User talk:XLinkBot: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 21:49, 18 April 2014

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.

RevertLists

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by .

FAQs:

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by .

AIV

The bot made a report to AIV, and then most of its comments were removed. I can't find where they were even deleted. [1] I don't even see the edit in the history. Enigma^msg 20:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't think it was XLinkBot, then - these are the edits on the 10th (when you reported it): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism/TB2&offset=20140311000000&action=history .. can you point out in which revid things were wrong? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:54, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

False postive on "(http://userbase.kde.org/KJots [\buserbase\.kde\.org\b]))"

Hello, I edited the Kontact page and added a link to the kde userbase (http://userbase.kde.org/), which was reverted by the bot. I undo-ed the bot edit, so it should be fine now. But please refine the scripts int that matter. Wikiinger (talk) 14:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, I don't think those links should be there. This is a wiki, not the official site of the software. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:51, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking further of this, you are probably right. Maybe the links (homepages) can be put in the reference list and just be refered to in the text. But where? Wikiinger (talk) 13:32, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Highway Thru Hell

Why is the Facebook page for the TV show on the spamlist? www.facebook.com/hwythruhell triggered the spambot. It's listed on the official website http://highwaythruhell as their official facebook page (hence listed at ELs as links usable because they are the official page) If Facebook itself is blacklisted, it would be helpful if the bot left a message saying that the domain is blacklisted, in addition to the specific URL, so that we can determine that all links to that domain would be reverted. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your question. You've given the answer to your question yourself, please see WP:ELOFFICIAL. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:48, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Occasionally, a notable subject will have a web presence on some marginal site. I recall one barely-there My Network TV station (presumably an affiliate, not an O&O) had MySpace as their website (News Corporation owned both at the time, but still...). I also remember, when Geocities shut down, links to it being put *back* into articles as knee-jerk reverts because someone (or some obnoxious robot) didn't like whatever other rubbish free host the content had moved to. This 'bot needs to be running under manual supervision, quite simply. WP:BITE anyone? K7L (talk) 13:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

'Occasionally' - that is indeed the case, occasionally. And I still need to see statistics or numbers for 'biting', that argument is used over and over, but I want to see it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:36, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I removed the twitter and facebook from My Network TV per our external links guideline. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HR College Article

I have mentioned something that is factual. What is the problem with the paragraph that I have added. It can be verified that HR College is using the portal for their alumni network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pareen7 (talk • contribs) 14:52, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Factual? Probably, but there are no independent sources showing that, and I think that the whole section you added is utterly not-notable - there is no need to have it in the article. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting entire string of edits when only one link was bad?

I noticed on Louisiana IceGators that the bot rolled back a string of edits made by an IP, because it contained a bad link. Most of the edits were just fine; this seems like a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. I know it's probably not as easy, but would it be possible to have this bot only remove the offending link instead of rolling back everything? Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:46, 1 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is the whole problem, indeed. It is practically impossible to 'just' remove the external links (and the spam might stay in statements like 'our spammy company delivers you with teh best spam, and you can order it all online [http://www.spammycompany.com here]', removing only one edit has also been tried, but it was found that regularly newbies need 2-3 attempts to 'get it right', leaving the 2 wrong attempt-edits stand often broke the page (resulting in the bot de-facto vandalising the page ..). Also, whether an editor does one edit with a lot of information and one 'offending' link, or does 10 edits with one edit with an offending link, in both cases one has to revert the bot-edit and consider to remove the offending link by hand (which is also what the bot suggests). I see the problem, but there is not really a good solution for it. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall having raised this issue before... there was that one Packard museum on U.S. Route 66 where this obnoxious 'bot ripped out a year's worth of edits just because it didn't like one link to the museum owner's personal blog. The rest of the contributions were legit, but happened to be contributed by one sole user. K7L (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"I seem to recall" .. that shows about the frequency of how often this goes wrong. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

....................................................... Thanks{{User:MiszaBot/ for the Corrections. I appreciate your rectification and hope for more colaborations. (NASA USA (talk) 19:42, 10 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

reverted wiki page of Shannon Tweed

I attemped to add Shannons official facebook page to the links section, her twitter is on it so i wanted to add the facebook page. I am her website administrator as well as fan club operator. I have also corrected personal information as it said she has 4 sisters she onlyy has 3 and the 3 are named. Are facebook links not allowed is my actual question

Link problems

Hey there. I fixed Deadly Friend wikipedia site. I removed link but i kept rest of the info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scott Deveraux (talk • contribs) 19:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of external link

Hi,

You've recently removed some links I posted on Wikipedia to an external website. May I ask if you visited the site first before removing it? I appreciate that it could fall under the of being a 'blog', as it is a Wordpress site. However, it is not a blog; it is a site which intends to disseminate research materials and further information on E.D. Morel, the Congo Free State, King Leopold II, the Congo Free State, the Congo Reform Association, and all those involved.

Wikipedia also states that 'Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic'. This would fall into both of those categories. I appreciate Wikipedia has rules and that they must be followed. However, it would be a great shame for anyone interested in the Congo Free State and the Congo reform movement, to not be made aware, and have full use of, this website and its resources.

Regards,

Dean — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deanbean7 (talk • contribs) 10:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi There,

You had written: "Your edit here to The Ghosts of Christmas Eve 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://musicandartinterviews.blogspot.com/2013/09/tommy-farese.html) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia."

That link is to an interview with one of the performers in The Ghosts of Christmas Eve and he discusses his involvement and filming of that movie within the interview. That is why I linked it, since it contained relevant information to the The Ghosts of Christmas Eve. I guess you removed it because it is a BlogSpot address? There is actually no blog there - just a series of interviews with musicians and artists.