User talk:XLinkBot

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


Engblom v. Carey[edit]

The bot reverted my edit here where I replaced this broken link to the full text of a legal decision with this one from

I have no particular reason for using, I just found it via Google. If there is some standard source which should be used for this kind of stuff on Wikipedia it would be nice if someone replaced it, the broken link doesn't help anyone.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

@ we had some heavy abuse in the past, but I think it is time that this rule goes. I'll handle this. I'll also revert the bot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding links[edit]


I added some links in the text pointing to the UN Organizations mentioned in the text. For the external links, I added also a few Youtube links to interviews and events where Eric Falt was speaking. I'm geting now the following message "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" and I'm not getting how to have it removed. Best,— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chakirp (talkcontribs)

@Chakirp: I have re-removed the youtubes. Even before your edits there were way too many links on the page, it is basically a linkfarm. However, many may be useful as references. I have tagged the article with {{linkfarm}} to state that.
I have also re-instated the {{coi}} tag, that should be removed by someone experienced that has evaluated the situation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Aggressive behaviour towards good faith users[edit]

I run regular Wikipedia sessions with a GLAM partner. Some of the participants are new users. One of the activities was adding some video links. The links were to YouTube but the material involved was not a copyright violation (having been created by the GLM partner as part of an official program a few years ago). Our session ran from noon to 3pm. However, later that night, some of the users received a series of esclating warnings with threats to block from this bot, e.g.

from the bot. To anyone reading the user's talk page, it would seem that the user was warned, persisted, was warned again, persisted etc. But that was not the case. All the edits had occurred some hours prior to the bot's first action. There was no persistent behaviour by the user after the first warning. (And in any case, the additions were not contrary to policy).

The bot should NOT escalate the warning level UNLESS there is actually problematic user behaviour continuing AFTER the previous warning. That is, the bot should be comparing the date of the edit being reverted against its last warning date.

The other thing is that the bot is being indiscriminate in its behaviour to new users. As someone who is a registered course instructor, why are course instructors NOT being told about this bot as anything that affects new user accounts impacts (usually adversely) on training. The first I knew of this bot is when it started biting some of my group members. Is it possible to whitelist accounts in structured programs as a way around the problem? Kerry (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Kerry Raymond: The timing is unfortunate, it seems that the bot is/was lagging. It warned on every edit it reverted, and does so increasingly.
I have now looked at 2 of the edits, which I both re-reverted. They blatantly fail our inclusion standards. Both I reverted are completely indirect, in both cases sideways related to the subject, but very much in violation of the standards that this bot defends.
I will check the rest of it, but if it is the same, then this is yet another example why I believe that GLAM editors also should know what our inclusion standards are, and understand them before we start editing. There is somewhere out there a great blog post where my concerns are voiced regarding this. There is no 'it is GLAM, so it is fine'. Expect more reverts. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:01, 8 June 2017 (UTC) @Kerry Raymond: --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Adding: yes, it is possible to whitelist editors, but they are not exempt from following our inclusion standards. If you are mentoring them, you should be fully aware of these standards, and make them aware of it. I don't believe this is the case here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I have reverted the rest as well. In most cases I have troubles understanding how the content of the video linked to is relevant to the content of our page (I understand that it is related). For some of the links there may be places where they are more relevant.
Note, this person has a conflict of interest, and has not disclosed that clearly, and is hence editing in violation of Wikipedia's terms of use. This editor is badly informed about the policies and guidelines applicable here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:17, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I will make a note that I have to teach XLinkBot to not to escalate when the last warning from the bot was issued after the actual edit reverted (just only revert it). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:40, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

I was adding sources to a horribly sourced article.[edit]

I was adding sources, images, and additional information about the Traditional Chinese characters on the coins, I'm not sure how that counts as vandalism, but this bot didn't even give a reason as to why it not only reverted my recent additions, but ALL OF MY ADDITIONS to that page including adding Chinese characters where needed (for illustrative purposes), and an image from Wikimedia Commons, either this bot is defective or ill-programmed. -- (talk) 05:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The article in question is Ming dynasty coinage, adding 2 external links isn't excessive, and I have no connection to any of the references I was using. -- (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, een Fries heeft de bot gemaakt, dat verklaard het. 😒 -- (talk) 05:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
As explained below, you mix reference styles, and duplicate.
FYI, I am operating it, and run an upgraded version of a bot that was written by someone else. No need for the personal attacks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

In case someone would like to bring up the "copyright" © strike on my profile.[edit]

I've been plagued by bad bots for a while now, I've been editing Wikipedia for over 10 years and never had anything like what happened in merely 2 weeks, on my profile/talk page there's also a supposed "copyright © strike" where I allegedly copied content from here but if you take part of the deleted text you wouldn't see it come back, maybe because I used this reference twice in Ming dynasty coinage it triggered a false positive. -- (talk) 06:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

An excerpt from the text that can't now be displayed anymore.
All characters on both sides of the ‘’Sangpyeong Tongbo’’ coins are written in Regular script with the notable exception of the coin produced by the Military Office of Bukhanseong which bears the character ‘’Kyong’’ (經) in Semi-cursive script. Another differentiating feature of ‘’Sangpyeong Tongbo’’ coins compared to their predecessors is that they exclusively use the phrase ‘’Tongbo’’ (通寶) for all denominations which is based on a Chinese naming taboo of the Ming dynasty with which Joseon maintained close relations that dictated that ‘’Jungbo’’ (元寶) may not be used because it was a part of Hongwu’s name, the founding emperor of the Ming Dynasty."
Nothing comparable to this can be found on the site, it's been completely re-worded. I think that bots are just over-programmed for false positives at us IP users.
-- (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
This does not concern the bot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

the link that triggered it.[edit]

I see that a link that triggered it was one for a website that named Southern Ming dynasty coins, the only reason I even used that link was because all of the content was unsourced, but this bot REVERTED EVERY EDIT I MADE ON THAT PAGE, regardless of their individual merits, even if I was simply linking Chinese characters to the Wiktionary, or adding images from Wikimedia Commons, at least try to teach the bot to be more discriminative, it just unsourced the page, literally all sources except for one before my edits were from coin auction sites, and half of them are now defunct, did it remove any of those? Nope, but it did remove my link from Yale University. "spam" everyone. -- (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

In this revid there is a link to tripod, which tripped the bot. That gets replaced in this version with a text "Hartill, David (2005). Cast Chinese Coins. Trafford, United Kingdom.", which is a duplicate of something that is already used as a source. As such, that source is superfluous. I have therefore removed it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

All of my links followed the guidelines.[edit]

At "External links" at Ming dynasty coinage I only added 2 links, both of which give detailed looks at the monetary history of the Ming, what "triggered" it was a source I added, not even an external link, and I explained that I didn't make it a reference because it concerned 3 or 4 different sections in the text, if it only reverted that edit, or just where I added liks, sure, but the reason I'm upset is because it removed all of the content I added indiscriminately, a message to the maker of this bot, kindly programme it to differentiate between edits, it just saw my IP and reverted everything, look at my edits at Ming dynasty coinage and see that I was mostly adding references to ill-referenced text or adding the correct Chinese characters. At least let it only revert my "bad edit". 😒 -- (talk) 06:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

The bot reverts all, for various reasons. There is no problem to cite different parts of one text in different references, following the style of referencing that is already used in the document. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:50, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Lawsuits, and Troubles[edit]

On June 12, 2017 The Hollywood Reporter reported that Joseph George Karmo, who holds a 2012 copyright for a script called "Tupac; Shining Serpent", has claimed that Steven Bagatourian and Morgan Creek Productions stole his script to make "All Eyes on Me". He has sued Morgan Creek Productions for $40 Million in punitive damages. The case is currently looming as the June 15, 2017 release date nears.[1] Morgan Creek obtains "likely stolen" script from Steven Bagratorian On October 28, 2015, The Hollywood Reporter reported that Emmett/Furla/Oasis had sued Morgan Creek over $10 million for breaking the companies co-production agreement signed in September 2013.[2] In the agreement, terms were not to exceed the production budget above $30 million, mutual approval for the lead actor's selection, filming schedule, and distribution and sales agreements.[2] Randall Emmett and George Furla also claimed that they all first signed a distribution deal with Open Road, which Morgan Creek rejected, and then Morgan Creek inked a new deal with Open Road without mutual approval.[2] --Joseph George Karmo (talk) 09:27, 15 June 2017 (UTC)


  1. ^
  2. ^ a b c Siegemund-Broka, Austin (October 28, 2015). "Tupac Biopic Producer Brings $10M Lawsuit Over Secret Star Casting". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved January 3, 2016. 
@Joseph George Karmo: .. wonderful, and what does this have to do with this bot? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

RE: Michael Persinger Edits[edit]

I made a very extensive change to Michael Persinger's page, adding over 70 references. XLinkBot removed the entire edit. The provided reason for removal of the edit indicated that one of the external links was not reliable. Please re-instate the edits which are not related to that link. The edited text was extensive with thorough referencing and represents hours of work which has now been removed by a bot. The remaining edits should be posted. All claims are made in reference to a particular individual. The references are from peer-reviewed sources. The edits include previous work which discussed controversies.

A warning was labeled on the page which demanded editing to "include all viewpoints". The edits I made incorporated all of the previous viewpoints while expanding the article. Please re-instate what was written. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PyramidalCell (talkcontribs) 05:47, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@PyramidalCell: I've reverted the bot, can you please check the reference that tripped the bot - it is on its revertlist for a reason (in case of references, generally meaning major unreliability). --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dirk Beetstra - Of course. The changes have been applied as per the cited reason. Will the XLinkBot revert it again or should the applied changes remain unless edited with referenced rationale? PyramidalCell (talk) 07:57, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@PyramidalCell: I have already reverted the bot, it does not revert me (only new users and IPs). It also does not re-revert the same editor (i.e. if you revert the edit of XLinkBot it will not revert again, see remarks on your talkpage; it may however revert you again on a 'new' edit).
You don't necessarily have to remove all the edits, it sometimes depends on the context of how the source is used/the context of the source whether it is unreliable (you could e.g. cite 'wrong' information in making the point that it is wrong; sometimes sites are generally correct, but not known for fact-checking and hence one would have to determine whether the right information is actually right, which defies the use of that specific information as a source; sometimes you cite a statement made by a subject regardless whether it is right or wrong). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:46, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@Dirk Beetstra: Many thanks for the assistance and advice. PyramidalCell (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Bimbo's Initiation source was rejected[edit]


I changed the link for the video of Bimbo's Initiation to one that was publicly accessible, and for some reason, it was rejected. I understand if I was violating the terms of service, but I don't believe I was, because I was providing a good source to watch the short film created in the 1930's.

I'm just wondering what made it rejected. Thank you! (talk) 16:16, 18 June 2017 (UTC)Lunatone

@ have reverted the bot, as per suggestion on your talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

I am sure that The E-Manik Channel is Youtube channel of Bareilly[edit]

I am a Bareilly Citizen and I am having a Youtube Channel,The E-Manik Channel. You can't delete My edit, You can check it on YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emanikchannel10 (talkcontribs) 22:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Emanikchannel10: Oh, I have no doubt. However, the subject has an official website, making all other official websites (barring some exceptions) superfluous. See WP:ELMINOFFICIAL for more info. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Reping: @Emanikchannel10: --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:33, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Snooker season 2017/2018[edit]

@ true, though I doubt that the link is needed there in the first place, and it has been spammed in the past. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Eum ...[edit]

Hey ^^ SO all this is about a copyright link ? Then just erase it, don't undo all my changes .. i took hours to update the profile of play the siren ... and why undo all my work if only one thing is not good? Just cancel that thing and let everything else as before ... now i have to redo all ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Similardi (talkcontribs) 14:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Arf xD Sorry, i'm new on Wikipedia. i've read again your message and now i understand, but don't worry, the link is not copyrighted, and thanks for telling it to me, i'm going to undo your undo and sorry for being so aggressive before, keep up the good job !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Similardi (talkcontribs) 14:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)