|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).
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.
Picturehouse Industrial Dispute
Re: Picturehouse Cinemas
There is currently a dispute at one their cinemas - the Ritzy at Brixton. It concerns the Living Wage. It is a very significant part of Picturehouse's history. It is also significant history for working people who believe they deserve a living wage
On your page, the External Links are providing the company with the opportunity to advertise their films and portray themselves as socially progressive. I have no problem with that but the strikers, of course, beg to differ
I think it only fair, therefore, that there should also be an External link to the strikers' page, to provide balance. When I put it in, a bot deleted it
I am going to revert the changes, although I fear that the bot will just 're-bot' me. I would like this reviewed by a human editor, please
- The bot suggests you to undo, so that means that the bot will not re-revert you on that edit - an editor however will likely have a second look afterwards as it will trigger alerts.
- I however ask you not to add that link - the link that is there is not there to provide an opportunity to advertise, it is the official link. If you think that the issue is encyclopedic, then it could be written into the article, with proper independent and reliable references - the facebook link does not have a place on the article. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:03, 3 November 2014 (UTC)
- 3news.co.nz: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • Meta: SRB-XWiki - COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • Veinor pages • meta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • DomainsDB.net • Alexa • OnSameHost.com • WhosOnMyServer.com
This New Zealand television news website was added to the blacklist because of an editor who did nothing but update articles using this as a source, presumably in an attempt to promote the website. I recognise that their actions were spammy, but am of mixed mind because they were actually improving the articles. In any case, this is a legitimate news website, and other editors making good faith edits and using this as a source are being reverted by the bot and warned about the link. Eg User talk:Sorrowawaits. I think this is doing more harm than good and suggest the site be removed from the blacklist. If the spammy editor returns, a better strategy might be to log edits which link to this source and an administrator can note if a particular editor gets very frequently listed in that log.-gadfium 20:58, 5 November 2014 (UTC)
- This is something on User:MER-C's 'private' revertlist. MER-C, can you comment on this? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- That won't work -- see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive Nov 1#www.3news.co.nz and . There were 20 sockpuppets before we stopped counting. MER-C 07:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
- I've just unwittingly fallen into referencing this domain while searching for references to support an article marked as being in need of cleanup and additional citations (NZ_Rail_150). Since that article is trying to document an event that happened in New Zealand, it seemed reasonable to me that a TV news station in New Zealand would have covered it. Does the fact that spammers have spammed it as a source in the past disqualify us from using it at all? If so, I think NZ_Rail_150 might not qualify for notability. Which is totally fine with me. Just trying to help out! Benchun (talk) 20:41, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
- No, it never disqualifies a source. Even if the links would be blacklisted (and hence, can not be added at all) there is still the possibility to ask for whitelisting. For this link, there is a high incidence that new editors / IPs are actually spammers (although there will be a small number of non-related new editors or IPs who may use the link, most of them are spammers), and that is what we try to keep at bay.
- With these cases, I am always wondering whether it tells something about the quality of the source, if people feel the need to spam it - is the reputation itself not enough? --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:19, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
- That should be in the applied tags. I'll have a look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:44, 16 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I made a Wikpedia edit of the Bhatra Sikh page included a link to a blog with just history of Bhatras but this was deleted by the xbot. Can this link be re-implemented. The Blog is completely independent and actually contains most articles from Wikpedia itself. the blog address is - http://www.roudh.blog.com/ note all the main articles on the blog come from wikpedia hence it is very reliable and accurate.
- I wouldn't advise citing Wikipedia (or sites which crib the answers from Wikipedia) in Wikipedia. See WP:CIRCULAR. K7L (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Kindly maintain the editing done by me for Marvi Memon wikipage. the external links & references given are all official and authentic. the page is being trolled by political opposition party's trolls. Can u please somehow revert the changes made to it by others except me? I am staff of Marvi Memon— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahira Rafique (talk • contribs)
- If you are staff, you may want to look at WP:COI as allowing one person affiliated with the subject to control an article in the manner you propose represents a huge conflict-of-interest problem which would certainly violate WP:NEUTRAL. K7L (talk) 15:21, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Bot incorrectly removed an edit I made. Citation: "Hello, I'm XLinkBot. I wanted to let you know that I removed an external link you added to the page Modulation transfer function (infrared imaging), because it seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page, or take a look at our guidelines about links." So yes, definitely a mistake! Please correct and reinstate edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timmbits (talk • contribs) 21:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)