User talk:AntiSpamBot/Mar2007

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edits to Mark Bavaro[edit]

I'm trying to link a citation to a statement, because another bot keeps reverting it if I dont. Now when I do that, your bot reverts it! Its a football database, I dont understand how this is spam. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FeloniusP (talkcontribs) 19:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

Shadowbot is reverting because you're including a link to in your edits. Take that out and you'll be left alone. Shadow1 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC) I have no idea what you are talking about. --FeloniusP 20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

This is one of the edits you made. If you'll notice, you inserted into the article, whether you knew it or not. Shadowbot picked this up and reverted. The actual link you were trying to add isn't the reason Shadowbot reverted. Shadow1 (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't even see that! Thanks, sorry about the mishap. --FeloniusP 21:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, it happens to a lot of people. Shadow1 (talk) 22:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Angelfire blanket[edit]

got called for spam for posting a link to here. Bot seems a bit aggressive to me, but I guess you've heard that enough by now, hopefully this helps your revamp. —Fitch 00:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is an unofficial site necessary, if you don't mind my asking? Shadow1 (talk) 01:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert to statistic change[edit]

The bot appears to have reverted a valid change to the album sales statistics for the Dixie Chicks album, Taking the Long Way. Here's the revision link: linky. I'm not going to revert the change, though, because I don't know enough about the stats (and someone else will update them next week anyway) --Robertb-dc 16:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks like that was triggered by the proboards link on the same line. Shadowbot checks not only added content, but changed content, and it assumes that the entire line was changed. Shadow1 (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I'll go ahead and revert back to the original. I wonder if the bot should avoid reverting a link to a possibly-spam site if the old and new links are on the same host? I'm sure the bot is doing much more good than bad, and this is probably an unusual case. --Robertb-dc 22:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

NEDM in Coburn (band)[edit]

Coburn (band) makes an assertion about an Internet fad called "NEDM". I cited a source for this assertion, which is generally considered reliable among the community in which this fad exists. Shadowbot reverted my edit, even though the domain is on English Wikipedia's whitelist. I reverted the reversion, using the <nowiki> tag to avoid creating an external link. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 22:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis Sabran[edit]

I added a merger proposal tag to Lewis Sabran, whereupon Shadowbot regarded it as spam and reverted it. (Strangely enough, Shadowbot didn't catch the exact same action that I did to Louis de Sabran.) I tried again immediately afterward and succeeded, so undoing the revert isn't necessary. -John Rigali 06:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot reverted because you accidentally added a link to '' (see here, after the merge-tag, before Lewis Sabran). It's OK now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:17, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Declaration of Calton Hill[edit]

My sincere apologies over the link in Declaration of Calton Hill. I never realised the link to should not have been included. Exiledone 22:39, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


There is an example link on the TinyURL article, it leads to a random TinyURL page with directions for Atlanta. I tried to replace it with (Links to Wiki's Main Page)(Sans the first period). ShadowBot reverted my edits. I decided to mention this on the Talk page and tried replacing it again. ShadowBot replaced my again. Rather than stacking up reverts and clogging up TinyURL's history page, I just decided to leave a message on here. --Scorpios 04:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to 300 (film)[edit]

Dear Shadowbot, I have made some change to my edit and before posting it on that article I wanted to check with you. If there needs to be any chage to these sentence please feel free to do so.

As 300 falls to a 53% Rotten rating on Rotten Tomatoes,[1] there has been a very negative reaction to 300 specially amongst Persians for portraying of the Persian Empire in a very poor light. For example, a masive online petition campaignagainst the unethical and unscientific historic facts has begun. Also a google Bomb or 'link bomb' has been lunched to influence the ranking of 300 online webpage by the Google search engine.[2] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kaaveh Ahangar (talkcontribs) 17:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Ernie Ladd[edit]

RE: bot revert.

Ernie Ladd was also known as "The King" in the mid-1970s.

The link was to a page that confrimed this fact. 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Philippine nationality law[edit]

My edit here inserted what I believe is a link to page which would be of substantial interest to readers of this article. -- Boracay Bill 02:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Herb Gerwig[edit]

Your recent edit to Herb Gerwig (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 05:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

i think you two have a lot in common. somebody needs to suck it up and ask the other out on a date and stop all this hoo-ha! ;) JoeSmack Talk 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
The Art of bot Flirting, its not very subtle is it... --Hu12 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I know this wonderful code repository out by the Slashdot servers, they'll love it. Shadow1 (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot reverted Sans Arcs[edit]

Shadowbot reverted this edit of Sans Arcs. The link was badly done but wasn't spam. I fixed the link and Shadowbot has so far caused me no further problems.Barbara Shack 19:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Spam revert of Tristesse de la Lune[edit]

Shadowbot claimed on my talk to have reverted this for spam, but doesn't seem to have done it. Apparently, it's because the end of the band's URL matches "alune\.de". Perhaps you could consider further qualifying that URL fragment? I don't know the nature of the request that generated that blacklist entry. --Eyrian 17:02, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Whitelist requests[edit]

Hi. Any chance you could add a whitelist to this bot? The link I added to flamenco guitar (which is on is moderately useful, and I'd be interested in having it whitelisted.

-- TimNelson 05:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bug in Shadowbot[edit]

Shadowbot inserted an unbalanced heading on my user talk page. I've left it for you to look at. -- TimNelson 05:42, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I second that -- Henriok 15:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Fixed. Shadow1 (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Blunt revision on MorphOS[edit]

Shadowbot used the carpet bombing tactics to revert[3] a host of relevant edits to the MorphOS article without explaining why. I reverted your edits. -- Henriok 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the edit, taking out the link that triggered shadowbot. The explanation was in the warning you recieved, as well as in the first edit summary shadowbot provided. is not allowed (the site is not in English, and there may be other reasons as well why it is blacklisted). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Wow.. Perhaps someone should edit their bot to just remove what it thinks is wrong and leave all other edits. I honestly thought that was the name of some Perl script that the bot ran. Thanks for the help. -- Henriok 15:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot editing without being logged in[edit]

Your bot seems to be editing without being logged in[4] which has resulted in it warning itself[5]. I have blocked the IP for anonymous users only for 24 hours, this should not effect your accounts on this IP. Please look into it and see what went wrong. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 18:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. I'm looking at the code to see why it didn't automatically re-login. Shadow1 (talk) 18:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Should be fixed now. Shadow1 (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning placed but no actual revert[edit]

I noticed that there had been some vandalism on the scabies article. I reverted it and went to place a warning on the user's talk page, and found one in place two hours previously from shadowbot. Here's the history on the scabies article [6]. I also noticed that shadowbot has taken to anonymous editing, but I see that someone else already covered that. --Joelmills 19:25, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

It's probably because someone edit-conflicted the bot. Thanks for the catch though. Shadow1 (talk) 20:38, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


No, I will not accept your creator's apologies. Deal. samwaltz 09:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot reverted legitimate edits[edit]

Hi Shadow1, your bot made this revert to some legitimate edits. I've reverted them back. Cheers. Robotman1974 17:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit involved the change of an invisionfree url, which is since a recent spam-attack blacklisted on shadowbot (forums are hardly allowed per WP:EL anyway). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Ah... you beat me to it. Thanks. Robotman1974 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Postage stamps and postal history of Sharjah[edit]

Thanks for the automatic BOT revert of the edits to this page. However, I found the following web page to be informative for the purposes of this article It does not seem to qualify as "spam" - at least from my limited perspective. I left it on the page, but perhaps you could check this to determine if it can be linked. Thank you, CZmarlin 01:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Philippine nationality law (second objection)[edit]

I previously objected to this reversion and received no response, though my objection disappeared from the list. This is my second objection to this reversion.

My edit here inserted what I believe is a link to page which would be of substantial interest to readers of this article. -- Boracay Bill 03:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

update your bot, please[edit]

I just reverted Shadowbot's second deletion of the same legitimate Wikilink in the "See also" section of the Parenting article. This was nowhere near being linkspam -- it was a link to another article ferkrisake. Frankly, if this bot can't distinguish between external links and wikilinks it should be euthanized. Hopefully there's just a setting that needs to be tweaked. Cgingold 09:04, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot did not revert on the wikilink, it reverted on the addition of the external link to That link has been blacklisted after recent spamming of this link. Hope this explains, have a nice day. I'll have a second look at the revert. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Besides, the wikilink shouldn't be there. We don't have external links to every single parenting organization; we shouldn't have wikilinks to their pages either. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Veinor (talk to me) 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Lyric links[edit]

I added external links to song lyrics for albums by The Bled, and on two of them, there were already external links to a site, that had been on the page for a long time, and the lyrics were horrendous. I found a better site, and put them up. On two of them, Ambulance Romance and Found in the Flood, they were taken off, and Found in the Flood was one of the pages with the bad lyrics. I wouldn't put the link on her to advertise it, anyway - I know links on Wikipedia don't help Google's crawlers find it and raise it on the number. Please fix it. Violask81976 23:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Lyrics are generally copyrighted by the performers. Pages that publish the lyrics are therefore generally in a violation of the copyright, and per WP:COPYRIGHT, we are not linking to them. Such sites should be removed. Hope this helps, have a nice day! -Dirk Beetstra T C 23:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Why delete a good link?[edit]

Dear Wikipedia, I wonder what's wrong with your Shadowbot? Every time I add the link to the new Irish haiku magazine, Shamrock, Shadowbot removes it. What's wrong with Shamrock, why can't it be listed among American and English journals? It is a decent haiku magazine, not better, nor worse than the others listed in Wikipedia under Haiku Journals. Take a look at it here: Incidentally, I haven't published a single poem in Shamrock, so I don't think I can be regarded as a "person affiliated with it" (apart from being Irish, of course.) However I am happy that there is a haiku magazine on our island (at long last!) Why Shadowbot thinks it spam? Why is it "on its list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia"? Who is going to "make money from inclusion" of a haiku magazine in Wikipedia? I simply don't get it... Irishhaiku 03:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I got from Shadowbot: Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Irishhaiku! 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 note that the link you added, matching rule \bfreewebs\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an 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 intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 03:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Shadowbot is run by an individual who goes by the username of Shadow1, hence the username. And freewebs links are generally not allowed, as they are not considered to be reliable sources due to their lack of peer-review. Veinor (talk to me) 03:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Chandra Wilson interview[edit]

  • I launched this complaint last month [7] I was told the reason why I was not able to link to my interview was because I was posting it from a computer at work that shares the same IP address as the link. I tried doing so from home and had no luck. Here is another example [8]. Please help me understand why and IMDB, companies that are very similar to the one I work for, are allowed to post their links on every TV and movie page, and yet I can't even reference a post from our blog.

/ preppypunk. / March 22, 2007.

Well for one, and imdb are both databases. yours is a blog, and nothing stops it from going from movies to how your christmas was this year, which makes the EL irrelevant, or at very least unreliable. and imdb are both also authoritative. Lastly, you might notice at links normally to be avoided, it specifically mentions blogs as one to avoid. JoeSmack Talk 01:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

MeeVee [9]is an online database of every show currently airing on TV, the site offers program details pages, video clips, episode guides, video search, etc. Example [10]. I guess I missed the section on linking to blogs, but had I known it, I would have steered you to our content portal [11] where are interviews are also published. Incidentally, our blog[12] is authoritative. We publish up to 8 articles a day that include news, reviews and daily celebrity interviews. / preppypunk. / March 23, 2007.

You might want to read over our conflict of interest guidelines to determine whether you should be adding the link at all, in that case. Shadow1 (talk) 12:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making that clear. I appreciate your help and I apologize if it seems like self-promotion. I'm trying to understand why there's all of this conflict. I have a few more questions and then I promise I'll let you be. 1) How did IMDB and TV Guide get listed on every page? It's weird b/c I looked at the code and it was only a number, not a URL, which suggests a feed. Are they working directly with Wikipedia? 2) I agree with your conflict of interest clause. It's not in the spirit of the site. However, when I tested it from home, it still came back as spam. That means no one even outside the company can post links to our site. We have loyal readers who would like to contribute to Wikipedia. It's frustrating for them and me when they receive a spam notification.

From the "Only make links to relevent content page": "Relevant connections to the subject of another article that will help readers to understand the current article more fully...This can include people, events and topics that already have an article or that clearly deserve one, as long as the link is relevant to the article in question." I believe our content is relevant to the articles and subjects at hand, just as much as USA Today, AOL, Slate's content is.

/ preppypunk. / March 26, 2007.

Bot being overenthusiastic - vandals getting wittier... grr...[edit]

I placed a nonsense tag on Cruncher, before the vandal (I think - it doesn't take much to put two and two together on this one) removed the page's content. I reverted it so that admins could see that it was nonsense. Shadowbot reverted me. Just so you know, and may I take this opportunity to complement you on a magnificent bot! --///Jrothwell (talk)/// 21:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the reversion, in any case. Technically, if you had used a reversion-related edit summary, Shadowbot would leave you alone, but there's no harm done, I guess. Usually an admin will look over the history of the page before deleting, if the page isn't immediately seen to be CSD-able. And thanks! Shadow1 (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Too Short Page external link always removed...[edit]

why can ther not be a link on the Too Short page, on External Links, a link to the fan site Too Short Headquarters at ? Its is a fully comprehensive site that has lots of great artist info, but is always removed by shadowbot... Jesse

Because it's a fansite that offers no information that can't be found elsewhere. It doesn't offer any new and radically important information, it only presents information gleaned from other sites. Shadow1 (talk) 11:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thomas H. Tongue[edit]

Your bot reverted here, and I promptly reverted back. The addition was not spam, and unfortunetly the historical society I was referencing does not currently have their own TLD. Might I suggest your bot be trained not to revert if the unpreferred websites are in a <ref> note? There is a lot of content only availble on websites like these, and I would prefer not to get into an edit war with a bot. ;) Aboutmovies 07:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot does do that, but only if the ref tags appear on the same line. Shadowbot has to do this, or else too many false positives are introduced. And it's usually impossible to get into a revert war with Shadowbot, unless other users get involved. Shadow1 (talk) 18:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Hunter x Hunter fast bot[edit]

Sorry to bother you with this but I wanted to add a external link to the intro song of Hunter x Hunter, your bot removed this link:

I know he automatically removes freewebs links but this is the intro song and it's no commercial or something. Could you stop your bot from blocking this link please?

Bennie 10:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Its most likely a copyright violation; shows have a tenancy to copyright just about everything they can about them for marketing purposes. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more on policy regarding this. JoeSmack Talk 12:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. When you watch the movies it says that it's a free fansub. So I don't think there is any copyright on the music. Bennie 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)


Your bot removed links to pornotube on autocoitus. These are relevant references in context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Saizai (talkcontribs) 19:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

No, they're links to porn sites, which I will not remove at this time. I already explained on the article's talkpage that I didn't feel the links were relevant in any way. Shadowbot is just trained to remove these sites, I am not using it to enforce my position. Shadow1 (talk) 18:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Shonagh Daly[edit]

Hi, your bot [reverted my edits to the above article. I was trying to expand the stub article. The link seemed to be a valid reference link to an Irish Post article. Could you let me know why I can't use that site for citations and or restore my edit? Many thanks Dick G 09:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The Only Ones[edit]

Stop deleting the link from the Only Ones article. Is it a forum dedicated to the band, and falls within Wikipedias guidelines. 14:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, you are deleting the link from the Only Ones page with no knowledge of what it even is, or even replying to messages left on your discussion page. STOP IT. 14:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Before you choose to delete the link yet again, please re-read the Wikipedia guidelines and reply to this message. It does not state that Network54 domains cannot be linked to, it only states that they could be discouraged if they are not solely about the subject in question. The Network54 domain linked on this page is a forum solely dedicated to the Only Ones and the singer Peter Perrett.

Borntolose007 15:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)