User talk:XLinkBot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:SquelchBot)
Jump to: navigation, search
Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning, try changing its settings. It can also be shut off there in a server friendly way.
This is the talkpage of XLinkBot (formerly SquelchBot), a bot designed to revert spamming, or other edits that introduce external links which do not comply with our external links guideline, or with the policy 'What wikipedia is not' (not a repository of links section).

Please leave new comments here by clicking this link

If your additions were reverted by XLinkBot, please take time to review our external links & spam guidelines, and take note that Wikipedia is not a repository of links, a directory, nor a place to promote your own work. If you feel your addition was within those policies and guidelines and are Reliable and Verifiable, and do not violate Copyright, you may undo the changes made by XLinkBot. Questions are welcome, however this talk page is for civil discussion and is not a complaints department.


Please to support the publication of article about Ramil Garifullin on Wikipedia.[edit] Look : Sorry for mistakes in English/ The article «Garifullin Ramil RamzIevich» has got in a contradictory situation, and had the following stages:1. After the publication of this article was edited by me in accordance with the requirements of administrators and users and was supported by the administrator (he removed the template modification). 2. After I started to post links to this article in Russian Wikipedia ancient my opponents Duo Akim Dubrow-Fedor Babkin immediately began to remove these links, and there was a conflict (dialogue presents the Akim Dubrow on the website). 3.Fedor Babkin then immediately put the template for deletion of the article "Garifullin Ramil Ramzievich" in connection with the advertisement and previous deletion of this article in Russian Wikipedia. 4. You have deleted an article in connection with copying and copyright infringement. He appeared right after the discussion appeared remark about punishments Akim Dubrow rude and inadequate removal in Russian Wikipedia and the long-standing conflict Duo Akim Dubrow-Fedor Babkin with participants, writing about Garifullin, and insults Akim Dubrow towards Garifullin. Although it was stated that there are seven days to fix the bugs. They look suspiciously was done quickly and without discussion. Why? Ramil Garifullin known personality in Russia thanks to extensive publications in the major media and a variety of books.Earlier article about Ramil Garifullina in Russian Wikipedia has been removed due to political motives, because of the publication of negative article about Edward Snowdon (in RBC)-This was proven when discussing article (Ramil Garifullin) in Russian Wikipedia. Article about Garifullin (Russian Wikipedia), which was in Russian Wikipedia four years has been deleted on the day of publication of the article about Snowden 16.07.2014. Information can be found in the discussion of removed Article. Duo Fedor Babkin -Akim Dubrow is a longtime opponents of Ramil Garifullin. Akim Dubrow repeatedly insulted Ramil Garifullina online, although he apologized for them. Publication of article about Ramil Garifullina - a political issue. By importance in the Russian Wikipedia Ramil Garifullin adequate, but was removed from - for political reasons and arbitrariness administrator. All links will present later. Duo Fedor Babkin -Akim Dubrow opinion is subjectively.The Duo Akim Dubrow-Fedor Babkin has repeatedly initiated destruction of famous Russian people from Wikipedia. Akim Dubrow been punished by blocking for insults and arbitrary behavior on the Wiki. Please administrators and authors to support the publication of article about Ramil Garifullin on Wikipedia.--Irek Minnullin (talk) 11:09, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

That youtube link was to 4AD the music publishers OWN channel (hence no copyright problem)[edit]

Welp, Wikipedia is fucked - have a nice day. I'm done submitting as is most other people last I heard on NPR. Enjoy the silence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Copyright is not the only reason we might not be wanting to link to YouTube movies. Please see WP:EL. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:51, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
Some YouTube videos are legit; a prime example a year ago was video of citizens fleeing the Lac-Mégantic derailment and fire, shot by an actual eyewitness. That was cited by everyone from CBS News to Radio-Canada, but this obnoxious bot removed the link to the original from Wikipedia. K7L (talk) 00:24, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
True. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:09, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
However, the existence of a few exceptions does not change the consensus as described in WP:EL and WP:NOT - YouTube links are, generally, still discouraged, with few exceptions (which are easy to revert, as described). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi, Bot! I just redid my edits that you had Undone, leaving out any direct link to the Youtube video that I think was the offending trigger, and adding to my Username profile. I hope this takes care of any problems and that you won't undo any of my future edits. Carolanyc (talk) 01:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC) Carolanyc

Thanks! I have cleaned it up a bit further, the language about YouTube that you left is inappropriate for an encyclopedia, we are not writing a manual either. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Malfunctioning bot: Please stop/Change settings[edit]

[1] is NOT spam.

Can i just revert it?

How could it be stopped / this page WHITELISTED? (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

in case this bot reverts his own talk:

ausbt c is NOT spam.

Can i just revert it?

How could it be stopped / this page WHITELISTED? (talk) 19:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is what the bot suggested on your talkpage. And no, it does not revert its own talkspace. Let me have a look at the link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:11, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


This happened before -

Bot reverted a ton of perfectly good edits, probably because I made a link to youtube - a link to a a relavent film in the British Pathe film archive. really this bot needs to be "not so bloody stupid" Just look at how much and what it reverted.Prof.Haddock (talk) 05:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

And see what the bot suggests to the editor. I have removed the YouTube link, it fails our external links guideline. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

removed links[edit]

I go the message:

Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the page Pedestrian, because they seemed to be...

Let me clarify that the link was already there. However, it was going to go dead later this summer, so I changed it to a version that will still be good after September. I did not think Wikipedia wanted to have dead links.

I find it difficult to interpret all your standards. If the person who put the link there originally was in violation of your linking policy, I apologize for updating it rather than removing it. However, I do feel it is a valuable resource.

Thank you.

John Z Wetmore (talk) 15:01, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I have removed all the links altogether. The page is about Pedestrians, not about their advocacy or their advocacy groups, local projects, etc. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:53, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


I own and Create The video on the Link i added to BET Awards, and its all about the Winners List, please can it be reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by IamLilCloud (talkcontribs) 18:31, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Since you own the video, and created the video, I would suggest that you start a discussion on the talkpage of the page you want the link to be added to. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:49, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

My external links to Albany Park, Auburn Gresham, Pilsen and South Chicago pages[edit]

The links are to YouTube videos that contribute information about the history and current status of these Chicago neighborhoods. They were created by community groups and community development corporations in the neighborhoods under a grant from the MacArthur Foundation. Hope this helps and I hope you will decide to include these informative videos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saduros (talkcontribs) 23:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, but those links plainly fail our external links guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:50, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

pedestrian and pedestrian advocacy[edit]

Good point that the page is about Pedestrian and not Pedestrian Advocacy. There is no page for Pedestrian Advocacy, but there is one for Cycling Advocacy. Perhaps there is need for a new entry for Pedestrian Advocacy. I can't create it because I would get flagged for writing about too many things I am associated with.

John Z Wetmore (talk) 15:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I do however think that you can create it as a draft and submit it for articles for creation. WP:COI does not forbid you to write about your subjects, it mainly encourages you to be cautious and neutral about the subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

XLinkBod adding links?[edit]

Hi. I think this might have been an error edit as the bot *added* a link. Also, the edit seems to have messed up the infobox. Could the bot owner please have a look at this? Thanks! - tucoxn\talk 10:55, 12 July 2014 (UTC)