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.


Proposed deletion of Jun Hong Lu‎[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Jun Hong Lu‎ has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Wiping a welcome[edit]

Strangely this edit did just that. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC).

MediaWiki quirk - it did not properly retrieve the old revid (hence the '1'), and the bot .. did not detect the failure. Thanks, Rich, I'll keep this in mind for a bug-update in the future. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Killer Mike[edit]

No idea how to rectify the bot's edit summary with the actual reverted edit here. Malfunctioning? Antepenultimate (talk) 03:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Crazy error - the editor first made an edit in which a reference mark got broken - that resulted in a lot of links after the inserted paragraph to not show up in the saved page. The consequtive edit (diff) repairs the broken ref, resulting in the second half of the page to be 're-added' to the saved page, and that includes the facebook which triggered the bot. Thanks for catching this! --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Inclusion of the official "Youtube Channel" of Antara Nandy in the page[edit]

the above is the official Youtube Channel of Antara Nandy for all videos of her.

Kindly suggest how the same to be uploaded in her page.


Nandys20 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nandys20 (talkcontribs) 17:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@Nandys20: I presume you came here after an XLinkBot warning - per that remark left on your talkpage, please see WP:ELOFFICIAL - we do not include all official sites of a subject, that is outside of our scope. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)


Just to point out that this edit reverted a lot of a user's contributions to the article, just because they'd also added an external link to blogspot. That seems rather OTT, particularly since the blogspot link is a very relevant one to have in the article! I've reverted the bot's edit. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

@Mike Peel: - please see the User:XLinkBot/FAQ, where this is explained. It is a choice, the other option often not being sufficient by far, and often leading to broken pages. Yet another reason why the bot's edits appear in the recent changes feeds. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Beetstra: OK, but why not just remove the link, in whatever format it's been added, rather than reverting edits? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, on a second look, that's in the FAQ already. So let me modify my suggestion to removing the line if it's been added in the external links section, if that line didn't exist already, and similar the sentence if in the main text. Basically what I'm saying is, you need to include more nuanced logic in your bot's work, rather than just reverting edits en masse. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Any partial revert or 'attempt to only remove the part of the text with the link' results too often in 'broken' pages. The cleanest option is a complete revert, which is also the easiest to re-revert and repair then. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Per WP:ELOFFICIAL, the most official link there is the link to the museum. That page links already to the other pages that are linked, which both are not official subjects of the page, and both fail our inclusion standards - we do not link to everything that is related to the subject, we do not link to everything that is telling about the subject, we only link to material that is needed for understanding of the subject. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Beetstra: Sure, I'm generally against the existence of external links sections full stop, but in this case it seems to be a relevant (and official) website that happens to be running on blogspot, so it seems appropriate for the article (at least while it's not used as a reference). I completely agree with your edit, but I wasn't talking about those links! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:17, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Removing the link can be just as problematic, as then there is no reference to the statements. A revert shows clearly in one's notifications, and it adds a clear link to the information page. There is no perfect solution and for all the years of the operation of the bot, an occasional OTT is not a bad effort. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: - I know it was the other links in the External links section - we are discussing the merit of those, the other ones were not part of this discussion so I could solve what I perceived as a problem with the statement. My problem with the blogspot (and the other link) is that unlike the museum link (which is about the subject directly), that e.g. the blogspot is about the restoration project (of the museum), which is indirect and therefore fails our inclusion standards. Moreover, the blogspot is linked from the direct museum external link. Our inclusion standards are not that it has to be a 'relevant (and official) website'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:17, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Basingstoke page[edit]

XLinkBot has no idea about the local area, but is a stupid script, so shouldn't be deciding what is local or not!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rukalukaj (talkcontribs)

@Rukalukaj: The bot however is scripted to stop people from using certain highly unreliable sources as a source of information, like the wikitravel you use as a reference. The rest of the references do not really help either to establish that notability. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Cahn Edit Protection Extension[edit]

Hi there, a few months ago you placed the Jonathan Cahn page under edit protection after several attempts of putting promotional material onto the article. Since the protection was placed it has been very successful however the protection for the page runs out tomorrow and was wondering if you, especially as it was you who protected the page in the first place could extended the protection beyond tomorrow as I am concerned that we will have the same problems again once the protection runs out, Thank you ( (talk) 05:29, 21 July 2015 (UTC))

That looks strange to me, this is the page of a bot. I'll have a look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Ah, I did it. It expires today. If that is considered a signal to continue the warring I will either protect it again, or liberally hand out some blocks. Thanks for alerting me. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
Cant you just renew the protection? ( (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC))
@ I could, but I'd prefer to have a reason. If edit warring proceeds, I will just block some editors first now (which may be on either side, being right is also not a reason to edit war) - that the page was protected should have been a signal. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:34, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 25 July 2015[edit]

Dear XLinkBot The article and links I have added recently is comletely true and verifiable. Because Hurshid Tojibaey is my close friend. I added these info by his personal request! Please, replace all information I have added! 25.07.2015 M.Muratov — Preceding unsigned comment added by MMuratovForUzb (talkcontribs) 10:38, 25 July 2015

@MMuratovForUzb: Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: this is the talk page for communicating with the user XLinkBot (talk · contribs) (which is a bot, not a human) and a protected edit request is not needed for that. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Reverting change to Fine Fare[edit]

You have reverted the change of Fine Fare, stating that this is a link that is on your list of removals. However the page is not an advertisement nor anthing that breaks wikipedia rules. The link is the reference of the Fine Fare store in Ramsgate, being not a memory but physical evidence. You have also deleted all the other changes that were made in reverting this change. (talk) 08:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

@ Thank you for your remark. I am actually tempted to remove that whole section, as that is utterly unencyclopedic detail. You do not see that type of information on Boots, Walmart or McDonalds either. Lists of that type, however reliable and sourced, do not belong in Wikipedia. A simple remark 'The shop could be found throughout the UK', referenced to a reliable list or an internet archive of the shop's own internet site locations list (if that exists) would be more, more than enough.
Also noting, that a blogspot is not a reliable source, and that is why the bot reverted the edit. If that information is to be included, you'll have to find better sources than that (an internet archive of the shop's own internet site showing that information would be an option, if that exists).
So yes, it does break wikipedia rules. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

XLinkBot breaking links by reverting repairs on Turn_My_Head[edit]

The youtube links on use an obsolete format that results in youtube forwarding users to the LiveVEVO account home page. I've read through the rules on external links and believe the fixed links should be allowed. They clearly meet the "Official links" criteria, and don't obviously break any rules. But if they shouldn't be allowed, then XLinkBot's version of them should also definitely not be allowed. XLinkBot's version would have any problems the corrected urls have, then on top of that they break rule #2 for "official links." This article's primary subject is just the song, but the obsolete links lead to a page whose subject is many of the band's songs. And XLinkBot's links simply don't lead to where a reader would expect based on the text ("Official Music Video" and "Alternative Official Music Video.") (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

@ Maybe they do not belong in the first place - I'll have a look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:34, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I've reverted the bot - but I doubt that the links should actually be there .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Maurizio Morandi[edit]

Continue Vandalism of the false pastor Maurizio Morandi. Protect this voice, please !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

I am afraid you are barking up to wrong tree - you're interacting with a bot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:28, 4 August 2015 (UTC)