Jump to content

User talk:XLinkBot: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot III (talk | contribs)
m Robot: Archiving 2 threads (older than 21d) to User talk:XLinkBot/Archive 7.
→‎link removal: new section
Line 66: Line 66:


{{Talkback:Book Reporter|August 2012|ts = 12:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}}
{{Talkback:Book Reporter|August 2012|ts = 12:22, 24 August 2012 (UTC)}}

== link removal ==

Dear XLinkBot: I left you a talkback message last week, but you haven't responded, so I'll post the message up here as well: Regarding the link of mine that you removed, I have the following to say: The link may appear suspect as it is connected to a platform used by bloggers, but the site itself is not a blog, and the article in question contains no opinions whatsoever. It is instead a site that provides executive summaries (that are unfortunately too long to appear on wikipedia) of books. In other words, the site is strictly about the dissemination of information, and is entirely consistent with wikipedia's philosophy, purposes and guidelines. The site has been approved by the editor Floating Boat, and I believe this was a just decision. I would appreciate if you did the same, and await your response.

Sincerely,
Book Reporter--[[User:Book Reporter|Book Reporter]] ([[User talk:Book Reporter|talk]]) 15:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 15:37, 27 August 2012

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.


FAQs:



Seems...like something wrong or...?

Look at this link. The bot reverted additional info provided by a user. After that, the user reverted the bot's changes. I did not really go into detail on the link. Administrators, can you help me to determine whether the bot or user is right? Thanks.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gangnam-gu&diff=505594794&oldid=505594643

Arctic Kangaroo (talk) 16:34, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot is a program and makes decisions based on pattern matching. More often than not, YouTube links added by new & IP users are either copyright violations or don't add value to the article, this is why the bot is programmed to revert them. In this case the video appears to be from an official source, so it isn't a copyright violation. I would probably revert the bot myself, had the IP user not already done so. --Versageek 16:49, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References Tom of Finland

Wonderful to see your attention to listing references.

BaffledThinker (talk) 19:07, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

A lot of times i uploaded pictures, but got rejected. I send links on apple/itunes about photos also. These photos are common-use photos, album cover photos and not illegal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cemfuns (talkcontribs) 06:40, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

State Youth Orchestra of Armenia's article

--Abgar Sargsyan (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC) Please take a look at my article, and let me know if everything is OK.--Abgar Sargsyan (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Talkback:Book Reporter

Dear XLinkBot: I left you a talkback message last week, but you haven't responded, so I'll post the message up here as well: Regarding the link of mine that you removed, I have the following to say: The link may appear suspect as it is connected to a platform used by bloggers, but the site itself is not a blog, and the article in question contains no opinions whatsoever. It is instead a site that provides executive summaries (that are unfortunately too long to appear on wikipedia) of books. In other words, the site is strictly about the dissemination of information, and is entirely consistent with wikipedia's philosophy, purposes and guidelines. The site has been approved by the editor Floating Boat, and I believe this was a just decision. I would appreciate if you did the same, and await your response.

Sincerely, Book Reporter--Book Reporter (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]