Jump to content

User talk:AntiSpamBot

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 130.126.143.59 (talk) at 00:57, 2 February 2007. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

If you're coming here due to a problem with Shadowbot, please write your message clearly and leave a link to Shadowbot's revert. I can't help you very well if you simply write "Shadowbot reverted me! Fix it!"

Hello why are you removing the reference Link I add?

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 3 days are automatically archived to User talk:Shadowbot/Archive 1. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Murder

  • This section "does not cite its sources", so I added one (the link to the Swiss Penal Code) and there was 1 typo (2000 (!) years in prison: 20 years).

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder&diff=97257406&oldid=97232305 I'm not putting it back in, though, so if you like it, leave it, or else don't. Sincerely R.


Miharu Hirano link

  • My edit to the article of a Tekken character, Miharu Hirano, was reverted and called spam. It wasn't spam. I was merely trying to provide a link to a Miharu Hirano picture because there wasn't a picture of her in the article at the moment. It was the only picture that I could find. I would never spam Wikipedia. / KristiRenee. / November 23, 2006.

Kellie Pickler's Article

Ok. Just understand: This URL is the only where i can confirm that "I Wonder" is kellie pickler's new single. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KelliePicklerFanatic (talk • contribs)

Your edits to Example.com

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, 0dd1! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 17:40, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

This was not spam; all I did was add the site's actual address! - Noone 17:44, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the bot, it is watching example.com as it tends to be used by new users as a test. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 00:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Example.com may be a problematic address to revert automatically, because it is used a lot. This behaviour should be watched over more carefully. Shadowbot made an unintelligent revert here that I had to correct. Wipe 20:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a specific {{test1}} through {{test3}} type warning for example.com More often than not, it's people struggling to use the code addition tools in the edit window. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge (Talk to Me) 20:33, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black Book

In my opinion bots should not remove references to sources. Why was Black Book (film) still reverted? - Ilse@ 19:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Highway 33 (Ontario)

It is not spam to add that it carries the designation of Heritage Highway, and link to a website that shows it. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 22:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Using bot to remove useful links to Flickr

  1. The links to related galleries at Flickr are useful links to the Vulcan statue and Heaviest Corner on Earth articles.
  2. Your bot's edit summary indicated that it was following the policy at Wikipedia:External links. I have read the policy, and the closest thing to a restriction on Flickr is the recommendation not to link to search engine results. I think it is reasonable for editors to have a say when the policy is not specific.
  3. When I restored the link, I was reverted by another bot that accused me of spamming Wikipedia. I do not appreciate the personal attack, especially the automated personal attack.

--Dystopos 23:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! on the Heaviest Corner on Earth article, the flickr page seems to show that most of the images are yours. (they are under the same username). Perhaps upload them? You can do so vie Special:Upload. The images in the article would be much better then on flickr. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 00:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The same seems to be true for Vulcan statue, it looks like you were the uploader to flickr. Uploading these images to wikipedia under a free license would be very helpful. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 00:19, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of what would be most helpful, I retain a non-commercial license on the photographs I have uploaded at Flickr. The links in question point to entire galleries of photographs uploaded by multiple users and presenting a resource which can not and should not be reproduced in Wikipedia. Hence the external link. --Dystopos 00:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless it is a conflict of interest for you to be adding that link. Why don't you try requesting on the talk page to see if it really is a good idea. If some of the images can still be uploaded under a Fair use rational, at the very least. I am also going to note that it looks like our page on Heaviest Corner on Earth is a direct copy right violation of http://www.bhamwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Heaviest_Corner_on_Earth . Just compare the page histories. of bhamwiki and wikipedia. It seems like there are issues here no matter how we look at this... —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 00:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged it as such ;) —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, if I was aware of the specific guideline about WP:COI I would not have added the external link to BhamWiki (which I founded) to this article. Under the guideline the link should be removed. Some other editor should, I would think, consider restoring it. BhamWiki is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike license that is compatible with Wikipedia's, so copyright is not an issue. Regarding Flickr, I still believe the external link should be preserved. The encyclopedia article should not be burdened with numerous photographs. People interested in the subject should be able to find the photographs, though. I do NOT consider it a conflict of interest to link to Flickr's photographs regardless of how many of them are my own work. Flickr has numerous contributors who control their own licensing. --Dystopos 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • After a good night's sleep:
The inclusion of Flickr.com on Shadowbot's spam blacklist may have merit, but it is not currently supported by the cited policy (WP:EL). The result is that the bot is enforcing "secret rules" and overturning, in this case, good faith edits by an experienced Wikipedia editor. In reverting my attempts to reverse its actions, the bot also assumes that I am editing in bad faith, a judgment no editor should take lightly, especially a bot. --Dystopos 14:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
EL may not directly state in explicit context but WP:COPYRIGHT WP:COI and others are incorporated into the policy Thus the point of the bot to quote general policy since the bot has no brain it cannot quote specific policy it points to the general policy. As for bad faith the bot cannot assume any faith, so your assumption about it assuming bad faith is incorrect. If you want to use pictures upload them to wikipedia or commons and avoid the whole issue. Cheers Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 15:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:COPYRIGHT is the policy that requires external links to Flickr rather than uploading photos from Flickr. The bot did not evaluate the possibility of WP:COI, but assumed, in an operative sense, that links to Flickr might violate some interpretation of the policies which you say are incorporated into WP:EL. Since the policy itself is not explicit, I believe that editors (and I am an editor) -- not bots -- should take responsbility for the judgment call. Therefore, I believe that if the bot reverts the good faith edits of editors who believe that they are operating under approprate guidelines, that the bot is, in an operational sense, acting inappropriately on the assumption of bad faith. --Dystopos 16:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cuisine of New York City

Shadowbot reverted my edit in which I added several links. My guess is that it is upset with external links I added to the http://www.urbandictionary.com/ site, though I don't see that site listed on the Spam blacklist. I have re-reverted the shadowbot reversion, but feel free to take out any offensive links I have introduced. Shadowbot's reversion is here —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wtmitchell (talk • contribs) 04:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It would be the urbandictionary link. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 04:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shadowbot does not enforce the Spam blacklist. Those links are enforced by the MediaWiki software that runs Wikipedia. Shadowbot uses a separate blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 12:04, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete vandalism revert

See [1] - why the bot reverted only the second edit and not the first one, or even both in one instance? The vandal just have to do a first edit below the threshold, a second above, and then the first vandalism will stay for long time as noone checks whether the bot reversion where complete. andy 17:16, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowbot is NOT a vandalism bot, he is a SPAM bot. He only reverted the most recent edit, because a blacklisted link (example.com) was added. ST47Talk 01:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

unremoving vandalism

diff — I am guessing this is a mistake. Jesus still loves you, though. 66.92.170.227 03:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

looks like the bot reverted to an unclean version, thanks for telling! ST47Talk 01:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Revert

A user put an improper external link on Faceparty and then quickly changed it. Shadowbot only recognized the second link as spam and reverted to his original link rather than reverting both edits. Revision is here [2].--Crossmr 23:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an inappropriate link jackhole

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AntiSpamBot&oldid=104977299"