User talk:AntiSpamBot

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!"

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)

Bot reverted edit that didn't add a link

The edit is here and the revert is here. Obviously this was vandalism and needed to be reverted, but it certainly wasn't spam as no external link was added. Raven4x4x 00:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Bot reverted paged that isnt spammed!

i5 (girl group). I was trying to edit the box and for reasons beyond me it says Im 'spamming' it (despite *I* created it LOL!!!) Please fix...it was looking nice tell it reverted...--Thegingerone 10:09, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Spam

What are u talkin about? I added no links at all.--Giovanni Giove 14:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I ask u again: which spam?? I added no spam. Stop to revert my edits, thx.--Giovanni Giove 14:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

I ask you to stop to destroy my edits. I've already asked you whick kind of spam I've introduced according to you. I had no answer.--Giovanni Giove 14:50, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have diffs to your edits? Its hard for the bot op to tell what is wrong with the bot without those. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 03:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Computer and video games that have been considered the greatest ever

Shadowbot was a bit off with it's revert here [1], I was actually reverting garbage inserted into the external links section at the time. I did manage to revert it in a less obvious way without getting Shadowbot's wrath however. FredOrAlive 01:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Tire Money

Um... it's a fact that UK eBay accepts Canadian Tire money. I think that's notable enough to be worth mentioning. How am I supposed to mention it *without* linking to eBay.co.uk themselves? There's already a link to eBay.ca there - why are they okay and the UK site not? 86.143.53.226 01:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Arnold Zamora

Hello! In line with this - If you click on this link, it will show you 2 works arranged by Fr. Arnold Zamora, which can definitely show verifiability of his works/arrangement. There is absolutely no way we can use the link in wiki assuming good faith? --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 06:16, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Iowa Highway 183

The two links I provided for the article are legitimate, relate to the article and should be kept in the article. DandyDan2007 11:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• The two links in question:
  • Iowa Highways: 180 to 199
  • End of Iowa 183

I believe part of this is because I'm on AOL at the moment, and I've read AOL does some screwy things on here, but I have no doubt anyone would think these sources are legitimate. DandyDan2007 11:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

The Lasallian Schools Press Conference links

Hello! The link I added here is a link to a Multiply page. Since such a link is related to the article, I added it to the page. Pardon if I forgot to add a name to the link. I have reverted it to the last edit I made. Just go to my talk page here for any clarifications. Thanks! Heraldo Filipino 13:04, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I have tagged it as such ;) —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 00:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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)

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).

It would be the urbandictionary link. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 04:39, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

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)