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 64.40.54.117 (talk) at 14:17, 22 April 2012 (→Revert please?: 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:


Questor Tapes

On the "Questor Tapes" articles, my additions of a youtube link were removed. However, I replaced a dead youtube link (video had been removed) with an active youtube link. Why was the dead youtube link not removed earlier? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.11.218 (talk) 20:46, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a lot out there that should not be there. This is a bit related to the arguments in WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. I'll have a look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would say, they should go per WP:NOT. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:15, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

regex malfunction?

Something clearly went wrong in the edit summary for this edit -- just letting you know. Looie496 (talk) 05:37, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly? I am not sure what you mean. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:10, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mendocino Music Festival photo?

Hello. I am trying to add a photo to the Mendocino Music Festival page. Can I copy the photo on the Festival's facebook page and upload it? Is that considered free, since it is on facebook? Thank you very much!(Mendokitties (talk) 05:35, 4 April 2012 (UTC))[reply]

Hmm, I am afraid that you ask the wrong editor (nor the bot, nor this operator knows the answer to that). Err, maybe you could go to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions and ask there? Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External video links to 120° parhelion page reverted by bot

I included these 2 links because they add interesting visual information: the parhelia are very bright, much more spectacular than in any still image I know, and they place the phenomenon in context (with the complete parhelic circle and classic sundogs appearing as well).

I do not think they vio. copyright (probably uploaded by the videographers, not copied from news, etc).

They are somewhat similar, so maybe one would be enough, but I think it's important to have at least one.

Plain text urls included below (I'm not sure how to link, I had an issue with one of them - English Russia - that I was trying to fix):

I'll wait for answers here for a while before trying to undo the revert ;)

84.97.149.219 (talk) 04:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is indeed one of the cases where a YouTube video might be good. If allowed, maybe a screenshot from the video might be a good image upload for the article - I agree that the images on display are very vague, especially in comparison to the images on Sun dog and Moon dog. I've reverted the bot, thanks for helping out and for your understanding! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:02, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, thanks =) 84.97.149.42 (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, the bot reverted the links again because I fixed them! (the English Russia link was broken because of an unnecessary | , the Youtube one was functional but I nevertheless removed the | ) Reverted. 84.97.149.42 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Occupied Times

I just spent hours editing this page and only used good citations and everything has just been reset. I corrected inaccuracies which have now been reinstated. Why have you done this? November79 (talk) 19:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by November79 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the warning on your talkpage? I guess that should be clear. Thanks for notifying me! --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed links to MySpace from wikipedia article

The September Sessions had links to MySpace pages, which are the bands official pages. These musical groups do not have a www site, nor a wikipedia page about them. I prefer to use the wikilink first, but if a wikilink is unavailable then I try to link the subject to an external site on www, not MySpace nor Facebook. However, these musical groups only had MySpace pages. This XLinkBot prevented links to these musical groups. So, I rewrote the article removing the MySpace links. However, these MySpace pages are very useful for referencing musical groups.

Many songs and historical synopsis for musical groups are only at MySpace. Could preventing links to MySpace be too restrictive for musical groups? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.53.57.213 (talk) 01:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That is just the point - if there is no wikilink available, it will be a redlink. Either that article is suitable for creation, or it is not notable enough. If it can be an own article, great. If it is not notable enough, then it is not notable enough to be externally linked either. Please see our external links guideline for more info. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:39, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That cannot be in use a blog as link, but the official not this available page, and it is considered necessary to place the official blog, so that they could observe that it is not a question of an invention, but of a club of perfectly established, enclosed football the last champion of his division, which they dispute equipments of distances equivalent to travel from Madrid to Moscow. I am trying to obtain a perfectly valid link.--Hernan1483 (talk) 00:17, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I think I should point you to WP:ELOFFICIAL. A blog page can be the official site, and then you should revert the bot. If there are 'better' official sites, the blog may be superfluous (and since that is the case in the majority of cases when editors are adding a blog-link, the bot reverts that and leaves the suggestion to reconsider the link after having a look at the external links guideline). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Damaging edit

This bot recently did a damaging edit.[1] Please repair or advise. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 18:23, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The bot reverted the new user because of the YouTube links. The YouTube content appears relevant & was uploaded by an official Johns Hopkins source - which means it isn't a copyright violation so I have reverted the bot & restored the content. --Versageek 18:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Youtube

Hi, I just got this message after trying to add a video portrait on a page

Your edit here to Bindeshwar Pathak 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://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khxTqkP3GyQ) is/are on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy, as well as other parts of our external links guideline. If the information you linked to is indeed in violation of copyright, then such information should not be linked to.

I represent the company who did the portrait, we have full rights on it and content is relevent. Is there still a problem ? (I have some others to do the same way). Cheers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.2.190.172 (talk) 14:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • This bot is far too powerful. Also, I don't like that it says "Welcome to Wikipedia.", and that it points contributors to Wikipedia:External links even though the bot itself violates the guidelines by reverting far too many edits. It's ridiculous that edits that include links to YouTube are reverted by default. --82.171.13.139 (talk) 22:54, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And both your added youtube video's fail the guideline. We are not a linkfarm or an internet directory. Moreover, not too long ago I did a quick check of 10 added youtube links, and 2 of them were linking to very likely copyright violations (and were superfluous in other ways). And that superfluousness goes for many other youtube links as well). And the 'far too many edits' reverting is explained both in the FAQ and in the message left on your talkpage. It explains you the problems, and why it does it, and what you can do. YouTube contains good info, but by far most of it is not suitable for Wikipedia, or does not need linking in the first place. If you take that in consideration (and I am sure both of you will do that next time when considering a YouTube link), then you will not have any problems with the bot. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CSD revert

Hi bot, you wiped a speedy nomination here that was unrelated to the edit you were reverting, not sure if this is expected behaviour for you or not. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 01:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like some form of an edit conflict. I will have a look at it, the bot does try to detect this, but maybe it needs to be made a bit stronger in that (there may be some slowness which 'enables' this problem). Thanks for notifying me of this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:02, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Revert please?

Hi Versageek and Dirk. Hope you two are doing well. I appreciate the fabulous work XLinkBot has been doing.

I'm cleaning up a WP:BLP article at the moment (Richard Lee (journalist)) and added an external link to the person's official mayoral candidate website as defined by this Seattle Times news article, which happens to be at Angelfire. Unfortunately the bot reverted all my additions of references also. Would you mind having a look and reverting the bot's revertion of my edits? I would certainly appreciate it. Thanks. 64.40.54.117 (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:XLinkBot&oldid=488652923"