that page better, you have mess it up. I have a very good source on this page. I would like to file a report on Bot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.97.182.80 (talk) 22:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I see that you edit conflicted with the bot and removed the link already. Just undo the bot-edit, except for the youtube-channel, which I think is superfluous to the already linked official page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:57, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

List of changes in Star Wars re-releases

the article is about fan edits - I am a fan editor - my STAR WARS fan edit should be mentioned because I am possibly the first one who created one -VolleyballBernd (talk) 22:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)


I added the following short text in the "Bootleg versions, fan edits, etc." section of the article:

"Already in 1998, fan editor Bernd Dötzer was working on his first version of his extended motion picture version of Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope, called BERND DÖTZERs FINAL CUT (BDFC), still updated with new extensions every year. "

I am the creator of this fan edit, if this is an article about fan edits, my fan cut should be named because I started working before the "Phantom Editor" began working on his "Phantom Edit" - so I am one of the first STAR WARS fan editors ever. My STAR WARS fan edits are possibly the best documentated one's worldwide.

In order to prove all this I added a link to a trailer of my fan edit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHdEYERMtuo and a link to the page where all my fan edits are documented: http://www.starwars-union.de/sw/bdfc/ By the way: this page is a non-commercial STAR WARS fan page, the biggest German STAR WARS fan page, no other thing than "theforce.net" (so why are links to theforce.net on wiki?)

My little article addition was deleted, because of the contained links. BUT: After this I added my article again WITHOUT any links - and it is again deleted! How will you show the public in an article about fan edits that specific fan edits really exist if you are not allowed by Wiki to show links? But why deleting my article without links? - because there is no proof? That is not logically.

I want to say that I - in contrary to many other fan editors - do not give away copies of my fan edit via internet or other forms of duplication (only original cast and crew members of the original SW movies and the few persons who helped me got a copy), only trailers and photos and documentary articles are "on the air", not the complete fan edit. The links only show these trailers and documentary articles.

Please undelete my short addition of the article (with or without the links).

Thank you very much. VolleyballBernd

Here is the message I received from Wiki concerning the deletion of my article with the links:

Dear VolleyballBernd,

The Wikipedia page "User talk:VolleyballBernd" has been changed on 18 September 2011 by XLinkBot, with the edit summary: BOT - Notifying user of reverted link additions to [[List of changes in Star Wars re-releases]] (first warning) - 2/1/1 - links: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lHdEYERMtuo

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VolleyballBernd&diff=0&oldid=451116654 for all changes since your last visit. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VolleyballBernd for the current revision.

To contact the editor, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XLinkBot

Note that additional changes to the page "User talk:VolleyballBernd" will not result in any further notifications, until you have logged in and visited the page. 

            Your friendly Wikipedia notification system
There is no need for self promotion, nor linking to such movies (primary sources and such). I suggest you to discuss the changes on the talkpage of the article first. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:45, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

you suck

you're not human so can't be insulted, but u do suck :P your 'intelligence' of detecting bad links sucks. go fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.34.157 (talk) 08:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe you should actually read the external links guideline. Sorry, that link is not appropriate. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
that page is too long, and there are hundreds guidelines, so either point to specific paragraph or... anyhow, video is news report about person who had section in the article, so yeah, it's quite relevant. 24.148.34.157 (talk) 08:55, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
News report? Who reported that news, which broadcaster? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
you're right, it appeard like a bad reproduction news report, but isnt'.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.148.34.157 (talk) 09:05, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
No, I mean it likely is a copyrighted video .. 2002, if I see it correctly. Also a long text, but please do read WP:LINKVIO. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:08, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi XLinkBot, This is probably a FAQ but I'll ask it anyway... Could the bot include in its edit summary the specific reason for making an edit? For example, I assume that this edit was due to the links being to foreign language sites contrary to the external link guidelines, but the summary doesn't say that. In this particular case, I suspect the globalness of the term "coolhunting" is a matter of significance; that's a discussion for the article talk page, not yours, but that does raise the question of how the bot judges what is and is not appropriate in the actual context of a (hopefully) human-written article. --Northernhenge (talk) 18:43, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

It says that it is due to a wordpress.com link. Those links are often just blogs, which are part of links to avoid in our external links guideline. It will be difficult to give link-specific reasons, there are about 4-5 reasons why youtube is reverted, you'd have to look which specific reason there is on a link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Creative Commons Licence

Hello, whoever reads this, I added an link https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Anthony_Barnes_Atkinson&diff=453011194&oldid=442493075 to an creative commons license video and mentioned the fact by editing. Please teach your bot to not remove that. Thanks. --93.129.47.32 (talk) 19:07, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

So, there are many other reasons why YouTube is reverted. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:17, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

swans

hey robot,

i filmed some black swans and placed link to youtube in external links section. how am i breaching copyright? should i have asked the swans for permission? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.173.151.174 (talk) 00:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Who said you were breaching copyright (there are many other reasons why youtube is not suitable, like here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Otago University Debating Society

The change in link was due to the factor that the website that was the official OUDS web page has not been updated in recent time, where as the Face book page is now the major form of communication for the OUDS. I understand that this is in contradiction to the Wikipedia links policy but i saw it as more important to provide relevant information than out dated information. i have not reverted the link but have removed the old link as it is no longer relevant to the society. Burke207 (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, it is still the official site apparently. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Flutternutter

I spent alot of time creating what i thought was a correct Wiki page...there are simply way too many guidelines expected to be followed. Instead of completly erasing my work why could I have just been helped through the process. Completly nprofessional flutternutter

Gngmediallc (talk) 16:48, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest you rewrite your page in your userspace, e.g. User:Gngmediallc/Sandbox. Be sure to provide enough references to show your subject is notable. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:23, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

David Barton (author) page

Editor- I have attempted to leave honest comments or edits on 3 occasions, and have attempted to be in line with your guidelines which are somewhat controlled or confusing. My concern is that wikipedia is presenting a rather biased view of Mr. Barton by using references from Rob Boston and a Reverend who are not reliable sources.

David Barton has been extremely honest in dealing with criticism and has for over 10 years provided primary source references in all his writings and videos. I do not understand why wikipedia cannot allow a more fair presentation of Barton and wallbuilders.

sincerely, norm1m — Preceding unsigned comment added by Norm1m (talk • contribs) 16:08, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Note: I have left a note on Norm1m's talk page explaining the nature of a bot, and where to leave his comments. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 16:30, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Mistaken reversion (bug)

On the page Esther alvarenga (now deleted), XlinkBot reverted my addition of a CSD template. It was trying to remove the edit before mine, which had added a link to facebook to the page, and it must've done it just barely after I hit submit; it reverted both my edit and the edit before mine. No big deal, just letting you know there was a concurrency issue, I guess. Writ Keeper (talk) 00:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

That must have been a close-call edit-conflict. XLinkBot has a check if no-one edited since the 'editor-to-revert', but then still a couple of small check will be after that. I saw you reverted, and the page got deleted. I'll have a look whether the check has to be later then where it is currently in the code. Thanks for showing this! --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:54, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

William Regal

Hello you reverted my addition of links to his facebook page and twitter accounts. These are official and confirmed because his WWE profile links to them. Why is it wrong to link to these references? I'm very confused. Cobone (talk) 03:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Well, twitter hardly ever adds anything to a Wikipedia page, and I don't think that the facebook here does add anything either. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:08, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Flint (author)

Hello. I was wondering to please help fix the article Flint (author) so there will be a big chance in it's deletion. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiFoundation (talk • contribs) 09:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I would suggest that you use sources for your additions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:50, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

false positive

The bot is a little too stupid. It reverts added video link under section of the article dedicated to link to video interview. If the policy have change why keep this section ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Lessig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.30.139.86 (talk) 15:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, nope. That edit is totally in line with our policies and guidelines, the page you were editing, however, was not. I have cut down the external links section massively - see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#LINKFARM. We are writing an encyclopedia here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:07, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
So you are the guy who destroy a complete section of usefull informations (interview in video) for the sake of following a guidelines ? Encyclopedia is supposed to be complet and video interview could be part of such knowledge. How could you prefer to loose so much information rather than keeping a week format of it ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.30.139.86 (talk) 13:55, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, see WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#LINKFARM (which is policy, by the way). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
Again, a policy that say "destroy rather having a bad writing" can't be a way to do an encyclopedia. Wikipedia should stop complaining about the lake of new contributor, if each new information is delete if a wikipedien find it in a bad shape. see WP:BURO (which is also policy, by the way). Maybe wikimedia should use notation for each sentence (like [+] in news web site), bot like antispam filter will ajust the credibility of statement, humain could also influence it by votation. This will give a way to measure credibility without removing content so easly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.30.139.86 (talk) 07:24, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
Maybe not a bureaucracy, but also not an anarchy. Those policies are written by many editors, and there may be exceptions here and there, but please try to make clear then why this page should be an exception, and not all other pages on every living and dead person.
If you need the videos of the subject, I suggest you post them to {{dmoz}}, which is, unlike Wikipedia, a directory service, or you use Google. External links are supposed to add something that is a) not covered by the prose in the article itself, or b) by the other external links that were there, and c) when there is information in those external links which is not in the article, it should be added. I am sorry, but I do not believe that all those external links all add something that is not already there. A selection would have been fine, but this was a typical example of a spamhole. "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists in the world or has existed", you can discuss a proper selection on the talkpage. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:01, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
This is just another proof that wikipedia is dying. An expert can't edit a wikipedia article, only a wikipedia expert could. And wikipedia expert prefer to delete information rather than reformulate it. Rules and policies are more important than content to your eyes. XlinkBot was there to remove spam, my edit was not spam ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.30.139.86 (talk) 08:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
You have more prose to add to the article? No-one is stopping you. For more links, yes, that may be. Again, links are not information, we are not a linkfarm. External links are not a place for suggesting more info (that is why we have talkpages). And I do not think that you can show me that ALL those external links were adding ALL something that was not already said by the prose in the article, by other external links, or by other external links in the article. If you believe different, you are free to discuss that on WP:NOT/WP:EL. Maybe you should consider again that we are writing an encyclopedia here.
No, you have the idea of XLinkBot wrong, XLinkBot is not (only) here to revert spam, it is also here to revert links which (in most cases) do not comply with our policies and guidelines, and notify editors of that (as it did with your addition, which simply fails the external links guideline/we are not a repository of links/we are not an internet directory). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:25, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

why???

I do not understand WHY 2 edits were reverted that I did today on 180(2011 American film). There are two places where citation is needed and I inserted a YouTube link in order to supply verification of some stats. So what should I have done??????????????????

--Javaman56 (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The text after your edit was: "Within days, the film 180 had over half a million views on YouTube{watch it here}. On October 18, 2011, 23 days after the film's release, 180 hit one million views on YouTube {watch}."
The sentence reads '.. had over half a million views on YouTube' .. so what needs to be proven, that there are over half a million views on YouTube .. not that the video can be watched somewhere. Now, YouTube would be a primary source here, moreover, that it now has, say, 600.000 views does not prove that it had over half a million views within days. You would need to find an independent source proving that.
More in general, linking to YouTube video's is discouraged, YouTube does tick quite a number of points in WP:ELNO, and I would more consider to use the official website, which is already linked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Misleading welcomes

Not a huge deal, but I thought I should mention that when XLinkBot removes a link and warns a user whose talk page has not yet been created, it leaves a misleading welcome message, like here.

"If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on this page."

Some new users would probably be confused by this, as there really isn't a person behind the message to answer questions. Calabe1992 (talk) 19:42, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I see your point. But there are people behind the bot, it is fine if they come here and ask questions, I, and other talk-page stalkers of XLinkBot will be more than happy to answer any question. In any case, any admin can change the welcome message (it is in the settings, see link on top of this talkpage) - it now uses a standard message, but it can also subst any other template for it. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I know this is only a bot, but still. That revert was just stupid. If that kind of link is "discouraged", why not just remove the whole link rather than revert the old one which is not the real path. The path had probably changed in that website, so I only corrected it. Now there is still the wrong link, but in the same site, which I thought, is 'discouraged' as informed to me. 82.141.64.202 (talk) 00:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I've remove the whole link. See the external links guidelines to see what are suitable links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:05, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Request for whitelisting

Hiya XLinkBot! I would like to suggest whitelisting this section to save any potential confusion. Although I watch the page closely I might lose connection or something else might stop me paying attention so I wouldn't ask for the whole page to be whitelisted (Unless section whitelisting was not possible). I wonder also if you might know a way to avoid triggering the "adding email" tag every time a change is made? Sometimes it is triggered by reverting vandalism. It would be nice to not have so many tags on me I look like a criminal! Thanks for taking the time to scan my bytes! I'm watching this page for your output. -- fgTC 01:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

'@example.com' is already whitelisted. I think that '@cool.example.com' is very subjective, and should be changed into the RFC standard '@example.com' - then the bot will completely ignore it.
I'm not sure what you mean with the 'adding email' tag - do you mean the text in the bots revert, or the one added by the Special:AbuseFilter (the latter is independent from XLinkBot). --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
The use of @cool.example.com demonstrates that more than two dot separated strings may follow the @ sign. I think that while using example.com we should have at least one address with more than one dot after the @. We could use .co.uk if there is an example.co.uk to use.
Yes I mean Special:AbuseFilter. Do you know if we can stop it from tagging the page so often? I fully understand that XLinkBot is not responsible for the tagging but I thought it was worth asking if you (the bot owner) might know a way/workaround. It doesn't really matter a great deal though. I was just wondering. -- fgTC 20:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
Ah, I see the point. While I am not sure if it really needs an example - I'll add '@cool.example.com' to the whitelist - that will not have too many 'false negatives', I think - and if so, the abusefilter will tag them.
I'll have a look at the abusefilter. Not sure if it is an idea to exclude certain pages due to performance-problems. Are there really so many edits to that page that the tagging starts to be excessive? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:57, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

ACA JOE

The old article about ACA JOE fails to mention the rise of its success in the stock world and has the date of 1984 wrong. My updates are constructive. Please stop reverting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jballmann (talk • contribs) 01:12, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

That is not why the bot reverted - the twitter and facebook are superfluous. I have removed them again. May I also suggest you to stop edit warring? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:01, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

Kasi U.P Krishnamachary

I understand that you deleted the page because of some link you mentioned. Now I want to delete that link and repost. How do I do that since I cannot see my post from earlier. I want to get the content I posted back so that I can repost. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jambolik (talk • contribs) 15:03, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Eh, no, the page was deleted because of blatant promotion - that XLinkBot reverted some edits is not necessarily related to that directly. I suggest you ask the admin that deleted the page for a review or solutions (and I see you are already talking to that admin). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:27, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

I fixed a broken (404) link on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_revision_control. Your bot reverted it back to a *broken* version. Your bot should not be touching links if it cannot even check that the edits it makes actually result in a *working* link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.113.170.105 (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Most of the links did not need to be there in the first place (including the one you repaired) - I cleaned out the page. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverting Somerville Community Path page

Hello,

I have revised the Sommerville Community Path Wikipedia page as part of an assignment for one of my college courses. I am quite confident that all of my information is accurate, and I have included sources that I believe comply with the Wikipedia standards. I am wondering why you continue to revert the page to its original form.

Thank you, --Rbw1089 (talk) 00:24, 31 October 2011 (UTC)rbw1089

Please read your user talk page, the answers are there.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 00:28, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Reverting multiple contributions

I'm contributing while researching at Axenstar so I had multiple contributions after each other, when the bot detected the a non-reliable link, it reverted to before my first contribution to the article. so Kindly, can you guys limit the revert to the one with the problem link? StompingBrokenGlass (talk) 12:53, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, both reverting one edit and reverting all edits have problems - generally this has less problems (see User:XLinkBot/FAQ for more), as you can simply undo the bot-edit, but either with fixing the perceived problem or not. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:57, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining and undoing the bot-edit. I will read the FAQ to learn more about the problems :) StompingBrokenGlass (talk) 13:18, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
No, thank you for your contributions. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:54, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Bug in user talk page notice

In this edit, a user tried to add a link which XLinkBot correctly reverted. But in the warning to the user, the bot pasted in the link with all percent-escapes decoded; since this particular link contained %20, that caused the link in the message to be parsed incorrectly. Anomie⚔ 18:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm .. I've seen that before. Have to have a look at that - the problem is indeed that the bots need to decode urls since .. spammers abuse the encoding .. sigh. I'll have a look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:46, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Needs an opening bracket.

Whenever XLinkBot leaves a notice on a talk page about an e-mail address being removed, there is a ")", but no "(" before it. mechamind90 21:45, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Maybe there is something wrong in the settings ... can you give me a quick example? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I sure hope

That bot is doing something useful cause its annoying to have your citation removed by a brainless operation. --Stalfur (talk) 09:30, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sorry? Any specifics? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
Ah - you mean this. Where does it say that he is a lifelong blades fan - how do you know if this is the person's twitter - and how is this a reliable source anyway. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:38, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Robert Miles page on Wikipedia.com

Hi, Yes, that's me. Trying to put some order in the various pages on your platform that talk about me and my work/activities but had many facts errors (i.e. that my father was in the military :) where did they get that?!. I will improve more...and add more details and references in time. Question: why is it ok to have a MySPace link on my page , but not a Facebook link? Aren't they both social networks? And when is the note: "This biography of a living person does not include any references or sources. Please help by adding reliable sources. Contentious material about living people that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately" going to be removed? Thank you for your help. Robcon69 (talk) 18:25, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Well - see WP:EL. MySpace is also discouraged, and listing all is also discouraged. I'll have a look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:14, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Jack Cassidy

i am trying to add new information to Jack Cassidy. I keep getting reprimanded by Baseball Bugs. The information from David Cassidy's book and Shirley and Mary are not correct. I need help. Coconn04 (talk) 22:19, 2 November 2011 (UTC)coconn04

Maybe next time discuss with them in stead of insisting? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:19, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

addition of zoho bugtracker deleted.

I have added Zoho BugTracker as one of the new services in the Zoho Office Suite. This has been deleted. Can you add it? It is a service released in July 2011.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zohobugtracking (talk • contribs)

Not sure why you add that there .. maybe take it to the talkpage of the page where you want to add it? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:01, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Cromwell, NZ

The link I added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cromwell,_New_Zealand, http://mightyclutha.blogspot.com/, is opinionated, but filled with historical photos and details of the Cromwell region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.47.165 (talk) 22:33, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, but I am sorry, we are not writing a linkfarm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:55, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Women's Flat Track Derby Association

I reverted the deletion this bot made to Women's Flat Track Derby Association. That article routinely uses links, both wikilinks and external links, to provide context.I find it unusual that all of a sudden a revision got deleted by the bot. I also note that the amount of editors that edit on that page means that the information will certainly get reinstated by others. Echoedmyron (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Those lists massively violate WP:NOT#DIRECTORY. Moreover, external links are not used in lists like that, their mention is determined by the reference, they do not need an external link - that is the function of a {{dmoz}}, or actual redlinks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:51, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Moreover, the lists are also covered by the templates at the bottom. To avoid duplication I have removed the list. It seems tat the article could use some more cleanup, I have also removed a 'manual'-type statement. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:57, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Fair enough, and you are right about the redundancy in the templates. Roller Derby editors, to generalize, can be a passionate bunch. I try to follow convention and status quo in the articles, knowing that it is an uphill battle to convince some that there are rules to wikipedia formatting. I fully expect someone will get their knickers in a twist thinking that their league has been slighted by the deletion. But it does flow better with the removal of all that. Echoedmyron (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
Such editors should be made aware of WP:SPAM, I am afraid. We are not here to promote their league more or less than any other.
There are many of these cases. And all are passionate. I would suggest you to have a look at e.g. villages and towns in India, they often contain such lists. Also there, massive cleanup or deletion is the way forward, all per WP:NOT. Thanks for the understanding! See you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:07, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Birthday date

Hello. The birthday of Mohammad Reza Golzar(Iranian actor) in English Wikipedia is not correct. It is 1977 but you enter 1974. Please check and correct it. The source of this is Persian Wikipedia, u can see there but it is helical date. 1356(۱۳۵۶)=1977 91.98.223.73 (talk) 11:08, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Eh, do you have a reliable source to support this? We do not regard Wikipedia as a reliable source - how does fa.wikipedia know that the birth-year is 1356? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:13, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

It says that this http://groznijat.tripod.com/fadlan/rorlich2.html is on your list of links to remove. You probably havent payed close attention to the site because then you would have noticed that the entire articles there are sourced and are academic, so logically there should be no reason for your bot to remove them. Please change your setings and I would appreciate it if you would stop removing the link, thank you. Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.232.75.208 (talk) 15:51, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. Maybe you haven't noticed that we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. Try expanding the article with the info, that it is fully sourced is not a reason to add it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:01, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagee, it is useful if someone can go access more general information, dont you think? I think the link should stay. It is illogical to remove itsince the article is sourced, no matter where it came from. Why should the other links stay but not this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smart Nomad (talk • contribs) 14:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

"Some external links are welcome (see What can normally be linked, below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link.", and "Links in the "External links" section should be kept to a minimum. A lack of external links or a small number of external links is not a reason to add external links.", and "If the website or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source for the article, and citing it." .. etc. etc. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Believe me, there are no copyright problems with my link.--86.148.19.169 (talk) 21:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Who was talking about copyright? We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Bug with redirected user talk pages

See [8]. Please fix.Magog the Ogre (talk) 10:37, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the friendly question.
Unfortunately, there is nothing to fix. If an editor gets a new username at 26 September 2010 at 20:18, and then performs an edit at 8 November 2010 at 08:57 using the account User:Amprgroup, and XLinkBot reverts that edit 8 November 2011 at 8:58, then obviously, it leaves a warning (8 November 2011 at 8:58) at User talk:Amprgroup. Amprgroup is the account used to edit, Amprgroup is the account that gets the warning, and hence also the orange banner. Leaving a warning at User talk:VBH2010 obviously would not have reached the editor, as they were using the account Special:Contributions/Amprgroup. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:24, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
I have blocked the old account - I see it was previously not unblocked for username concerns (though the block was for something else), the old account should not be used anymore. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:35, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Oops; that was an oversight by the 'crat who renamed the user. Thanks for the heads up. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Where are my edits?

Hello. I am a new user to Wikipedia but seemed pretty easy to do basic updates until I discovered all of my changes are missing. I edited the Finisar page and all of my changes appeared on the Finisar page. I went back to the page to review it but my updates are gone (even though they are appearing in the View History tab). What happened? Maitusense (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)maitusenseMaitusense (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I saw your note about the link. I now understand why that was changed. But what about the rest of my updates? If you look at the history, you can see that I contributed other information that appeared on the site but is gone. How can I get posted again? Maitusense (talk) 13:15, 13 November 2011 (UTC)Maitusense

Thanks for the question. Your edits are in the history, see here (you get there from the 'history' tab at the top of a page). What XLinkBot suggests in the message when you have good edits, but there is a link where XLinkBot complains about, is to consider to 'undo' the edit by the bot, but remove the links before you save. In the history-list, you see all the edits, and an '(undo)' after every line. You click the 'undo' behind the XLinkBot edit, you get an edit window, you repair and save (I did this all for you - see here - Three of the external links are superfluous to the first one). Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:46, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Why MY Change is removed

I Change I link from Facebook.com/diljit.net to facebook.com/OfficialDiljit but it has been reverted

First Adress is Fake and second is official please change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gurjinder.romana (talk • contribs) 04:01, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the question. Sorry, but neither were appropriate, and it seems both were removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:52, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

False positive

This one shouldn't have been reverted, as the IP corrected the link. --The Evil IP address (talk) 15:49, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I removed the twitter altogether. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

AUDIO-VIDEO

I wish to question the policy against links to audio and video, if these are relevant to understanding.[[9]] seems to give a graphic idea of what is unusual about the Deh Cho Bridge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.108.61.148 (talk) 22:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, if there is something special about the bridge, then the article should first tell about it. We are not a linkfarm to tunnel people to more info, we try to write an encyclopedia. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:01, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

another false positive

please see my revert. Maybe add this page to a whitelist/ignore list... mabdul 16:39, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm .. I would strongly suggest to use the ISO standard '@example.com' for email address examples, that one is already ignored. Would that not be a better solution? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:55, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
No since the article is explaining different email addresses... mabdul 20:33, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

False Positive

Hi, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tab_Two&oldid=462729004 was uncalled for. I re-reverted to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tab_Two&oldid=462729890 - Please note that their Facebook and twitter accounts are currently the only official "web sites" of Tab Two., so the links should stay, as per Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided: 

Links normally to be avoided
Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should generally avoid
[...]
10. Links to social networking sites (such as Myspace and Facebook)[...]

-- 188.105.123.98 (talk) 13:18, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! That is why the bot suggests to revert it when it makes such mistakes. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:27, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

logo change

Hi, i work at MIBT and the logo on the MIBT wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne_Institute_of_Business_and_Technology) is incorrect and needs to be updated. I am not sure how to do this.

can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mibtnavitas (talk • contribs) 04:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you will need to upload a new image. See Special:Upload and Wikipedia:Upload. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

WP:UWTEST update

Hi XLinkBot – or, more accurately, all human XLinkBot talk page lurkers... :)

Just giving you a heads-up about the latest update on our template testing. Please peruse when you have a minute. Thanks! Maryana (WMF) (talk) 05:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! Any complaints so far? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:55, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Whim

guys guys so much work goes in those edits and then they are wiped out by somebody-s or machines whim. you will loose lots of contributors this way i am very discouraged as it hapens again and again. maybe you will write it all by yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.237.107.98 (talk) 22:02, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your remark, and for your contributions. I think the remark left by the bot on your talkpage tells you what to do next, and that is also what you did. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot malfunctions on article title with Vietnamese character

Twice now, this bot has tried to revert a change to Tết and wound up creating a new page at Tết. Known bug? Melchoir (talk) 04:35, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Curious, normally it just fails on those. I will try and have a look again. Thanks for the remark! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:57, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Beachgolf

Hi! Sorry for my inappropiate link! I would like to ask you why the page Beachgolf was proposed to deletion. Do you think I can d something to improve it? I read on 2nd of December it could be delete. Could you help me please?--Bgsa (talk) 11:50, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes .. you could have addressed the concerns. You still have a chance, maybe you could rewrite it in your userspace as User:Bgsa/Beachgolf, and when you think it is fine, ask for a review. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Hallo! The article Salton that I'm making is related to the article it:Selton that already exist. I've saved the article before have finished it, I'm sorry. --Lorenzo Cini (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Selton

Excuse me for my error, I've just modified the article according to the rules. Please don't delete it. --Lorenzo Cini (talk) 20:44, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Incoterms Wikipage

Have added a link to the Incoterms page and it's removed by the XLinkBot I think this was not correct because the webste that I have added is a nice extra to the Wikipage. Website that I am trying to link is www.Incoterms2010.tk.

Signed :Ted Eilers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Eilers (talk • contribs) 14:32, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Link to an extra Web site has been removed (by mistake?) by XLinkBot although this is no SPAM at all (well, I don't think so?).

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

Reverting link addition(s) by 194.254.163.15

Can you kindly double check? Thanks and regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.244.55.231 (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Most Interesting Man in the World

Hello, I am hoping that you could overcheck the section (Popular Culture) that I created for The Most Interesting Man in the World. I understand why you took down the link, but I did not think it was necessary to delete the Popular Culture section of the article. It is completely accurate and gives the reader more information behind the impact the advertisement had on popular culture. I was also going to add more information in that section, such as about "The World's Most Interesting Analyst". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdogk (talk • contribs) 20:47, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Your bot seems to be programmed to remove youtube external links--well they are all external links. The problem is, your bot is doing it blindly. In the case of List of world records in masters athletics‎, it has removed video documentation of the world records. This is privately shot, non-commercial footage. I didn't shoot it, I don't know who did. But I had to revert your bot, as did the original poster after the bot came back. I do know there was no exclusivity on shooting the event, no TV contract. As the wikipedia credentialed reporter at this particular event, I do know more than the average person about this situation, but the point is, your bot isn't and doesn't. So please reconfigure your bot to stop removing youtube links. They are not universally spam. Your programming on a bot needs to take care of universally recognized problems, not to do destructive work, even in a relatively small percentage of its edits. Two bad edits are two too much. Trackinfo (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not connected with the bot, but I noticed your comment. I have not checked the links you mention but am happy to accept your statement that they are encyclopedic and helpful. However, the bot is indispensible—check Special:Contributions/XLinkBot to see that it reverts a lot of dubious link additions. As you saw, the bot leaves a friendly message on the user's talk page and invites the user to undo the bot. The bot is not perfect, and there are occasionally problems, but it has enormous support from the many editors who work to reduce occurrences of spam in Wikipedia. New users often add inappropriate links (e.g., not encyclopedic, promotional, copyvios), and the bot is essential to keep these under control. It's rather unusual for an article to include links to youtube videos. Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

December 2011

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Evacuate (band), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Ramaksoud2000 (talk) 12:56, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Verify this page-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/s_Australia_test_records

I have worked hard on making this page and now this has to be verified I believe that all the given information is correct up to my knowledge.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/s_Australia_test_records

--Retwickr (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Retwickr

RE:December 2011

Thank you for the generous note. I took the link to the Frog Scouts outta the Robin the Frog page myself actually. So what else can I do around here? -- 71.184.193.224 (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I just created my own account here by the way!! Thanks again for that nice note!! -- Grouches101 (Send a note then scram!! P.S. Have a rotten day!!!!) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

baby; bathwater

In edits like this, your bot removes not only the suspect external link (in this case, it's actually fine, but that's not why I'm writing), but also good content. Can you fix your bot so it removes the links in question, and doesn't revert edits with multiple changes, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see User:XLinkBot/FAQ. It turns out that many edits that add inappropriate links are best totally reverted, although there are cases such as the one you mention where it would have been better to do things differently. Discussions on this in the past have established that the current behavior is best, overall, and the problems that occur are easily fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Hopefully this behavior has been fixed, but I just ran across a really bad example from June 2010 at [10] in an article that I just had undeleted/userfied. Four extensive good faith edits were reverted and I don't even know which URL the bot thought was spam. That's the same kind of behavior that gets a person furious with human deletionists, and a bot doesn't deserve as much consideration. Wnt (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, there is nothing to fix, it is a setting explained in the FAQ. And I don't think that the bot considered the edits in bad faith, and it is ánd in the message left on the talkpage. Reverting only one edit often breaks way more than reverting all edits, and it is not changing anything regarding whether the links were added in good faith or not.
@Pigsonthewing: So, spammers just have to make sure they add their links while also making random changes elsewhere.
@Wnt: Also note, that the bot does not think that something is spam, it finds links inappropriate for use on Wikipedia (and yes, it may make mistakes, like any antivandalism bot makes mistakes). And I don't get that you don't see what link the bot was tripping over, it is very obvious, and while the offending link was maybe already gone, there are several other links which I would personally also have removed without question. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Bot reverts two edits when only one contains an email

Please correct this malfunction. --JonathonSimister (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Please see User:XLinkBot/FAQ. --Versageek 02:26, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The Fantage Wiki

Hi, you removed the link I added (The Fantage Wiki!) on Fantage. The link was the official wiki of the website. It was made by the betas(The first users of Fantage), for information of the site. That was not needed to be removed. Please add the link back. Thank You. Fantagefan's User Page♥♥♥Duh, my talk page♥♥♥My Contributions! 17:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, there are many complaints about this bot. please fix it. Thank you. Fantagefan's User Page♥♥♥Duh, my talk page♥♥♥My Contributions! 17:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

Oops, I forgot. Is there anyway for me to be sysops???

Replied to below. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

?

I really don't get it. YKTS You've got it? (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)
Me neither. What are you talking about? Could you provide specific links or diffs? --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Salinas del Manzano Article - Remove Photo Galery

Hi, I don't Understand why you remove this link to a personal Photo Galery. This is public and it has not any copyright.

This link that you are removing contain media information relative to the Village, please undo your remove actiton.

Thanks in advanced Marcos PD. I work in the Salinas del manzano's town hall, and we want show all the people, how is the Village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcosPas7 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, if the work is public and does not have a copyright, then why not upload some images for use on Wikipedia. We do not have to link to every page which contains images of a subject, we tell about a subject and show some informative images. We are not a linkfarm or an internet directory. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

wrong

Thanks for your apparently well-intentioned edit, but the link you removed was a useful one which contained information not available in electronic form elsewhere. I'm not sure why you think it was wrong; your edit summary was not very informative: it said very little other than "I didn't like your link, here are some possible reasons I might not have liked it." I would like to suggest that you actually read the link you deleted before deleting it-- http://zagria.blogspot.com/2010/08/jessica-amanda-salmonson-1950-writer.html -- before deciding it's not useful, but, of course, you're a robot, and don't know how to read. This is the reason robots should not be allowed to edit an encyclopedia. 108.81.78.48 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, thank you, but I also really suggest that you should first read the external links guideline and other policies and guidelines before reverting the bot again. Sure, you may be right, but, really, by far the most of the blogspots added are not suitable for linking, and I think the bot here just did that, tell you that blogspots are most of the time unsuitable, and hence removed it, told you of the concerns, and asked you to take those into account. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

removing "emails" that aren't emails

The bot recently made an edit reverting the addition of a file that contained the "@" symbol, despite not being an email address. See this diff. I suggest that the bot be programmed to check that the "email address" does not end with common file formats (I would assume .jpg, .bmp, .gif, and probably more formats that I've never heard of). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the message! I see your concern, and to a certain extend that is possible, but this is something that does not happen very often (also take into account that the edit needs to be done by an IP or unconfirmed account, the bot ignores all the rest), and it would further complicate an already pretty complex regex (there are many common file formats). This also happens with some other things which look like emails as well (I recall a concert of an artist which looked like 'artist@somewhere.something'). Also, I could think of an email address like '@converter.jpg.com'. It is one of the reasons why the bot is programmed to be very, very soft, and the editor probably only got a remark with sincere apologies. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:48, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
That sounds reasonable. Obviously it's not a big deal (the user simply reverted the bot's edit right away), and it sounds like it would be a bit too complex to make those changes without them causing their own problems! Thanks for the reply! MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Reverting is exactly what the bot suggests and what should be done if the bot really made a mistake. And you're welcome, and thank you for keeping an eye on things. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Really?

No one is answering! ♥♥♥Duh, my talk page♥♥♥My Contributions! 02:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Regarding your earlier query, you may revert the bot if you believe the link should remain, and the process for becoming an administrator can be found at WP:ADMIN. Also, Please remove the image from your signature, images are not permitted in signatures. --Versageek 02:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, with the picture, someone did it on a wiki, and I thought it was impressive. I will add the link back. I will make some more edits for adminship, and more. FantageFan♥♥♥Duh, my talk page♥♥♥My Contributions! 22:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
Well, Wikis are hardly every suitable, and I see the official link is already there. We are not a linkfarm or an internet directory. I would also remove the link (will have a look later). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Solomon Curtis

hello, is my reference ok for my article "Solomon Curtis" now? :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dogsoli (talk • contribs) 09:02, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

No, not really. See the boxes that are on the page now. I'm not sure if this all is enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:28, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

Thankyou for your inputs. I have removed the unappropriate external links from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CK-12_Foundation and undone the revert. In future will make sure that I keep the guidelines in mind while editing the content.

--Alishashares (talk) 10:29, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Thank you for the remark. It is nice to see your understanding. Welcome to Wikipedia, happy editing, and I hope to see you around. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:01, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Adding notability to Phatt (Ricardo Burgrust)

Hi, I made some changes to add notability to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phatt_(Ricardo_Burgrust). I think it's better now, but could you give me some more advice on that?

Thanks in advance.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HeartsContentLisa (talk • contribs) 17:06, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, the bot, nor I, are specialists on the subject. Maybe you can find members in a suitable WikiProject (see Wikipedia:WikiProject)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Odd bot behaviour

With this edit on Vickers Vimy, while removing an external link, your bot also replaced £10,000 with £10,000 and mangled a couple of categories, breaking them. Can you check out this problem?Nigel Ish (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Done, character encoding problem, reverted most edits that I found with problems. Thanks for letting us know. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:12, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Today, XLinkBot also mangled character encoding all over the Dick Tracy page in an (already incorrect) edit. Totoro33 (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
As I said, already reverted. Dick Tracy contains quite a linkfarm, maybe more cleanup then already done should be applied. I have tagged the article with {{linkfarm}}. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:23, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's one that wasn't caught. Lot's of funky typos: [11] — kwami (talk) 02:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

False positive

Bot reported User:114.160.71.146 for facebook links, but recent edits don't seem to be doing that. Perhaps the algorithm needs tweaking. It looks like they used to do so, but the edits today do not contain such problems. --Jayron32 03:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

No, this is not a false positive, in this edit they absolutely did add a facebook link. The bot did have a bit of a lag, but the edit was performed at 3:15, and XLinkBot reverted at 4:33 and reported the editor at 4:34 (the bot noted that there were already a spam3 and an older spam4im on the talkpage of the user (in fact, way more than that, there are series of those warnings), the bot did not bother to warn the editor), but flagged it for admin attention immediately. Maybe another warning is warranted, I agree that a block does not seem appropriate here. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Another false positive

See [12]. What part of "Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject" do you not understand? Twitter links are ok if they are controlled by the article's subject. That's why we have {{Twitter}} template missing ID and not present in Wikidata. ? Removing all added Twitter links is overkill. --212.112.122.2 (talk) 17:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I understand that, but I also understand: "Wikipedia does not attempt to document or provide links to every part of the subject's web presence or provide readers with a handy list of all social networking sites. Complete directories lead to clutter and to placing undue emphasis on what the subject says." - The, although official, twitter of the subject here does not tell anything that is not told by the page itself, and/or by the other links. This link simply fails, and I have therefore removed it again. And we have {{Twitter}} because that formats the links in an easy way, not because we then have to use it to link twitter everywhere possible. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

False positive

Hi there. Thank you for your bot which sounds very helpful in some cases. In this one I've reverted your change because the IP's additions need to be evaluated and might be beneficial to the article. Thank you. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:47, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

All of this anonymous user's edits were helpful and have been used in the article (except one redirect). I can see a lot of reports here which may have been made in error, but I do believe the above report was real. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, this one was real - a bug in the bot that tells XLinkBot to revert. I have rollbacked all top-edits of XLinkBot that suffered that error. I am sorry for the inconvenience. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem. Glad you have fixed it already. Best wishes. -SusanLesch (talk) 18:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Update: new user warning test results available

Hi (robotic) WP:UWTEST member, we wanted to share a quick update on the status of the project. Here's the skinny:

  1. We're happy to say we have a new round of testing results available! Since there are tests on several Wikipedias, we're collecting all results at the project page on Meta. We've also now got some help from Wikimedia Foundation data analyst Ryan Faulkner, and should have more test results in the coming weeks.
  2. Last but not least, check out the four tests currently running at the documentation page.

Thanks for your interest, and don't hesitate to drop by the talk page if you have a suggestion or question. Maryana (WMF) (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Yet another false positive

This edit reverted a good DAB link made by an anon. I have already reverted. Shouldn't the bot 1) be explaining why it's reverting (what triggered the revert) and 2) have a mechanism to tell it that it was misbehaving? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Robert Sweet redirects to Robert Sweet (musician). If you want to stop the bot, set Robert Sweet (back) to a disambiguation page. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:08, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
Ooops, it looks like the bot has a problem. See its recent edits which, regardless of their merits, seem totally unrelated to its purpose. I suspect the bot should be stopped until this is investigated (although I have to go away for a while and haven't really investigated). Johnuniq (talk) 04:33, 21 January 2012 (UTC)
I shut down the bot until Beetstra has a chance to look at the problem. --Versageek 04:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I am a bit ashamed, I had a big bug in the linkwatcher (the bot that actually feeds XLinkBot). What XLinkBot was saying was actually right, what it did was wrong. The LinkWatcher reported link additions that were not there, causing a revert instruction to XLinkBot, who did just that, revert. I have a) solved the bug, and b) added a check to XLinkBot whether the link was actually added. XLinkBot is now running with editing turned off, and I will have a good look on the fake-reverts it does now for a couple of edits before turning it back on. Thanks for catching this. All the top-edits should at least be reverted for .. I don't know how long (probably all those where the bot did not report a link, but did revert). Again, my apologies. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:35, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I made a list of 129 items to be checked at User:Johnuniq/Sandbox. I'm just telling you to avoid duplication, but I haven't done anything yet. However, I will probably be able to check and fix any problems soon. Johnuniq (talk) 04:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
I have finished the above (most already reverted by Beetstra, but I did some more cleaning and checked that where XLinkBot was reverted that the edits were good, and removed/replaced warnings on user talk pages). Johnuniq (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Johnuniq, and again sorry for the inconvenience. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Kill it Kid

This bot completelyreversed the page I was editing for no apparent reason other than I hadn't tagged references correctly (now done). Very annoying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.168.6 (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, I edited the page again to remove a handful of inappropriate links. Happy editing. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:59, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

XLinkBot behaving badly in e-book article

Please look at what the bot did to the e-book article. It replaced a spam link after being legitimately removed twice, once by itself. I don't understand its reasoning and inconsistency with this link. --Ds13 (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting this. Strange, it went wrong earlier. For the previous revert, there are two additions, and XLinkBot seems only to have reverted the first one (maybe the second one was some kind of edit conflict), leaving one. The spammer then removed the second additions, added it again somewhere else (triggering the bot again), and XLinkBot reverted back to the previous version where the link was there (it should have tripped over the edit of Bonadea who already reverted the editor ..). A strange combination of edits there. Anyways, the editor is blocked (rightfully), unfortunately that will not deter the spam.
Sorry for the inconvenience. I'll try to see why it failed to detect Bonadea's edit, that should not have happened. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. --Ds13 (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

False alarm

In this edit XLinkBot misinterpreted a Google Books reference as www.graciasoberana.tk. Bizarre! -- 202.124.74.208 (talk) 12:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

The link was there, I'll have a double check. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Funny type of bizarre - if you see this, the link is not there. Hence 'you added it' .. indeed a bit of a bizarre error, will think about a solution for this. Sorry for the inconvenience, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:58, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Oh, I see what happened -- the link had been there a long time, but an accidental malformed ref tag in one of my edits hid the link, and when I fixed the problem, the bot thought I was inserting it. However, instead of removing the bad link it reverted my innocent edit. -- 202.124.74.208 (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, it fits all the bot's parameters. Not sure how I can circumvent this. It would not happen too often anyway, but it is an annoying error. Thanks for the understanding and the report! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Ellenki College of Engineering and Technology

Thank you. Regarding this edit

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ellenki_College_of_Engineering_and_Technology&diff=476600124&oldid=476600073

I was just undoing the vandalism so added back link to the banned .tk site. The bot removed my version and added back a version which contained link to an adult site. I have removed both the links now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.99.208.2 (talk) 06:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the nonsense at Ellenki College of Engineering and Technology. I will watch the article for a while to see it does not return. Johnuniq (talk) 07:08, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Joy Williams of The Civil Wars

I reverted the Bot's action. Here's why. Tonight, Joy Williams of The Civil Wars won two Grammy Awards for "Barton Hollow". I added two, (only two), links of official videos which were uploaded by THE CIVIL WARS. I feel quite certain the Civil Wars group will be extremely happy to have those links included since they will help people learn what type of music they play. Please let a human being examine the links and see if they are appropriate. They are. Also, Wikipedia users want to see a couple examples of work done by Grammy winners. Like I said, please check the links. They are appropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.30.94.19 (talk • contribs)

I have re-removed the video's, I am sorry, they still fail WP:EL on multiple points (we do not need to link to all items on a subject, they do not improve your knowledge of the subject of the page, and they are not 'direct' (they are on the songs, maybe, but not on the artist). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:09, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 February 2012

i was personally involved in this program. and want to remove information that is extraneous, unsubstantiated and irrelevant.


P5000 (talk) 04:48, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure which protected page you want to edit, and what link you are thinking about? Could you please explain? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:21, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

RE:February 2012

I was just trying to put the link for the proof of 21 episodes in Jessie. Because it says "20" episodes, and everytime I try to change it to 21, someone changes it. So I got proof that they ordered 21 episodes. Thank you. --90.210.131.48 (talk) 11:47, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Proof? On Wikia? That is an open wiki, just like Wikipedia, and Wikipedia (which is much bigger than the separate Wikia-wikis), says that there is, and I quote: "WIKIPEDIA MAKES NO GUARANTEE OF VALIDITY". I am sorry, you'll have to find a better source than that. For more info, please see WP:RS and WP:V. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:56, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Responding to your post

Hello and thanks for your comments on my page. I responded there, so that I could utilize the "help me" box, but I figure you're the best person to address my questions. What I wrote is lengthy; you can scan it or just know that it boils down to this: Is an official Facebook page, Twitter, MySpace, or YouTube channel that is run by the subject of the Wiki article ever allowed to be posted as an official link under the "External links section", per WP:ELOFFICIAL, WP:BLP, and WP:TWITTER? Or will it always be taken down by an automatic bot that "reacts" to facebook.com, twitter.com, etc., no matter whether they are official or not? Thanks for your time... none of this is urgent... Kasamoto (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)Kasamoto

Replied to user on their user talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Distributor2012/Sandbox

User:Distributor2012/Sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Distributor2012/Sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Distributor2012/Sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Begoon talk 10:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Heh. XLinkBot substantially contributing to a page. Funny sequence of edits, you may want to notify the 'owner' of the Sandbox instead. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Yeah - sorry. I'll blame Twinkle - or something. I must have had the "notify major contributors" check-box ticked. The owner is notified... Begoon talk 11:12, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
No problem! It's actually kind of funny how XLinkBot created the page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
I remember now. Here's the sequence:
  • XlinkBot posts on the users talk page, creating it
  • User blanks it
  • User creates article on talk page - copies and pastes it to mainspace
  • I go to talk to them about the article, and move the article draft out of the way to sandbox so I can use the talkpage to talk. I probably shouldn't have moved it, but I wanted to preserve his draft history for him, and didn't check if there was any other history - mea culpa.
So the history goes over with the move. QED, or something... Begoon talk 11:23, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Furthermore, now I think it through, had I not checked the "major contributors" box, only XlinkBot would have been notified... Begoon talk 11:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Nice reverts man, keep it going Pass a Method talk 23:06, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

I am getting ready to undo the XLinkBot revert from the Joy Williams article

There is no copyright violation. The Poison and Wine video was uploaded by THE CIVIL WARS themselves. They want it to be seen. Also, I did not put the link in the body of the article, but in the external link section. Look at my talk page about The CIVIL WARS. I was told that putting it in the External Links was the correct and approved way to do it, so I did. Please do not delete. Thanks.(UTC)

"They want it to be seen". Could you please read through WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:19, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello, why are Twitter links not allowed in Billy Sharp but are allowed in Amanda Palmer when quoting the source of a statement. --Stalfur (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, this is a question for the reliable sources noticeboard. My personal answer: twitter as a reference is very, very limited. It is only suitable as a reference for 'a said b' - where the post in the (confirmed!) twitter feed of 'a' actually said 'b'. That being said, the statement 'she is known as 'Amanda Fucking Palmer' should not, in any form, have a primary source as a reference, only secondary sources. I'm going to have a second look at that part.
But .. I'm not seeing where it is not allowed in Billy Sharp. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:56, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Facebook

I had provided on Miranda Lambert's Wiki page a link to her official page for Facebook. Is there a reason this is not allowed i can see if it wasn't her official Facebook page. I won't undo the changes till i get word on whether i was in the wrong or if it was misinterpreted as spam which to me it's not.--Tobyhoney (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The guideline is WP:ELOFFICIAL. Official links are allowed, but it is not our goal to link to all official web identities of a subject. Moreover, there is already the official website of Miranda Lambert, which prominently links to her Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and Myspace (and more). I am afraid that the facebook link is here superfluous to the official site. Moreover, facebook links often tend to be less informative, most of the encyclopedic information on a Facebook page is often already incorporated in the Wikipedia page, and much of the rest is found on the official website.
It generally turns out that if the facebook is the only official, or the most-prominent web-presence of a subject, that it then is a good link (a must!) in the external links section (A WP:ELYES - though for many subjects which only have a facebook, WP:N may be questionable), and that on a very, very small portion of those where facebook is not the most prominent web-presence it acts as a good secondary official link.
It most certainly is not spam! XLinkBot is designed to help us 'keeping out' links which fail our external links guidelines, and facebook very often does fail that guideline. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification on that much appreciated and i now see your point. --Tobyhoney (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi

Hi my name is jai

M.r/M.rs XLinkBot Plzzzzzzz Unblock my ip address

i have been blocked...

This time i promise that i will not create any problem with any page My ip address is 182.183.128.0/17

For Unblocking Special:Unblock/182.183.128.0/17 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ali9809 (talk • contribs) 15:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism in Commander Keen

I added a chapter with a table of the best games' speedruns. This bot keeps removing them. Please tune this thing, or add Commander Keen to the ignore list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.33.5 (talk) 11:27, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

No, please read the warning. The links to youtube are inappropriate and unnecessary. Moreover, you are edit warring - please discuss your edits on the talkpage. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:17, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

muchas gracias

muchas gracias por la bienvenida estamos en contacto — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zalao (talk • contribs) 22:32, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome! --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

That's ok, you can send my link back. I'm a Google page as far as I know. Good luck on facebook.

Scott Lord— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakerstreetcarfaxabbey (talk • contribs)

I should probably point you to our policy on 'what Wikipedia is not' and to our conflict of interest guideline. I am sorry, but that is not a suitable external link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Drumming on "Sunshine of Your Love"

You are just preposterous. I had an interesting point, from an expert perspective, on a popular subject. I just tried to include a link for people to listen to the song. Too silly, you. Am I writing to a robot? Poop. Forget it. Wikipedia stinks. Too hard to be nice. Wikipedia's loss. Bye. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbuktom (talk • contribs) 03:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

'I just tried to include a link for people to listen to the song' - and that is just one of the reasons that YouTube is reverted, it goes against the goals that we have. Moreover, part of your addition is plain original research. I have however reverted the bot on a part of the edit, and cleaned it up. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Garbo edit

Hi XLinkBot, Can you explain the Garbo edit you made today, March 5th, 2012? Can't figure it out. Thanks, --Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Or rather, what Bakerstreetcarfaxabbey did that you then undid. I think I owe you thanks. And why were these major edits rather than minor?--Classicfilmbuff (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

You mean this revert? Bakerstreetcarfaxabbey there added a blogspot link, and blogspot links are discouraged per our external links guideline.
Somehow, I have seen this stuff before, not too long ago. I'll have a look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:50, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, 2 edits above. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:51, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

User_talk:92.30.168.62#March_2012

As the person in fact involved rather than the person who manages the above Talk Page but apparently sharing Wikipedia identity, you will see that I wrongly replied to your comments on that Talk Page today 6 March. I have now on the same day made clear the fact that it does not in fact relate to the Talk Page in question, but have left the text on that Talk Page if you wish to see what I said (if you wish to remove this altogether from the other article page, then I can contribute the same text to yourself here if you wish to have it, in the meantime I can assure you that the text of your edit of the article in question has been left unchanged.) Thank you for your advice to myself, and I am sorry that it seems that this sort of thing is possible so long as I use my own name. Peter Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.30.203.90 (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean here. The bot reverted an edit and left that IP a remark about the why. It says that if you are now using that IP, but did not make the edit, then please ignore it, since it was meant for another person. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:45, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Gastonia Grizzlies, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Abhijay What did I do this time? 15:00, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Vandalism, no - please have a good look at what the bot is suggesting the editor it reverted, and why. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:47, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

You are just blind undoing non-authorized edits

Sorry but this bot just reverted my valid link adding to an article. I have a user account too, maybe logging in is required (????) but hope that you'll see the benefit of not just reverting blindly anonomous edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.179.142 (talk) 22:21, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

And you are blindly reverting this bot - have you read the remark the bot left you? I have re-reverted and removed more youtube links - note that that page is basically unreferenced, and should be rewritten. Please have a look at the policies and guidelines of this site. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

hello and help

Hello XLinkBot,

I'm new to wikipedia, and tried to add some content to the item "dhimay". A lot of changes, I made, disappeared, others are still there. Obviously I made some mistakes. Would it be possible to restore some of the content (leaving the links aside for now)? Maybe we could do that quickly together?

Best --Interlocking (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2012 (UTC)interlocking

Hi. I see that you basically did what the bot suggested, revert the bot, but leave out the 'offending' link - this is the difference and probably the edit that tripped the bot: multiple diffs - I think the bot was right, that is not really an appropriate way to write, nor appropriate data in an encyclopedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

in addition to my last posting

Hi, I checked the changes: As far as I can see, you reverted the current version (with the link to youtube) to the previous version. Doing this, you have not only removed the link but a lot of changes, I made. Could you possibly undo this change and I will delete the youtube-link.

Best --Interlocking (talk) 15:14, 10 March 2012 (UTC)interlocking

Did not notice you posted again, I've combined the two posts here, answered above. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:53, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

revision done

Hi, I got it. I reverted the version manually and removed the youtube link. Now, it looks nice and clean. Sorry for the fuzz. Best --Interlocking (talk) 15:32, 10 March 2012 (UTC)interlocking

See above. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:54, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy

The reason I removed Scott Rigell from the list of board members for the Emergency Committee for Israel is because he is not and has never been on the board of, involved, or in any way affiliated with the group. Reverting this edit ensures that a factual inaccuracy remains on this group's page. Secondly, I added one of the group's most recent projects, since the most recent one was from six months ago. Is there a good reason that edit was reverted too? Sternja (talk) 16:15, 13 March 2012 (UTC)sternja

The bot reverted all your edits (as per its settings, see User:XLinkBot/FAQ), so that is why everything was reverted. It tripped over an edit where you included a youtube in the external links - and I would also argue that that is not a suitable external link. I have therefor reverted the bot, but without inclusion of the youtube channel link. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks very much. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sternja (talk • contribs) 18:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm just getting started on Wikipedia. A link to a YouTube video I posted was removed. Do YouTube videos violate Wikipedia's copyright rules? If so, I'll be more careful in the future.

Thanks

--Activism1234 (talk) 04:44, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Activism1234

They sometimes do (and unfortunately relatively more often for the interesting youtube links than for the uninteresting ones). However, that is not the only problem that sometimes happens with youtube, see WP:ELNO for more info about that. Some YouTube links do pass, if you think it does, you could re-insert it, if you are unsure, please discuss it on the talkpage of the page where you think the link would be of interest (I'll have a look now). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:16, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. It works perfectly if I just use a YouTube link as a reference, instead of linking to it? When would I primarily link to something (other than it being a Wikipedia page) instead of referencing it? Thanks! --Activism1234 (talk) 05:50, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
If XLinkBot detects it is used as a reference, it will not revert it (except for the links which are also reference-reverted, which is a minor group, youtube is not on there). Generally, statements should be properly referenced, following the verifiability policy and reliably source guideline. External links should only be added if they are not already used as references, and when they contain information that is adding to the page (and preferably information that could not be added to the page); of course there are some hard restrictions, e.g. never knowingly link to information that is in violation of copyright, even if it would meet inclusion standards. External links practically always go into the external links section, not in the prose itself. Some external links have a very high ratio of failing the inclusion standards for being an external link, and quite some of those are reverted by the bot (with some restrictions, it is not really forcing the link out, it generally reverts only once on a page and not upon re-insertion etc.).
For references the standards are different, it should be reliable information. For YouTube there it would need to be a video from a official source (and again, it should not be copyvio).
Don't worry too much about the policies and guidelines, you'll pick it up while you are going, and XLinkBot will soon ignore you. I hope this explains a bit more. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, it does!--Activism1234 (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Curious

Just undid this edit from XLinkBot and I'm curious, why is geocities a bad link? Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 09:34, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Geocities as an external link is often a 'bad' link - although there are some more-or-less official sites on geocities, most of them are not. XLinkBot is reverting editors who add such links which have a (very) high chance of failing our external links guidelines, and notifies them of the problems and issues with the links, and then gives them the suggestion that if the bot makes a mistake that the bot can (and should) be reverted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:21, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I understand how the bot operates. I was just a little surprised that geocities was on its list of bad links. My experience has been that geocities links are not always RS, but not something worth reverting over as an external link. You live and learn, I suppose. Thanks for your edits to the article. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 11:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Many webhosts are on its list. And with free webhosts we do see quite some cases where someone makes a website and adds them just because they overlap in subject (without that the information of the page adds anything to Wikipedia), or even, they are just plainly used to create spammy pages which are added (part of the recent 'Commission Breakthrough' spam was using a webhost where one can make a simple page quickly and use it to spam). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:24, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it does. Thanks for taking the time. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 13:45, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Problems with your bot

Please have a look at this. [13]

The user has made two edits, out of which the first edit is a perfectly valid edit. In the second edit, the user has added links to flickr. Instead of undoing the second edit, your bot has rolled back both the edits.

Looking forward for your reply. --Anbu121 (talk me) 21:18, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This is actually a bot-setting, both options (reverting/undoing one edit vs. undoing all edits by a user) have their 'problems'. The remark left on the user talkpage explains what to do, the FAQ linked from the top and the remark from the bot explains the issues. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:58, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Unicode

Whoever runs this, you might want to check what's causing this.—Ryulong (竜龙) 07:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look one of these days. Annoying, it seems to 'forget' encoding somewhere. --

For some reason, 'Australian Business Traveller' (www.AusBT.com.au) has been placed on a list of 'unreliable sources' and links to articles citing AusBT as a reference are being automatically removed. It should be noted that AusBT is a news-based online publication employing professional journalists, not a blog run by amateurs nor a forum which circulates rumour. The site regularly breaks stories related to travel and aviation, attends media conferences and famils with airlines and the content is on a par with comparative publications already in Wikipedia's link-approved 'reliable source' list such as Business Traveller, The Sydney Morning Herald, The Australia, AAP and others. I'd appreciate if this could be addressed and am happy to provide additional information as needed. Djsflynn (talk) 09:57, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

The above editor has a COI with AusBT as the are the Editorial Director of it. Bidgee (talk) 10:24, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
see diff. I would really consider my options, Djsflynn, read WP:REFSPAM and consider the existence of our spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:27, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Righto guys – I've checked those links and read the information. 1. So I take it that while I can't cite and link to AusBT due to COI, anybody else can? 2. Is Wiki's earlier assessment of AusBT as an 'unreliable source' still in place - and if so, what type of information or examples of content do you need for that to be reconsidered? Djsflynn (talk) 20:22, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Re 1) No, you in principle can, but seen that most of the edits have been reverted, I would certainly try to way of discussion first, and try to fully understand the underlying policies which results in the reversion. 2) You could try to ask for a review, neutrally answering any questions which arise from that discussion, at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Whether positive or negative, I would still use the caution expressed in (1), and try to avoid to link yourself. As a specialist in the field, you must also be aware of sources with which you do not have a conflict of interest, and you could try to see what is and what is not accepted by using those sources (and if you are unsure about their use, again, use the talkpage of the pages your are editing). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Dirk. Re: 1) - fair enough, easiest way is for me to steer clear of adding any links to AusBT then. Re: 2) I'll check that out, thanks. Djsflynn (talk) 05:58, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Welcome

I was just using 'recent changes' to greet new editors and noticed that your bot included a very informative Welcome along with the notice of reversion. I think this will go a long way to immediately soothe the ruffled feathers that are so-o-o-o prevelant when a newbie is told..."Your edit won't fly". Newbies rarely understanding the lay of the land and the result is they are easily "bitten' or feal the have been bitten. Your Welcome first tactic goes along way to bring them into the flock and have them continue editing in spite of a momentary (and usually initial) "crash landing. I guess from the front page that a barnstar is in order. Let me search thru my closet for a good one.```Buster Seven Talk 15:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that! We're doing our best to help new editors come along, trying to give a good explanation of what has happened and what they can do. There is still room for improvement, though (editors don't seem to get that it is 'fine' to undo the bot when they use their new knowledge regarding external links (either a real undo, or an undo without the link). I'm also pondering on a custom message for the sites which are often a concern under WP:ELOFFICIAL. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Inaccuracy - 26 March 2012

On Beast (South Korean band), XLinkBot has removed the end portion of a comment (-->) causing the rest of the article to not be displayed. I read through the page's editing history, and noticed that this has happened multiple times. I have fixed the error on the page. --TheJJJunk (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting that. What you describe is exactly the problem - the repair results in the display (hence 'addition') of the links. XLinkBot edit should have been 'undone' (it would then not have re-done that edit). Annoying type of problem that, don't think that I can catch that easily (will have a second look at it, though). Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Please clarify the difference

In the header information on User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, would you please clarify whether an entry on this list in inclusive or exclusive of the main revertlist? That is, if a pattern exists on the RevertReferencesList, does the bot revert only links inside references, or also links inside references as well as links outside references? The latter makes more sense to me, but I am not certain how it works.

I need to add one that's been refspammed as well as linkspammed, but I don't know if I should add it to both lists, or just to the RevertReferencesList. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:31, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a second look at it, I think I made it exclusive. In any case, if it is both, add it to both lists, that is save.  ;-). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

no thanks for the reversion

Your bot undid my addition of an about.com crime link as an external link. This site and truTV are used all over true crime pages as sources, so I found it difficult to believe it is somehow no longer a valid external link. I looked at the vaguely worded policy pages advanced as support for this, and found nothing that mentioned about.com. Is this another hidden rule that those of use who are not wiki-insiders are somehow supposed to divine from the overwhelming plethora of policy babble whose bulk seems to approach that of the Tax Court reports? What's really funny is that this link should be reverted while piers morgan's blog sits smack dab in the middle of the article with impunity. Bah, no more wiki-editing for me for a while. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.224.81 (talk) 01:58, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, we don't need to link to about.com is they just have their own version of the story. I have tried to go to the intermediate, do your edit without the addition of the external link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:10, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

revert of my revision on Czech bluegrass

Hello, I noticed that my Revision on the above page dated as of 23:58, 10 March 2011 was reverted. The reason for my revision was that I noticed the links were incorrect. I stated in the reason for revision the following (I will split this into the individual steps and include deeper reason for it):"updated my Prague jam to a new site jam.bg4.eu listing most Open jams in Czech Republic" I simply noticed that somebody listed my own jam from folkjam.org (you can notice this page is in the name of Alarix, which is my nick) to my jam.bg4.eu site. 1) I did not enter this link to my site to wikipedia (it was done by Revision as of 15:29, 27 February 2008, name is only as "63.77.210.3") 2) While I am still using the folkjam for my open jams, this address was in fact corrected by the page owner www.folkjam.org/recurring-jam/cz/pr/prague/open-bluegrass-jam-session-prague-u-supa. 3) For this reason, this link was no more usable and I needed to correct it! 4) As this (on folkjam) is only a single jam session and my account has no option to list all jams I have there (you can notice I am one of the top contributors there), I wanted the link to be more universal so changed the link to my page which gives more scope for everyone trying to learn more about open bluegrass jams in the Czech Republic. As to the "added its facebook site", this is probably correct removal (I was not aware that facebook links were not permitted). As to the "corrected ebma web address and added the ebma facebook site" - this is again an update which was needed as 1) ebma is a pan-european bluegrass site, 2) I did not add that link 3) but the old link does not work as ebma changed its site! 4) so for this reason, knowing I was doing the right thing, I updated it. As to the "added most lively Czech bluegrass portal bgcz.net" - this needs no more comment - this is the central information on Czech bluegrass and it was missing. As to the "and corrected the CZ as" - this was an outdated link to Czech bluegrass association and I corrected it. So I guess except for the removal of facebook site your revert was absolutely incorrect and I am going to revert the revert, if I can manage it.

Best regards

--Alarixus (talk) 17:26, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That seems like the right approach. Thanks for the understanding. I'll have a look at it as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:11, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Questor Tapes

On the "Questor Tapes" articles, my additions of a youtube link were removed. However, I replaced a dead youtube link (video had been removed) with an active youtube link. Why was the dead youtube link not removed earlier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.11.218 (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

There is still a lot out there that should not be there. This is a bit related to the arguments in WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'll have a look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)
I would say, they should go per WP:NOT. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

regex malfunction?

Something clearly went wrong in the edit summary for this edit -- just letting you know. Looie496 (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Clearly? I am not sure what you mean. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Mendocino Music Festival photo?

Hello. I am trying to add a photo to the Mendocino Music Festival page. Can I copy the photo on the Festival's facebook page and upload it? Is that considered free, since it is on facebook? Thank you very much!(Mendokitties (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC))

Hmm, I am afraid that you ask the wrong editor (nor the bot, nor this operator knows the answer to that). Err, maybe you could go to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and ask there? Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

External video links to 120° parhelion page reverted by bot

I included these 2 links because they add interesting visual information: the parhelia are very bright, much more spectacular than in any still image I know, and they place the phenomenon in context (with the complete parhelic circle and classic sundogs appearing as well).

I do not think they vio. copyright (probably uploaded by the videographers, not copied from news, etc).

They are somewhat similar, so maybe one would be enough, but I think it's important to have at least one.

Plain text urls included below (I'm not sure how to link, I had an issue with one of them - English Russia - that I was trying to fix):

I'll wait for answers here for a while before trying to undo the revert ;)

84.97.149.219 (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I think that this is indeed one of the cases where a YouTube video might be good. If allowed, maybe a screenshot from the video might be a good image upload for the article - I agree that the images on display are very vague, especially in comparison to the images on Sun dog and Moon dog. I've reverted the bot, thanks for helping out and for your understanding! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Cool, thanks =) 84.97.149.42 (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
Haha, the bot reverted the links again because I fixed them! (the English Russia link was broken because of an unnecessary | , the Youtube one was functional but I nevertheless removed the | ) Reverted. 84.97.149.42 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The Occupied Times

I just spent hours editing this page and only used good citations and everything has just been reset. I corrected inaccuracies which have now been reinstated. Why have you done this? November79 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by November79 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the warning on your talkpage? I guess that should be clear. Thanks for notifying me! --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Removed links to MySpace from wikipedia article

The September Sessions had links to MySpace pages, which are the bands official pages. These musical groups do not have a www site, nor a wikipedia page about them. I prefer to use the wikilink first, but if a wikilink is unavailable then I try to link the subject to an external site on www, not MySpace nor Facebook. However, these musical groups only had MySpace pages. This XLinkBot prevented links to these musical groups. So, I rewrote the article removing the MySpace links. However, these MySpace pages are very useful for referencing musical groups.

Many songs and historical synopsis for musical groups are only at MySpace. Could preventing links to MySpace be too restrictive for musical groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.57.213 (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

That is just the point - if there is no wikilink available, it will be a redlink. Either that article is suitable for creation, or it is not notable enough. If it can be an own article, great. If it is not notable enough, then it is not notable enough to be externally linked either. Please see our external links guideline for more info. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

That cannot be in use a blog as link, but the official not this available page, and it is considered necessary to place the official blog, so that they could observe that it is not a question of an invention, but of a club of perfectly established, enclosed football the last champion of his division, which they dispute equipments of distances equivalent to travel from Madrid to Moscow. I am trying to obtain a perfectly valid link.--Hernan1483 (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I should point you to WP:ELOFFICIAL. A blog page can be the official site, and then you should revert the bot. If there are 'better' official sites, the blog may be superfluous (and since that is the case in the majority of cases when editors are adding a blog-link, the bot reverts that and leaves the suggestion to reconsider the link after having a look at the external links guideline). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Damaging edit

This bot recently did a damaging edit.[14] Please repair or advise. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The bot reverted the new user because of the YouTube links. The YouTube content appears relevant & was uploaded by an official Johns Hopkins source - which means it isn't a copyright violation so I have reverted the bot & restored the content. --Versageek 18:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Youtube

Hi, I just got this message after trying to add a video portrait on a page

Your edit here to Bindeshwar Pathak was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline. The external link(s) you added or changed (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khxTqkP3GyQ) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to.

I represent the company who did the portrait, we have full rights on it and content is relevent. Is there still a problem ? (I have some others to do the same way). Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.190.172 (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

  • This bot is far too powerful. Also, I don't like that it says "Welcome to Wikipedia.", and that it points contributors to Wikipedia:External links even though the bot itself violates the guidelines by reverting far too many edits. It's ridiculous that edits that include links to YouTube are reverted by default. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

And both your added youtube video's fail the guideline. We are not a linkfarm or an internet directory. Moreover, not too long ago I did a quick check of 10 added youtube links, and 2 of them were linking to very likely copyright violations (and were superfluous in other ways). And that superfluousness goes for many other youtube links as well). And the 'far too many edits' reverting is explained both in the FAQ and in the message left on your talkpage. It explains you the problems, and why it does it, and what you can do. YouTube contains good info, but by far most of it is not suitable for Wikipedia, or does not need linking in the first place. If you take that in consideration (and I am sure both of you will do that next time when considering a YouTube link), then you will not have any problems with the bot. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

CSD revert

Hi bot, you wiped a speedy nomination here that was unrelated to the edit you were reverting, not sure if this is expected behaviour for you or not. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

That looks like some form of an edit conflict. I will have a look at it, the bot does try to detect this, but maybe it needs to be made a bit stronger in that (there may be some slowness which 'enables' this problem). Thanks for notifying me of this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Revert please?

Hi Versageek and Dirk. Hope you two are doing well. I appreciate the fabulous work XLinkBot has been doing.

I'm cleaning up a WP:BLP article at the moment (Richard Lee (journalist)) and added an external link to the person's official mayoral candidate website as defined by this Seattle Times news article, which happens to be at Angelfire. Unfortunately the bot reverted all my additions of references also. Would you mind having a look and reverting the bot's revertion of my edits? I would certainly appreciate it. Thanks. 64.40.54.117 (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the bot. It may revert you again if you save the page with an anglefire.com link. You may revert the bot yourself if it does so. --Versageek 03:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate the help. 64.40.54.19 (talk) 04:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

helpme

MarcusLeDain (talk) 16:13, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you haven't asked a question. Please ask a question below.~ Matthewrbowker Talk to me 18:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for the offer of help

MarcusLeDain (talk) 16:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello. I'm trying to put an external link in the appropriate section in Lamborghini, but XLinkBot removes it almost immediately. I want to ask, is there a possibility to put it properly without the further reversion or removing? The article is created in blogspot blog, I know, that this is a probable spam resource, but this article is completely unique and I have no purpose to spam the Wiki project and I want to make a qualitative contribution. I want to share this articles with all amateurs. I'll be waiting for the answer. Thank you. Mister Zorro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC).

I know it is not spam, but do you think that that blogspot (which is not the best of authoritative places ..) is really an addition to what a) is already on the page, b) is already in the references, c) or already covered by the other external links? And then, if it is a blogspot and it contains some (because most of it must already be there) info: can that info be used in the article itself. I doubt that this will pass our inclusion standards for external links (and that is why blogspot links are reverted generally ..). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:42, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
I think that link may be added, in spite of all the exceptions, as it is a very detailed encyclopedic layout about Automobili Lamborghini. In addition, a significant and important information about them is absent in Wikipedia. I could complete each section of the models and refer in it on my article and some others, but I thought that it would not be entirely correct. I'm well versed in the cars, so I'm interested in providing authoritative data in my articles, as well as a whole. I hope for your understanding. Thank you. Mister Zorro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC).
So, that does not give it the authority, moreover, most of the information can be added to Wikipedia as well. I noted, that there is a {{dmoz}} linked .. maybe that is the place for your link as well? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Diacritics

Just curious but does the bot normally have problems with diacritics? See User talk:Regeek where it used Jägerbomb instead of Jägerbomb. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 11:35, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I still have to solve that - it seems to recur every now and then. Perl sometimes seems to 'forget' that a variable contains UTF-8-data, and tracking where it forgets seems sometimes difficult. I'll have a look again one of these days. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:35, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

all the information provided by me about gema moraleja paz is true because i am the artist and the owner of the information

Dear Administrator:

please do not deleted my efforts and my knowledge that I am sharing with people about my professional career,all the information and links are true, and are provided by myself, this is the second time that my page is deleted and i felt so discourage and sad about that.


Gema moraleja paz, is a writer and novelist with 38 books published, and only 41 years old with an amazing career. When I was 9 years oldIi started writing please do not destroy my efforts.


thank you, sincerely yours

gema moraleja paz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gemamorate (talk • contribs) 11:20, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

No, on Wikipedia you do not 'own' information. And I am sorry, Wikipedia is not the place to promote your own work. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:37, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XLinkBot/Archive_6&oldid=1187055956"