User talk:XLinkBot

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 do not

Please do not remove my link, it is of great relevance. 20:02, 12 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Norrison (talk • contribs)

Mr. XLinkBot, please stop removing my link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Norrison (talk • contribs) 20:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the policies and guidelines presented to you. That way of linking is not appropriate, and the info.. nah .. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Nhopkg

A tag has been placed on Nhopkg, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing no content to the reader. Please note that external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article don't count as content. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Ah.  ??? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:23, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The Working Man's Barnstar

	The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
	Awarded to Sir XLinkBot and its creator in recognition of pushing through early adversity and contributing to the endless task of reverting questionable link additions. Enigmamsg 21:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Article of Trikala

Dear XLinkBot,

My information about Trikala is true. However, it was deleted due to lack of source pretext. My source about Trikala is ottoman archive of Turkish Prime Ministry in Istanbul. Also, Trikala was known "Tırhala" during Ottoman rule and was sanjak centre in Rumelia Province, Vilayets of Selanik (Thessaloniki) and Manastır (Bitola). If you speak Turkish, you will eb able to reach sources about Ottoman period of Trikala (Tırhala). Yours sincerely,--Cemsentin1 (talk) 16:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

The bot, and this operator, both are not capable of readin Turkish. However, this is the English wikipedia, I would suggest you contact e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Turkey to see if they can help you further. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Bot, why did you delete added information by me ? It is true. Do not speak Turkish, you should not be pretext to delete the added information. Also, unfurtunately I think the Greek friends do not want to face the past and does not write Trikala's Turkish counterpart. I found some sources. They are listed below:

http://www.archive.org/stream/universalgeograp04maltuoft/universalgeograp04maltuoft_djvu.txt

http://emidius.mi.ingv.it/RHISE/ii_2alb/ii_2alb.html

http://www.fatih.edu.tr/~ayasar/HIST428/Inalcik,%20Halil_Ottoman%20Methods%20of%20Conquest.pdf

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salonika_Province,_Ottoman_Empire

Thanks.--Cemsentin1 (talk) 22:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please read the external links guideline. I have again removed the links there, especially the en.wikipedia.org link is superfluous, the others may be suitable as a reference. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:08, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your advice re: the Ben Pobjie page. I was not aware that YouTube links were inappropriate. I was trying to fill in some more links and references because there were warnings on the page that seemed to suggest the links to Pobjie's articles were not sufficient. Can you give me any advice as to what sort of thing would stop the page being deleted, because I think it is genuinely worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slampoet (talk • contribs) 19:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Youtube links are often inappropriate (per our guidelines), though there are exceptions. Thanks for the friendly words!

Generally, proper references. Sources published independently from the subject, e.g. significant newspapers reporting about the subject, or studies in literature. If it is not mentioned there, then you will have a difficult time proving that the subject is notable. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Cosmos external links to video

Per the guidelines (see article's Discussion section), the link to Hulu.com is entirely appropriate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WholeNote68 (talk • contribs) 00:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to this concern on the WholeNote68's talk page. - Fastily (talk) 01:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Three editors and this bot seem to disagree. I have given a final warning on adding this link. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Undo of xlinkbot allowed

An edit by XlinkBot was undone by the perpetrator of a spam link, and XLinkBot allowed this? Is it possible to modify the bot to be more aggressive against non-autoconfirmed users who undo XLinkBot's edits?

• Vandal strikes
• XLinkBot reverts vandal
• Undo by vandal

Without this feature XLinkBot doesn't really stop spammers.... User A1 (talk) 12:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have semiprotected the article, since the same link was being added from more than one IP address. Increasing XLinkBot's mandate to let it do multiple reverts seems risky. EdJohnston (talk) 23:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

XLinkBot is mainly there to inform editors that the links they add are inappropriate. If they start undo-ing the edits by XLinkBot, then a) the links may indeed be appropriate, or b) such links, editors or articles may be suitable for more harsh methods of convincing them that the links are inappropriate. Our guideline is just that, a guideline. Most of the links on the revertlist are in a large majority of the cases inappropriate, though there are exceptions, and therefore it should be possible to revert it. Real spam goes onto the spam-blacklist.

Making the bot harsher is possible, admins can add exceptions to some list (see userpage of the bot), but generally it is better to use stronger methods if links become a real problem. I often try just to revert spammers, and quite some of them get the message before we have to block, protect or blacklist, keeping disruption minimal. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

My external link was deleted

I am Maurice Karnaugh, known to Wiki as Unclejzero. I have a blog in blogspot under the name, unclej0. I tried to add that link to my page in Wiki but it got automatically removed. Can you help me? Unclejzero (talk) 04:28, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I can, please read the conflict of interest guideline, the business FAQ, the external links guideline, what wikipedia is not. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:08, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Bot removes all edits

The bot took not away the edit with the link it didn't like, but the edit before. See the history of Reel (dance). The message posted to the users talk page is way too long and incoherent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Haberg (talk • contribs) 09:00, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it reverts all, parsing out the offending link is practically impossible for automation, that is why the bot is asking you to re-evaluate the edit. The messages are quite long, indeed, but it needs to explain why it reverts and what you can do. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:06, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a bot

Very sorry you removed my external link, but if it is against your rules then I must accept your decision gracefully. However, the link was to a fansite giving information to fans that is not available anywhere else on the web.It is most definitely not spam. It is on a website I began ten long years ago, with myself receiving no remunerations for it.The site does not contain advertisements as I am only interested in letting people share my interest. The site is just a fan site, no other ulterior motive is intended.Paranoidmonitor (talk) 09:51, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Fansites are generally strongly discouraged (see the external links guideline), and we are not writing a linkfarm here (and XLinkbot is designed to revert additions of external links and email addresses which are in questionable against the policies and guidelines, not for spam only, though it includes spam). But if you believe that here you satisfy the external links guideline, then by all means, revert the bot. But I guess you might want to discuss the site first on the talkpage or with a wikiproject. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

removed link

Hi. I've add an external link "http://harmoniums.weebly.com" that is a detailed description of harmoniums'world. I think it is no spam but an helpful documentation. Regards 88.42.232.254 (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

If you think the link complies with our policies and guidelines, then you can undo the bot's revert. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Crispian St Peters

Hello, I am new to editing on Wikipedia. The external link to my edit was removed along with the sentence I had added to clarify the content. I do not know why the external link was removed as I am not associated in any way with the source of the external link and felt it helpful to document my source. I have reinserted the comment without the link. Has someone objected to the sentence I have added? Thank you, I think this is a very nice site and I use if often. Perhapsalongway --Perhapsalongway (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, tripod is not a proper reference for that (user submitted content etc., see the reliable sources guideline), you may want to find the original source of the reference, and reference that (see the citation guideline, and the footnotes guideline). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

What?

This bot is a net loss, uncritically removing external links is a disservice and antithetical to the wiki project. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.196.246.71 (talk) 17:09, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Not that I entirely agree with using wordpress as a reference (user submitted content and such), I have converted your edit to a proper reference. You did the right thing, just as the bot suggested. I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul O'Grady Wiki Article

Hi, Im Just Trying To Edit The Article By Putting My Paul O'Grady Fan Club Link In In The External Links Section But It Keeps Dissapearing On Me. Do I Need Permission To Do It Or ?? Please Get Back To Me Also I am New To Wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.255.165 (talk) 18:04, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The remark on your talkpage already sent you to the external links guideline. I should also send you to our conflict of interest guideline. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:37, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/125

This edit of yours got caught in my filter that recognizes edits that add excessively repeated characters and phrases. When I reviewed the diff, I couldn't find the reason it was tripped. Can you please shine a light on it? According to the filter there was a phrase 3-25 characters long which you repeated at least 4 times in a row. -- Mgm|^(talk) 10:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

It shines light on my inconsistency in linking, but the parts '[[WP:' and '[[Wikipedia:' both appear three times in the text. the word 'Wikipedia' occurs also quite often .. Could that be it (if so, then talkpages should not be checked with this filter, as it will trip me quite often if I warn users with reference to a handful of policies and guidelines ..)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:36, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Bots like yours are a liability to Wikipedia

Your bot epitimizes why Wikipedia fails so often to receive credibility as a source of knowledge within academic circles. Instead of taking the time to investigate each source of content, you remove links that are hosted on a given domain (e.g., myspace videos). Wikipedia was never intended to be subject to a machine's systematic enforcement of how the machine's creator interprets policies. It's really a shame that a site based on the principles of open access is polluted by a device that reflects the creator's opinion that knowledge should be discriminated against based on the domain that hosts its resource. What's next, your bot will remove comments from posters from certain geographic regions of the country that don't stack up to your own personal IQ/intelligence stereotypes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.203.107.70 (talk) 04:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No, not exactly. First, the bot is quite friendly in the beginning, tries not to be bitey at all, and has quite some safeguards. Moreover, yes, it interprets policy/guideline according to the creator, but as it has successfully been granted its bot-status after a lengthy discussion on a Bot Request For Approval, many long-term editors generally agree with its operation (and there are since it started working, hardly any complaints about it really wrongly reverting editors. So, in a way, the bot is interpreting policy and guideline quite like many long-term editors do. Simply: Myspace-, Youtube-, Bebo-link are very often a problem, especially when added by editors who are not familiar with policy and guidelines. Regarding myspace, a recent survey showed that the bot has quite a low error rate (in the order of 1 edit which may have been appropriate on 30 reverts .. and that one was not a 'must-have myspace'). I am sorry that you feel this way, but we are still not an internet directory.

No, there are no plans for removing comments from posters from certain geographic regions of the country (which country, actually) that don't stack up to my personal IQ/inelligence stereotypes, as that information is not part of policies and guidelines which discourage these things. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:37, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I examined this edit which was the cause of XLinkBot's revert. That myspace does not comply with our policies and guidelines, can you tell me what it adds to the contents of the page? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:40, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Sucks ..

Wikipedia SUCKS! Your stupid bot deletes my post whether I add a link or not... Its just another example on how something "free" is not really "free" at all.. Thanks for YOUR inconvienance, I will no longer be using wikipedia.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.251.109 (talk) 21:52, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I hope you noticed that you were reverted by this bot, and by others. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Image

Its the same image as the existing one but a different size so as to not overload the server. So i am reverting the reversion. 124.121.245.208 (talk) 09:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I removed the link, either upload an image to commons, or link to the official version, this link is in violation of the external links guideline. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Legendary Pink Dots annotation links

While I understand that Wikipedia is not a repository of links, I do understand that relevant links are appropriate. If my method of linking was not correct, please explain or point me to the correct guideline. I have the blessing of the Admins at LyricWiki as well as the actual band themselves to post these online. Thank you very much.70.147.242.236 (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your remark, but: LyrikWiki? Their blessing? OK, you were pointed to our external links guideline. Wikis are generally not suitable as external links (not stable, unverified, etc. etc.), linking to lyriks (besides that it does not add to the article ..) is often not OK as a lot of lyriks have copyrights which are not met by the sites displaying them. Moreover, in this edit you do create quite a repository of links.

They certainly should not be linked from the page of the artist (again in our external links guideline, not directly linked, the page is about the artist, not about the song/lyriks), but could be (!) appropriate on a page of the song. However, such a page should tell about the song, why it was written, and might cite certain points of the lyriks for that. For that a link to the lyriks could be a source, but not to one on a wiki, it should be on the artist's homepage or other official medium. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Andrea de Cesaris

Thanks! It's okay I didn't use that photo in that location in the end. It was merely a link to the author! --Thelostlibertine (talk) 11:52, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

It is always better to try a picture that you can upload. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Worldbuilding

Hello. I was wondering why this bot undid my edit over at Worldbuilding. There is a wiki at Wikia that a lot of great examples of Conworlds, especially since there is a balance of all three types: Realism, Fantasy, and Sci-Fi. Tell me if it's ok to un-do or not. 68.56.178.51 (talk) 12:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. Wikis are generally not good sources or external links, please see the list of links to avoid in our external links guideline. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we don't really need a like to a wiki since the guideline says wikis generally aren't good things to link to, but the Conworlds Wikia has plenty of good articles about detailed conworlds that could give the reader a good sense of what Worldbuilding is. 68.56.178.51 (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Would it not be great to incorporate that all here ..? We are after all writing an encyclopedia. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, it has plenty of good examples, to give a sense of what Worldbuilding is, but I'll let it go. Thanks anyway. I'm just saying because this wiki probably is a good source, unlike what the guide says. 68.56.178.51 (talk) 01:56, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Odd one

Can XLinkBot kill "mediamatters.org/issues_topics/tags/" -- the whole string, since all of these links to search results violate WP:ELNO #9, but not other pages? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Done. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

link from FreeON page to electronicstructure.blogspot.com

Hi,

I put a link to a subject matter blog that I started for open discussion of philosophical and technical aspects of the FreeON project. As this blog is written by me, and I am the technical expert in this area, with 30+ papers in the field, I think it is appropriate for the wiki.

Sincerely, Matt Challacombe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Challacombe (talk • contribs) 23:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Overzealous reverts

Dear Bot, please try to reprogram yourself not to be so overzealous in your reverts. Take for example your recent revert of my edits to Stanley Baxter. Note that I made 5 edits, and that only one of those edits was objectionable according to your criteria - yet you reverted them all back to the last edit preceding my edits. Why? Why not just revert the one objectionable edit? Such stupidity is unforgivable, even in an automaton. Pull your socks up. Thanks. 91.106.167.147 (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you read the message the bot leaves you? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have read (and re-read) the message in its entirety. The message does not explain why the bot thinks it is necessary to revert completely distinct edits (i.e. submitted separately) that in no way run foul of its reversion criteria. This is a bug, I'm afraid. 91.106.167.147 (talk) 16:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it is a setting. The choice is between only reverting the last edit by an editor (and some spammers accidentaly include a broken link first, which they then repair in a second edit, resulting in reverting to a broken page), or reverting all and asking the editor to undo the edit of the bot, and in the meantime repairing the edit. I agree, the choice is difficult, but this is often the least disruptive. Still, both situations do occur, and generally, this is the best, as the chances are minimal that the version before the editor contains something broken, and through the undo, the whole edit is not lost. The best solution would be to parse out the 'offending' link, but seen the many possible ways of including links that is deemed practically impossible. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I do understand your position better now, thanks for taking the time to explain it. (The main reason I was frustrated by this was because I prefer to edit anonymously, and had I not happened to have remained logged in with the same IP today, I would have missed the bot's message and my edits would have been silently reverted without anyone's knowledge). 91.106.167.147 (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Editing company info

{{helpme}}

I am trying to add information on our company page. Relevent information has been reverted such as a link to our myspace and to our new compnay feature- EMG TV...plus my edits in the text to illustrate that we have other manufacturers that use our gear and to clarifly more clearly that we make both active and passive technology and highlight our bass and accessories line has also not made it past your editors. I am not sure how to go about citing all this stuff since its just new company info. The only citations I can give are press releases, (which were disseminated by us internally)....I am confused here...

(Solderless (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC))

Well, we are not an advertising service, please read our conflict of interest guideline, the external links guideline and the business FAQ. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

typepad article does need typepad links

This bot thinks the typepad article should not contain any links to typepad! -96.233.18.103 (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2009 (UTC)