User talk:Beetstra

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:COIBot)
Jump to: navigation, search
Skip to bottom
Welcome to my talk page.

Please leave me a note by starting a new subject here
and please don't forget to sign your post

You may want to have a look at the subjects
in the header of this talkpage before starting a new subject.
The question you may have may already have been answered there

Dirk Beetstra        
I am the main operator of User:COIBot. If you feel that your name is wrongly on the COI reports list because of an unfortunate overlap between your username and a certain link or text, please ask for whitelisting by starting a new subject on my talkpage. For a better answer please include some specific 'diffs' of your edits (you can copy the link from the report page). If you want a quicker response, make your case at WT:WPSPAM or WP:COIN.
COIBot - Talk to COIBot - listings - Link reports - User reports - Page reports

I will respond to talk messages where they started, trying to keep discussions in one place (you may want to watch this page for some time after adding a question). Otherwise I will clearly state where the discussion will be moved/copied to. Though, with the large number of pages I am watching, it may be wise to contact me here as well if you need a swift response. If I forget to answer, poke me.

I preserve the right not to answer to non-civil remarks, or subjects which are covered in this talk-header.


There are several discussions about my link removal here, and in my archives. If you want to contact me about my view of this policy, please read and understand WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM and WP:A, and read the discussions on my talkpage or in my archives first.

My view in a nutshell:
External links are not meant to tunnel people away from the wikipedia.

Hence, I will remove external links on pages where I think they do not add to the page (per WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:EL), or when they are added in a way that wikipedia defines as spam (understand that wikipedia defines spam as: '... wide-scale external link spamming ...', even if the link is appropriate; also read this). This may mean that I remove links, while similar links are already there or which are there already for a long time. Still, the question is not whether your link should be there, the question may be whether those other links should be there (again, see the wording of the policies and guidelines).

Please consider the alternatives before re-adding the link:

  • If the link contains information, use the information to add content to the article, and use the link as a reference (content is not 'see here for more information').
  • Add an appropriate linkfarm like {{dmoz}} (you can consider to remove other links covered in the dmoz).
  • Incorporate the information into one of the sister projects.
  • Add the link to other mediawiki projects aimed at advertiseing (see e.g. this)

If the linkspam of a certain link perseveres, I will not hesitate to report it to the wikiproject spam for blacklisting (even if the link would be appropriate for wikipedia). It may be wise to consider the alternatives before things get to that point.

The answer in a nutshell
Please consider if the link you want to add complies with the policies and guidelines.

If you have other questions, or still have questions on my view of the external link policy, disagree with me, or think I made a mistake in removing a link you added, please poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page. If you absolutely want an answer, you can try to poke the people at WT:EL or WT:WPSPAM on your specific case. Also, regarding link, I can be contacted on IRC, channel [1].

Reliable sources

I convert inline URL's into references and convert referencing styles to a consistent format. My preferred style is the style provided by cite.php (<ref> and <references/>). When other mechanisms are mainly (but not consistently) used (e.g. {{ref}}/{{note}}/{{cite}}-templates) I will assess whether referencing would benefit from the cite.php-style. Feel free to revert these edits when I am wrong.

Converting inline URLs in references may result in data being retrieved from unreliable sources. In these cases, the link may have been removed, and replaced by a {{cn}}. If you feel that the page should be used as a reference (complying with wp:rs!!), please discuss that on the talkpage of the page, or poke me by starting a new subject on my talk-page

Note: I am working with some other developers on mediawiki to expand the possibilities of cite.php, our attempts can be followed here and here. If you like these features and want them enabled, please vote for these bugs.


I am in general against deletion, except when the page really gives misinformation, is clear spam or copyvio. Otherwise, these pages may need to be expanded or rewritten. For very short articles there are the different {{stub}} marks, which clearly state that the article is to be expanded. For articles that do not state why they are notable, I will add either {{importance}} or {{notability}}. In my view there is a distinct difference between these two templates, while articles carrying one of these templates may not be notable, the first template does say the article is probably notable enough, but the contents does not state that (yet). The latter provides a clear concern that the article is not notable, and should probably be {{prod}}ed or {{AfD}}ed. Removing importance-tags does not take away the backlog, it only hides from attention, deleting pages does not make the database smaller. If you contest the notability/importance of an article, please consider adding an {{expert-subject}} tag, or raise the subject on an appropriate wikiproject. Remember, there are many, many pages on the wikipedia, many need attention, so maybe we have to live with a backlog.

Having said this, I generally delete the {{expand}}-template on sight. The template is in most cases superfluous, expansion is intrinsic to the wikipedia (for stubs, expansion is already mentioned in that template).

Vandalproof.png Warning to Vandals: This user is armed with VandalProof.
Warning to Spammers: This user is armed with Spamda
Choco chip cookie.jpg This user knows where IRC hides the cookies, and knows how to feed them to AntiSpamBot.
Nohat-logo-XI-big-text.png This user is one of the 400 most active English Wikipedians of all time.

Email from Kolega2357[edit]

Hello, Beetstra. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.


  1. (UTC): User [[::en:User:]] ([[::en:User talk:|t]] - c; ) to :en: (diff  top?) - Link: (R/X/L)


  • Displayed all 227 additions.

The script would replace that with:

Extended confirmed protection[edit]

Padlock-blue.svg Hello, Beetstra. This message is intended to notify administrators of important changes to the protection policy.

Extended confirmed protection (also known as "30/500 protection") is a new level of page protection that only allows edits from accounts at least 30 days old and with 500 edits. The automatically assigned "extended confirmed" user right was created for this purpose. The protection level was created following this community discussion with the primary intention of enforcing various arbitration remedies that prohibited editors under the "30 days/500 edits" threshold to edit certain topic areas.

In July and August 2016, a request for comment established consensus for community use of the new protection level. Administrators are authorized to apply extended confirmed protection to combat any form of disruption (e.g. vandalism, sock puppetry, edit warring, etc.) on any topic, subject to the following conditions:

  • Extended confirmed protection may only be used in cases where semi-protection has proven ineffective. It should not be used as a first resort.
  • A bot will post a notification at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard of each use. MusikBot currently does this by updating a report, which is transcluded onto the noticeboard.
Please review the protection policy carefully before using this new level of protection on pages. Thank you.
This message was sent to the administrators' mass message list. To opt-out of future messages, please remove yourself from the list. 17:48, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Request to Remove from spamlist[edit]

  • Link

  • Removal Request

Hello Sir, I am a passionate but not much experienced editor of wikipedia , I belong from India and a keen observer of Bollywood related news,articles,websites etc. sincle last couple of week i tried editing (minor edits) some wikipedia articles of some of the aspiring Artists from my nation i succeeded too, but here is a website 'Filmymantra' where I got stucked a couple of time while Updating Articles of several celebrities from India .

  • How this website can benefit wikipedia

Since Filmymantra is owned by (Filmymantra media pvt. ltd.)[1] and is a Big Online website (Bollywood based) like,koimoi etc from India. I must Say someone may have intentionally tried to spam this because this website is giving great service since last 3 years and they also provides news related info of Indian film industry, particularly Bollywood, film reviews and box office reports along with that the site also manages Indian celebrities which includes like Sapna Pabbi ,Amyra Dastur, Natasa Stankovic, VIVEK VERMA[2], Disha Patani[3] and many more while trying to mention this company in the article of this celebrities (since filmymantra manages them) it showed Blocked and does not allows me to mention the site , Filmymantra also have a good ranking on Alexa[4]

and in India the site is quite famous too, so I kindly request you to whitelist this website(if possible) So that I can Update the reliable Infornmation which i have about the artists managed by this website ! Thank you
  • The article or articles on which the links would be used

Disha Patani[5], Sapna Pabbi ,Amyra Dastur, Natasa Stankovic Because Filmymantra Exclusively Manages these celebs .


Worldnpeace (talk) 04:55, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Reactionbox template concern[edit]

Someone raised a concern about two templates you had worked on...Template talk:Reactionbox#Calls to non-existent templates. I haven't looked at the reactionbox world in too long to be able to give any input yet. DMacks (talk) 19:22, 28 September 2016 (UTC) Hope you don't mind my cleanup of the sections preceding this one...I couldn't even find my own message:) DMacks (talk) 19:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

about page related to shirish kunder[edit]

This page and specially career section of this person seems to be edited by either Shirish himself or his well wisher. Its biased and does not mentions the failures and controversies of this person. I tried to add some events with reference(from Wikipedia and popular newpapers) and I am not sure why they are being removed.

Please look at tees mar khan (film), Joker(film 2012) reviewsavailable on wikipedia and edit shirish kunder's page accordingly. Even his short film published of youtube ran into controversy is deliberately skipped on his wiki page. Please do the needful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kvingle (talkcontribs) 11:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Kvingle: You can make the page less biased as you wish, but do not remove information that is referenced, even if it points in one direction. I do know that this is a WP:BLP, and that, according to the Wikipedia article, there has been controversy with one of his movies. You say it is overly positive, and that may be true, but then that may also mean that negative information (and likely, especially negative information), needs high quality sources. One does not make an article less biased by removing properly referenced positive information ..
Besides that, your edits resulted in one sentence being repeated 3 times. That is anyway not the purpose. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)