Jump to content

User talk:XLinkBot

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FantageFan (talk | contribs) at 02:04, 7 January 2012 (→‎Really?: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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:



baby; bathwater

In edits like this, your bot removes not only the suspect external link (in this case, it's actually fine, but that's not why I'm writing), but also good content. Can you fix your bot so it removes the links in question, and doesn't revert edits with multiple changes, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User:XLinkBot/FAQ. It turns out that many edits that add inappropriate links are best totally reverted, although there are cases such as the one you mention where it would have been better to do things differently. Discussions on this in the past have established that the current behavior is best, overall, and the problems that occur are easily fixed. Johnuniq (talk) 00:59, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this behavior has been fixed, but I just ran across a really bad example from June 2010 at [1] in an article that I just had undeleted/userfied. Four extensive good faith edits were reverted and I don't even know which URL the bot thought was spam. That's the same kind of behavior that gets a person furious with human deletionists, and a bot doesn't deserve as much consideration. Wnt (talk) 15:13, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bot reverts two edits when only one contains an email

Please correct this malfunction. --JonathonSimister (talk) 01:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Fantage Wiki

Hi, you removed the link I added (The Fantage Wiki!) on Fantage. The link was the official wiki of the website. It was made by the betas(The first users of Fantage), for information of the site. That was not needed to be removed. Please add the link back. Thank You. Fantagefan's User Page♥♥♥Duh, my talk page♥♥♥My Contributions! 17:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there are many complaints about this bot. please fix it. Thank you. Fantagefan's User Page♥♥♥Duh, my talk page♥♥♥My Contributions! 17:33, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I forgot. Is there anyway for me to be sysops???

I have worked hard on making this page and now this has to be verified I believe that all the given information is correct up to my knowledge.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/s_Australia_test_records

--Retwickr (talk) 11:20, 26 December 2011 (UTC)Retwickr[reply]

RE:December 2011

Thank you for the generous note. I took the link to the Frog Scouts outta the Robin the Frog page myself actually. So what else can I do around here? -- 71.184.193.224 (talk) 03:49, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I just created my own account here by the way!! Thanks again for that nice note!! -- Grouches101 (Send a note then scram!! P.S. Have a rotten day!!!!) 04:02, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

?

I really don't get it. YKTS You've got it? (talk) 20:33, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Salinas del Manzano Article - Remove Photo Galery

Hi, I don't Understand why you remove this link to a personal Photo Galery. This is public and it has not any copyright.

This link that you are removing contain media information relative to the Village, please undo your remove actiton.

Thanks in advanced Marcos PD. I work in the Salinas del manzano's town hall, and we want show all the people, how is the Village. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcosPas7 (talkcontribs) 15:34, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

wrong

Thanks for your apparently well-intentioned edit, but the link you removed was a useful one which contained information not available in electronic form elsewhere. I'm not sure why you think it was wrong; your edit summary was not very informative: it said very little other than "I didn't like your link, here are some possible reasons I might not have liked it." I would like to suggest that you actually read the link you deleted before deleting it-- http://zagria.blogspot.com/2010/08/jessica-amanda-salmonson-1950-writer.html -- before deciding it's not useful, but, of course, you're a robot, and don't know how to read. This is the reason robots should not be allowed to edit an encyclopedia. 108.81.78.48 (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

removing "emails" that aren't emails

The bot recently made an edit reverting the addition of a file that contained the "@" symbol, despite not being an email address. See this diff. I suggest that the bot be programmed to check that the "email address" does not end with common file formats (I would assume .jpg, .bmp, .gif, and probably more formats that I've never heard of). MrMoustacheMM (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Really?

No one is answering! ♥♥♥Duh, my talk page♥♥♥My Contributions! 02:04, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]