User talk:XLinkBot

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, nor a directory. If you feel your addition was within those policies and guidelines and are Reliable and Verifiable, 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.

---

LPFM

List_of_LPFM_stations_in_New_Zealand#Wellington

no link was added. The link was already there 60.234.144.222 (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lonelygirl15 Episode delete

I'm simply updating the list of lonelygirl15 episodes on the very extensive list of them (we're up to 410), so the deletion of the last six episodes that I added and provided links to like every other single episode was unnecessary. I put them back in, and unless you're planning to delete the whole article, the deletion of the episodes once again would be extremely contradictory to the rest of the entire article, seeing as how I am only providing updates to the article. Zombiejaci (talk) 09:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted the bot's removal of your additions. SquelchBot reverts additions of links which are often spammed by anonymous users and new users who aren't familiar with our External Links guidelines. Your account will be auto-confirmed in a few days and you should have no further problems adding episodes. --Versageek 14:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Links to original research

A link on the page Martin Lukes was deleted. The comment from Squelch Bot said in part ... "Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), they are not written by a recognised, reliable source or contain original research."

The last to me looks like a misunderstanding of the idea of No Original Research. Wikipedia is not meant to contain original research, but surely linked pages may contain original research.

Not sure this is really an issue for the page that is relevant here, but still, it looks like a misunderstanding here. --81.178.97.181 (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

SquelchBot reverts additions of links which are often spammed by anonymous users and new users who aren't familiar with our External Links guidelines. Links to blogspot.com fit into this category since anyone can create a blogspot account & publish their opinion (see the self-published sources section of our Verifiability policy). Having looked at your addition, I'm inclined to leave it as an example of someone who didn't realize it was fiction. As you discovered, the bot won't revert the same article twice in a row.. this doesn't mean the addition will always stay, as it usually prompts a human review of the edit. --Versageek 15:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually you missed the point of my posting on this page. I'm saying that links to original research must be fine (it's Wikipedia that should not contain o.r., not the pages it links to which may well do. So I think the comment from SquelchBot was misleading.

You're right, I removed that part. Thanks for pointing this out to us. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:09, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Blogspot.com

This shouldn't be up here. There are situations where it is 100% acceptable if not desirable to link to this site. For example, if a BLP's personal site is at blogspot.com. Lawrence § t/e 14:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

There are enough concerns for blog/mysite sites to be on this list, the majority of the edits by new accounts is not in accordance with policy or guideline (one or more out of: WP:NOT#REPOSITORY, WP:SOAPBOX, WP:NPOV, WP:COI, WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:COPYRIGHT). In the blogspot case e.g., how do you know that it is the official blog. The bot does remember new editors to check that and if they do feel it is appropriate, they can readd it without being reverted or experienced editors who know about these concerns can add the link if they do think it is appropriate (they don't get reverted). SquelchBot is not the spam-blacklist. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Links to Blazer's Blog

Before adding the external link, I reviewed the External Links policy and believe that the addition of the link adds an important and current information to the entry. Based on my review of the Wiki article and the variety of players and insights into the city of Portland, the link is extremely revelant and offers information that is not offered by the current Wiki entry (and is better added through use of the external link). Please revert the changes. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.55.3 (talk) 23:31, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain this on the talk page of the article. If the other editors of that article feel the link is appropriate, it can be put into the article. --Versageek 04:19, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

About the anthems of Kalmykia, Sakha, Tatarstan

Hi SquelchBot,

Yes. It's my fault to use sources with ambiguous licenses. I'll be careful before citing any source from YouTube next time. Apologies for inconvenience.

Sincerely,

140.112.90.224, 2008-01-29 (Tue) 00:53 UST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.115.2 (talk) 00:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

About Christell's Article

Hi SquelchBot, about the links from my article, Im sorry, I already extracted the external links, I didn't know that I couldn't put them all the times a wanted. But what is the problem with the external links from the two videos from youtube I posted??? Or those are ok?? because I've seen links from youtube' videos in wikipedia so I thought that was ok, and I just put two.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:CarolBkn" —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarolBkn (talk • contribs) 05:47, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

About Paper Shredder Edit

Hi Squelchbot, just a question here on why an external link was deleted.

According to Wikipedia's guidelines for external links, articles "should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability." In this case, what could be more relevant than an article listing what documents should and shouldn't be shredded? Especially given the fact that the external link that remains (for OfficeZone) is no less commercial than the one that was deleted. It looks like the deleted link contained original research and was in accordance with the rules.

Thanks...User:Market224 —Preceding comment was added at 13:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You are talking about this edit: diff. You seem to be quite persistent in adding that link. The external links on paper shredder should be about a paper shredder, not about what documents you should typically throw in to them (see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided, number 14). Also, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. External links are OK if they are on-topic etc. (as you read in the external links guideline), but it is content we are after here. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I apologize if the link was out of line...I genuinely thought it was on-topic (paper shredder/what you should and shouldn't shred...not exactly apples to oranges) and was only trying to be helpful....User:Market224

Official blog

Okay, so how do you want me to add Jolie Justus' official blog as a State Senator, if I can't link to blogspot?? 205.167.180.130 (talk) 20:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the bot. --Versageek 20:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. It's always enlightening to spend some time as an IP and see what simple tasks become exponentially more difficult. 205.167.180.130 (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments at User talk:Deana175

When you told off User:Deana175 off for inserting links to multiple geocities documents at English Standard Version, I think you missed that he/she was simply reverting edits of mine. So I think the edits were in good faith. I've invited him/her to discuss the edits at Talk:English Standard Version. Peter Ballard (talk) 23:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

"told off" is a bit harsh, the bot left an informative warning about why the links were removed. I understand the bot's name seems BITE-y, we will be changing to a less obnoxious name soon. Thank you for taking up the content discussion with this user. --Versageek 19:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Marguerite Perrin

I have reverted your change to the Marguerite Perrin article-- you removed the link to her MySpace page. Since the link it to a page belonging to the SUBJECT of the article, it is a valid link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.251.45.216 (talk) 01:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Thanks! --Versageek 01:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

About my revision of The S-Word (The Boondocks)

I only linked to a YouTube video because the article referred to it; I thought the article would look better with a link to an actual video rather than saying what the video's called and saying that one could find it on YouTube. I'm sorry! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.133.111.233 (talk) 05:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

K-pop

I think http://krnloop.wordpress.com/ should be included in the external links. It provides translations of Korean entertainment news articles with a neutral point of view (and links to original Korean sources). Some people have been adding sites such AllKpop.com and other resources are either biased or do not provide enough information. I believe Krnloop should stay on the list since English news about Kpop is very limited. 75.15.86.252 (talk) 06:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunatly the External links policy on blogs are Links normally to be avoided. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 10:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Great to see you up and running!

I'm a big fan of yours. Enigmaman (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The Technology Barnstar

moved to bot's userpage

If the bot gets a new name, Please feel free to change that above...--Hu12 (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Themerson

Hallo, you deleted the external link I add. OK, it's a blog, but it's the only which issued the Themerson's experimental video Calling Mr.Smith. So I think we could leave this external link. Best, Marcocrotone —Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocrotone (talk • contribs) 16:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you give us a link to the page or the revert? Otherwise it is difficult to see what you mean. Both Themerson and Calling Mr.Smith do not exist, and I don't see the edit in your edithistory. Blogs would only be allowed if they are the official blog of the subject of the page. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

--> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Themerson the blog http://mellart.blogspot.com/2008/01/calling-mr-smith.html isn't official page, ins't a famous blog, but it's the only blog which analize the short films Calling Mr. Smith! talk • contribs) 20:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that sums it up. The blog is not by the subject of the page, it is not about the subject of the page, so it does not belong on this page. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hi, why was the link to a 1956 document not deemed acceptable? Thanks!Rocky2276 (talk) 17:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you supply a diff, please? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see, priory-of-sion.com. There are (now two; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/priory-of-sion.com) accounts that are pushing that link, while other users try to make clear that the link, especially in the current format. May I suggest that before further additions are performed, the involved editors start discussing on appropriate talkpages first? Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Verbose messages, no template comments

The messages left by this bot on user talk pages should be more concise and follow the escalation patterns of prior warnings given by the uw-spam1, uw-spam2, uw-spam3, and uw-spam4 templates. Other bots (ClueBot, VoABot) manage this quite well, and they leave inline comments indicating the warning level. When XLinkBot comes along, the message it leaves doesn't indicate a warning level meaningful to either bots or humans.

For example, on User talk:203.123.154.98, XLinkBot should have left a level-2 spam warning with the comment <!-- Template:uw-spam2 -->, instead of a long essay with no warning level. The essay was incorrectly indented too (which I fixed), making it look like a reply to the prior warning. Please consider these improvements. Thanks. =Axlq (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, that 'essay' is part of the first warning. It gives a {{uw-spam1}} and an explanation of why the bot reverted. Do you think that that part of (each) warning should not be indented? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I thought someone else left uw-spam1, and the bot added indented material underneath. That's what it looks like to someone reading over the page.

Anyway, why is uw-spam1 insufficient? If it's good enough for humans, it's good enough for bots. However, if you want to add more information, that long-winded 3-paragraph 'essay' could be reduced to a few lines, something like this:

Your edit [diff] was reverted by an automated bot. For information about why, see the external linking guidelines as well as the guidelines for Linking to copyrighted works and conflict of interest. If this bot's revert was in error, please let the bot creator know on User talk:XLinkBot. If this is a shared IP address and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Naming the article in a heading is redundant, because uw-spam already names the article. The bot should also pay attention to the heading or sub-heading under which it's posting. If a ===January 2008=== heading already exists, and it's still January 2008, the bot shouldn't insert its own heading. =Axlq (talk) 15:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I have chosen to add a bit more information, as it is often the case that the link is not spam, though an unwanted link. Therefore it includes extra information (where possible) to tell why this particular link was reverted (images because they are better uploaded etc.). I could remove the indenting, that makes it clearer that it belongs in one post.

I will have a look into trying to obey the 'January 2008'-headings used by the other bots one of these days. That should not be too hard. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think I solved the "January 2008"-heading. I'd like to hear some more input on how to make the warning proper for the type of link, without flooding the page. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, as I suggested above, a few lines of explanation with some "fill-in-blanks" might do the trick. For example:

Your edit [diff] was reverted by an automated bot, because [bot inserts reason below]

• links to blog/fansite/community/forum sites are discouraged by the external linking guidelines and the reliable sources policy, except in case of an official link pertaining to the subject of the article.
• links to promotional sites, whether commercial or not, are discouraged by the external linking guidelines.
• Linking to copyrighted works should be avoided where it isn't clear that the copyright holder gave permission for reproduction or distribution.
• Your edits have predominantly focused on adding this link to articles, which suggests a possible conflict of interest.
• (any other appropriate reason taken from WP:EL)

If you are associated with this link, please review conflict of interest guidelines and discuss your link on the article's talk page instead of adding it to the article. If this bot's revert was in error, please let the bot creator know on User talk:XLinkBot. If this is a shared IP address and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

How's that? If you complete the first sentence with one of the bullets, you get a concise and civil message explaining why the bot took action. You don't even need to split it into paragraphs. =Axlq (talk) 16:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a look at making the warnings more consise later, at the moment the four things that users get customised warnings for is for 'pay per view'-pages (free hosts where people can create an own page, and when others see the page the user gets money from the site-maintainer), 'free hosts' (often problems with COI), 'media files' (which often link to copyrighted information), and 'petition sites' (not a soapbox etc.). The ones that have not been categorised get a shorter warning.

I'd like to add here, that this bot is doing something different than reverting vandalism. Vandalism does not need an extra warning, while people who add, in good faith, an external link, often don't see where their link violates WT:SPAM or WP:EL, so I think in this case a better explanation is necessery (but we do agree on that). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hans Keller

Could you take a look at my edit here to see if this is valid or not? The link is to a video where Hans Keller (the subject of the article) interviews a band that was on a television show that he hosted in the 1960s. I looked at the guidelines and don't see how this is a violation of them, but could you check just to be sure? It was not an attempt at spam. You also erased my infobox, which am pretty sure is not spam. Cheers. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 12:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably it is, the video might very well be a copyright violation, do you know by any chance where the original is? Also, it is not an interview with Hans Keller, it is an interview by Hans Keller. That does not tell more about Hans Keller, it tells more about Pink Floyd. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, cool. That makes sense. What about the infobox? I thought all bio articles were supposed to have them? That got zorched, too. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 15:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No problems with that, you are right, you can insert that. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, just making sure. Thanks for the assistance. 70.186.172.75 (talk) 15:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Intel 8085: reverted edit due to link to freeware program relevant to article

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Intel_8085&diff=188135564&oldid=188120245 which was reverted due to regex match of "geocities", while I do understand the reason for the regex (and could basically re-add the edit without said link), I feel that adding additional freeware resources to that article helps because, 1) the article deals with an electronic component that is frequently used all over the world by numerous universities in computer science and engineering courses to teach microprocessor and microcontroller design/architecture, thus it is highly likely that readers may be interested in freely available educational programs about said component (namely, microprocessor simulators), thus the encyclopedic value of the article is increased by such links (even though a couple of links are added), 2) the originally mentioned program 'gnusim8085' (while free and open source) is currently restricted to one single OS (namely, Linux) 3) however, an significant portion of computer users today is still using Win32-based OS, and 4) all added links refer to freeware programs, thus there is no commercial interest at all. Therefore, please reconsider the edits of the bot. Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Parallelized (talk • contribs)

You can make that decision to revert. Though, wikipedia is not the yellow pages, the external links do not provide more information about the Intel 8085, they provide information about free software. So no, I do not concur that these links (this one, and also the other ones) have their place on this page. Geocities is there since they generally do not provide information that should be linked to in external links sections. Being commercial or not is not the only reason why links are on the revertlist. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Your psycho-bot is removing inter-Wikipedia Links

Your psycho-bot is removing inter-Wikipedia Links like:
The planet Earth's temperature extreme records are:
See the reversions at Planetary human habitability
198.163.53.10 (talk) 18:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that was because you inserted a link which is on the revertlist (blogspot). The rest is a form of 'collateral damage', the blogspot would not be allowed per our external links guideline. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not psycho. It just brought a rocket-launcher to a gun fight. :) Enigmaman (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

22nd Bomb Group link

The 22nd Bomb Group was a very forward unit of the USAAF in World War 2. President Lyndon Johnson got a silver star for a 30 minute ride with the Group. In compiling historical material for the 22nd Bomb Group's entry, contributors are encouraged to provide historical sources. Three incredibly important sources have been discovered and added to the Wikipedia website: 1. a personal account of the first action seen by the Group: an attack on the Japanese Fleet at the Battle of Midway, by Lt James Muri. 2. a personal account of the first action seen by the Group in New Guinea 3. a video of a crash landing of a survivor from the mission that LBJ went on for the first 30 minutes (his flight turned back). These are important sources that get posted onto the internet ... and I scan the internet regularly for new, important material to add to the site. I don't understand the exclusion of these really important historical sources. I am the creator of this entry and have not logged in because I've lost my login set. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.124.102 (talk) 23:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the bot. Please consider establishing a new account to avoid being reverted by the bot (or other users). --Versageek 20:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Counter productive bot

Hello, I just wanted to say that in my opinion the bot is counter productive in the respect that it removes links to youtube for example, without apparently any forethought as to whether they are valid or not. If you do not want any links to some sites, why not simply blacklist them ? Jackaranga (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot is intended to deal with domains which may have a legit use on-wiki, but are frequently misused by new and anonymous users (or have a history of being misused). The bot allows established (autoconfirmed) users to add links, while reverting links added by others. IP's and new users can still edit a page that contains links on the bot's revert list, they won't be reverted unless they add or change a link themselves. If a site is on the Mediawiki blacklist, no one can add it and pages which contain it may not be saved.. this is especially problematic if you are an IE user.. since IE will lose all your changes if it gets a "can't save this page" message. Only sites which are completely inappropriate for Wikipedia belong on the Mediawiki blacklist. --Versageek 20:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

glass tiles

I suggest that the 'installing glass tiles' ext link from the Dec 20 version of this page should be reinstated:

"Wikipedia articles should include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia if they are relevant. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtbaldyred (talk • contribs) 05:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the bot.. apparently the page was vandalized sometime last week.. the IP was just restoring all the categories & material that was removed. --Versageek 05:21, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Caracal Pistol

Hello, I am this IP, you reverting edits by Quickload, and now this user make a Copyright infringement, the new text is from here, sorry for my bad English. Greetings from Austria. --195.3.113.176 (talk) 14:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, I have reverted the copyvio additions. -- Versageek 19:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

As stated on my talk page, I am the author of both texts in the wikipedia article (that I started) and the informative site referring to the Caracal pistol. Same for many other texts and pictures that can be found on both my sites and Wikipedia articles referring to historical firearms, mainly submachineguns like the Bergmann MP 18.1, the Colt 635, the Steyr MP 34 etc...

Edmond HUET (talk) 13:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mark Bunker

As statet here [1] you did remove the Link to the YouTube Page were MB does show his OWN Videos. so please do insert this Link again. 194.76.29.2 (talk) 10:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the links are to Xenu TV pages, not to pages telling things about Mark Bunker. Hence, not directly linked (see Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided. Hope this explains. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 13:06, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Newsoul.jpg

Please delete the file. I'm sorry for any trouble I have caused. Thank You, User:Cool-guy357

deleted, thanks for letting us know. I've placed a welcome template on your talk page, hopefully you will find it helpful :) . --Versageek 01:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

From Logic to Ontology: The limit of "The Semantic Web"

The limits of the semantic web are not set by the use of machines themselves and biological systems could be used to reach this goal, but as the logic that is being used to construct it does not contemplate the concept of time, since it is purely formal logic and metonymic lacks the metaphor, and that is what Gödel's theorems remark, the final tautology of each construction or metonymic language (mathematical), which leads to inconsistencies. The construction of the Semantic Web is a undecidible problem.

This consistent logic is completely opposite to the logic that makes inconsistent use of time, inherent of human unconscious, but the use of time is built on the lack, not on positive things, it is based on denials and absences, and that is impossible to reflect on a machine because of the perceived lack of the required self-awareness is acquired with the absence.

The problem is we are trying to build an intelligent system to replace our way of thinking, at least in the information search, but the special nature of human mind is the use of time which lets human beings reach a conclusion, therefore does not exist in the human mind the halting problem or stop of calculation.

So all efforts faced toward semantic web are doomed to failure a priori if the aim is to extend our human way of thinking into machines, they lack the metaphorical speech, because only a mathematical construction, which will always be tautological and metonymic, and lacks the use of the time that is what leads to the conclusion or "stop".

As a demonstration of that, if you suppose it is possible to construct the semantic web, as a language with capabilities similar to human language, which has the use of time, should we face it as a theorem, we can prove it to be false with a counter example, and it is given in the particular case of the Turing machine and "the halting problem".

um.. interesting, but why post it here? --Versageek 03:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

References and links...

Rugby league in France
I understand very well what you say:
. official links of the French republic (government(s) or its institutions) are false,
. official documents of the French republic (the image provided by government(s) or its institutions ) are false,
. official infos provided by the French historians are false.

Consequently
. why want you this: "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable" ?
. why require you this: "Reference(s)" ?
. why want you this: "the writings have to be documented ?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.216.5.2 (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The bot reverts links to imageshack because they are often copyright violations, that doesn't appear to be a problem in this case. Links to government institutions are fine, however, images of documents placed on a free image share service such as imageshack can't be considered official government documents because we have no way of knowing what (if any) changes may have been made to them between the time the government issued them & when they were placed online (this is a general statement, not intended to suggest you have done anything improper). It would be better to link to a copy of the document on a government website. --Versageek 13:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you said but governments, official institutions, Historians don't add on internet or in theirs books all documents they issue or find; you are obliged to do searches with the info they give and to do photocopies of the documents that you put after in a free image share service.
Moreover for a French who provides false official documents it is several months in prison and several thousands € of penalties, for a French state civil servant prison and penalties are huguely more important; where is my interest or of L. Bonnery's interest ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.216.5.2 (talk) 13:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You suggest that you have to link to the imageshack documents, because otherwise you can't make references? It may look strange, but there does not have to be a link to the document, if you state that someone published something in a document called something, in some month of some year, and you make sure that description is referring to a unique document, then it is a valid reference already, and that information is verifiable. The link to the document is merely a service to the wikipedia-users. Images on servers like imageshack are often copyright violations, and could easily be documents that are not an exact or good copy, or they get replaced by the user who put them there (and how do we know it is an exact copy if we don't know where the exact copy is .. ). In all cases it is better to refer to the official document, and if there is a link to that official document, then that is a good link. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

1) I always give my sources (in references or links).
2) have you read above the consequences for providing false official documents (where is my interest) ?

Could this be a Bot error?

I entered www.my-plasma-tv.com under External Links for Plasma TV's and it was rejected by XLinkBot with this reason "The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: '\bblogspot\.com' (link(s): http://plasmatelevision42.blogspot.com/) ."

The my-plasma-tv does not link to a blog, forum or free web hosting service. It is a site dedicated to explaining how plasma tv's work, comparing them to LCD's, how to hang above a fireplace, how to hide the wires, affects of sunlight etc.

It is a current and up to date site as opposed to the link from 2004 (Plasma display panels: The colorful history of an Illinois technology by Jamie Hutchinson, Electrical and Computer Engineering Alumni News, Winter 2002-2003).

Yes, there are adsense ads on it but who doesn't have those. Could this be a Bot Error? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendi789 (talk • contribs) 17:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, when you reverted the user who removed your link the first time, you also added back in four other links. One of those was a blogspot.com link, which caused the bot to revert you. --Versageek 03:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining what happened. I would still like to add http://www.my-plasma-tv.com to the Plasma TV page. I'm concerned that if I add it again I will get the same error and a "second warning". Could an administrator add this site in the External links section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendi789 (talk • contribs) 12:07, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi --You need to upgrade your algorithm

I am not able to understand the reason behind reverting the update on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_QuickTest_Professional You can have an expert check for this website http://mercuryquicktestprofessional.blogspot.com This links gives some of the very practical solutions for beginners and advanced users of QTP. Your algorithm penalize any site hosted on blogspot...that in my opinion is insane. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.91.144.90 (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Please take a look at the specific requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines. I don't think this link meets either guideline.--Hu12 (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

East York, Ontario

Please leave the link to the googlepages weather link for this page. A useful service. Bellagio99 (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Second Life

I tried to add a link to http://slgames.wordpress.com/2007/04/12/alternatives-to-second-life-uber-edition/#more-340 I do think this adds value to the article. Please consider allowing this particular URL to that page. I understand that many blogs are unreliable but this particular article I think does add value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.100.8 (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Secretariat (horse) YouTube links

I recently re-inserted some unique links that were deleted by a user who is bitter that his link (he couldn't wait to word it and post it in a backhanded way to try to further call Secretariat's greatness into question) with Secretariat losing in the 1973 Wood Memorial was deleted; his continued denigration of the horse in his previous "correcting" posts spells him out as a troublemaker. This user has an ax to grind with anyone who enjoys Secretariat and his accomplishments, he seems to detest Secretariat because he thinks he is overrated. After he deleted said links, he has NOT deleted any other YouTube horse racing links, ANYWHERE on Wikipedia. That is MOST peculiar, and telling.

All I ask therefore is that ALL automated BOTS on Wikipedia are THOROUGH in their deletion of YouTube links by scanning for and deleting CURRENT links as well, not just deleting links via a more stringent screening of illegal YouTube links added in the future. To not do so is unethical; Wikipedia's own words: "Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." An automated scanning system for active YouTube links (for that matter, ANY video links from copyrighted sites and/or containing copyrighted footage) so far overlooked is needed; otherwise, the rejection of the re-insertion of the links I speak of (13:10, 16 February 2008) is patently unfair.

Please link to what you're talking about. Anyway, the bot isn't programmed to scan pages for links. It's checking for new links that are added. Enigma (talk) 17:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Enigma: My original concern was that I was wondering IF it was indeed possible for a bot(s) to be developed and programmed to scan for and erase illegal video links, somehow. If not, no problem. I notice that you are a "recent changes patroller"; I am rather new to this process, forgive me for not including a live link, but I thought the subject header was sufficient enough to get my point across. Point taken, and I thank you for your time.

I reverted the bot, but I suspect all of the youtube.com links on the page (including yours) go to some sort of copyvio material.. (all of the videos contain television footage). One of the reasons the bot rejects youtube links from new and anonymous users is because we don't have enough people to manually check the thousands and thousands of links. Just because other stuff exists doesn't mean we need to allow more of it. --Versageek 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Versageek: I appreciate your reverting the bot's changes. I put those links of Secretariat's "Alternate Footage" up for Secretariat admirers and horse racing lovers in general to enjoy; the footage is obscure to find and would be likely lost forever to the majority of racing fans if not unearthed by said means. It was purely posted to enhance the experience of "Big Red." That said, it is still illegal to post broadcast footage in any shape or form, and I accept future deletion of those links if Wikipedia deems them to be unacceptable. I thank you for your attention and time in this matter.

Loyola de Palacio

I do not undertand you, how can you say false things about a death person as Loyola de Palacio and clear what is right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pukvega (talk • contribs) 17:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Pukvega, the blog link you included is inappropriate as it can not be the official blog written by the subject of the article, because this person is deceased. --Versageek 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Cass links

I was linking through to an article originally written by the Douglas motor company promoting the first circumnavigation of Australia in 1925 on a motorcycle (which happened to be a Douglas). The text of the article has been typed out and appears on a geocities site. Kevin Cass re-created this journey and it thus seems wholly relevant to include it as a reference. This is the link which has been removed http://www.geocities.com/xs400/Aust1925.txt. I would argue that this is a very robust source, not under copyright since the company no longer exists, and it is of interest to this article.

Further to this, Kevin Cass built a winning motorcycle which is featured in the registry of classic bikes and which I remember him building. This link has also been removed. http://www.classicmotorcycling.com.au/default.asp?cat=registryview&ID=136

Furthermore, I would like to say that the era of motorcycle racing which Kevin Cass was involved with in Australia is extremely poorly documented anywhere and particularly online (outside of forums) and that I am lucky to find the references I have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakeass (talk • contribs) 12:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Request to remove from Revertlist - whatbird.com

Hi, Pls remove whatbird.com from the Revertlist of the XlinkBot. The link contains the birdcalls and songs of the birds that cannot be added to the wiki. Thanks for your consideration. Ropm (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The blatant way this link is currently being spammed (including people offering money to spam wikipedia) suggests that this may actually be a good candidate for the meta spam blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Would agree with Dirk, and it is now blacklisted--Hu12 (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

distributist.blogspot.com

Yes, I have been removed from three main sources. The first is "Father Vincent Mcnabb," another for "Social Justice" and "Cooperative." As all of these fall under my site, "The ChesterBelloc Mandate" I would like them to be unedited. The site in question is a website dedicated to G.K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, and Fr. Vincent McNabb specifically about the Catholic application of social justice, to include private ownership and cooperative movements.

Regards, Gen Ferrer www.distributist.blogspot.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.113.44.188 (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

blogs are generally not accepted on Wikipedia, as such anything from blogger.com is removed. See here. Enigma ^msg! 04:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Mr. Deeds Goes to Town

I noticed that your bot deleted the references to the "666" image in "Mr. Deeds Goes to Town." Why would that happen? I've never seen this satanic symbol mentioned in any other Deeds discussion, it must be an original discovery. The YouTube link took the user to a Deeds clip that showed the symbol, so there was no doubt left in anyone's mind as to its validity.

Deeds was made long before The Omen and Damien Thorn's symbol, and Deeds is an entirely different type of movie than The Omen series. That's what makes the 666 appearance in Deeds that much more confounding; why was it there? An early subliminal, perhaps?

But now we'll never know, as a Wikibot has deleted it! Now what do we do? Or, rather, what are you going to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.153.180 (talk) 04:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you give us a more precise description of the revert? Which page, which diff? If you were linking to an image, please consider uploading the image. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:38, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I found it. You meant diff. I have reverted the bot, but removed the youtube link. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

"Please Check Thoroughly"

> If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly.

Why? If the link is being caught by a bot, and there's no way to override it, then checking it thoroughly is a waste of time, no? The link at issue is to Rick Cook's blog, verified to be him, and really only pertinent in the inline context. --Baylink@en.wp —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.96.225.135 (talk) 05:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You can revert the bot, or undo the edit; that is the way to override it. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

warning vandals

Hi, I noticed you've been adding titles with ===, instead of ==. Can this be changed? The standard way for a new month is with 2. Thanks, Enigma ^msg! 17:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:47, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Bushmaster ACR

I tried adding information about the Bushmaster ACR, which is an updated version of the Magpul Masada rifle. I tried adding two links to my entry: a video of Drake Clark (one of the designers) from SHOT Show 2008 where he shows the various changes that have been made to the original Masada design as it became the ACR; and a link to the press release where Bushmaster acknowledges that they will manufacture Magpul's design under the Bushmaster ACR name. I thought this link was more valid than a bunch of links to various internet forums. Also, based on Mr. Clark's presentation in the video it is clear that the image depicted on the wikipedia page is of the original Masada design, NOT the Bushmaster ACR. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skullworks (talk • contribs) 17:57, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the bot. -- Versageek 18:04, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Help Me Request

Hello, there is currently a user saying this bot is malfunctining and reverting good faith edits. Just thought I would let you know, please contact this user. Thanks and Happy Editing, Dusti^{talk to me} 18:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

The bot was not malfunctioning, it did exactly what it should do, remove external links where there may be a concern. In this case the youtube-video seems to be copyvio, and it does not assert anything due to the damage that was done to the video. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick Thompson

I made lengthy changes last night to the Nick Thompson thread. I added references supporting all of the info, and organized all external sources. Is it possible for the changes to be recovered?

P.S. I see now that I am able to revert back to my changes, and I did that. I provided an explanation on the talk page for the article.

Thanks,

Nathan

Joh02639 (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand...

I don't quite understand how I was advertising when that was the video I found the information from... unless you meant the one leading to my YouTube channel. In that case, I will change it to my User Page here on Wikipedia. Nutty Gorilla

..."one" means link... Nutty Gorilla

The bot is designed to revert additions of external links where the majority of these additions is in conflict with or strongly discouraged by one or more policies or guidelines (see Wikipedia:External links). That includes advertising links, but also youtube movies. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Caprice Crane

Hi,

I dont see anything wrong with the link I added. It is to her official website. Her other website is for her book and movie. I am not trying to promote or advertise for her. Her bio is a stub and needs more info.

24.44.191.252 (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

references

The other two links I added as references were from reputable newspapers and thus serve as a good source of information. Why were they deleted? Thanks.

- Alfonso129

Not sure this was a good revert ...

[2]. Philip Trueman (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, it was not. I reverted the bot and cleaned the article .. I don't think the youtube video is a reliable source here. Thanks! --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 19:18, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Question about reverted links

I tried to update the Avastin/Bevacizumab page by changing one of the external links to an updated version -- but the automated bot reverted my change. (It was a link to my online web Journal, as was the original link.)

Why, if the original link was accepted, was not the updated link?

Here is the page link: Avastin ````Irv Arons

The bot only started running in January 2008, the link was there prior to that time. --Versageek 21:49, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sophie Aldred page reverted?

I dont see how this is classed as spam, I only linked to the facebook group as a source.

Pyrsogianni/Geocities

An article about the Greek village Pyrsogianni was input in Greek. When it was tagged "needs translation", the author provided an English version which was instantly reverted by XLinkBot because it included this link to the village's web-site on geocities.com. I have restored the English translation, but not the geocities link; however it seems a harmless and indeed useful and relevant one. Is there any reason why I should not restore it? If I do, how can I prevent XlinkBot removing it again? And why does XlinkBot disapprove of Geocities - I don't see anything specific against it at WP:EL? Regards, JohnCD (talk) 22:18, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have restored the link and it has survived for 10 minutes, so maybe XLinkBot didn't notice. I would still like to know if I need to do anything to protect it permanently, and why the Bot thought there was a problem. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

XLinkBot reverts new and anonymous users (who are often unaware of our policies and guidelines) when they add links to blogs, forums, free web hosting services, or similar sites because these sites often contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), are not written by a recognized, reliable source, or involve conflict of interest issues. These users may revert the bot if they choose to, the bot won't revert twice in a row, nor will it revert more than three times in a day on a given page. Established users won't be reverted by the bot unless the domain they add is on the override list, and items which might be placed on the override list are more often placed on the Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist instead. --Versageek 19:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Bad Manners

the band Bad Manner's official site is closed and the link is not-working, when i tried to add a link to their official myspace page i got a rejection

Youtube link denied

Hey, the group Planet Youth has its own youtube channel where it uploads all original content relevant to the group itself...if this is still wrong to put up a link, then that's fine, I'll take it down...however, if this is an error, please revert the revertion of the link =) thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Tron (talk • contribs) 16:56, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

the vid i put on GM U platform was beside A youtube link... i don't see why that other link wasn't removed...does wikipedia show Favoritism?72.218.118.6 (talk) 21:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Here just to report out that XLinkBot undid a revision incorrectly on the Ladyscraper article. This may be because of the swear word in it ("http://myspace.com/proudhonarefuckingdead"). Just thought it would be necessary to report it. --—Mr. MetalFlower · chat · what I done did do 18:50, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. These links should not be on this page, they should be mentioned on the bands pages. I have adapted the section. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:10, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Weird

You're really strange, I just add source to the article. Don't you realize that? It looks to me that you don't know anything, thank to your question. 96.229.126.4 (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

If the reference was inside reference marks, then the bot should indeed detect that you were adding a reference (see WP:FOOT). Are you sure that the geocities page is a reliable source? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:06, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe This Is Uneventfull

But is there a way you can work without removing hangon tags like you did here: [3]? -WarthogDemon 01:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That is difficult, then I would have to parse more extensively. In most cases with spammed domains also the rest of the edits are vandalism (though indeed not always). Killing only the unwanted link(s) could be an option, though not easy to do. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:04, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Air car reverts removed all videos and external links

When I made my first edit, there were 3 youtube videos already listed under Air Car (unless I'm confusing it with Motor Development International), so the bot removal looked like an automated thing, not an edit by a person. Then I removed a duplicate youtube link and added a link to a video for the Air Car that wasn't listed. I assumed the robo-messages I received weren't done by a person, so I kept adding the link, changing the style of the link (if it doesn't like youtube links, then how did the 3 original links get there?). Now, all the links to Air Car videos are gone, which is the worst thing possible, since the articles referring to a car that runs on compressed air, no longer have videos from reliable news sources (BBC, CNN, etc) that prove that it does exist and works. Since many people I talk to don't believe that the car is a "real car", having the video from the news agencies is very important. So in trying to improve the article, it got over-edited and made worse imo. Pablo70 (talk) 22:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

You could of course link to the videos on the servers of BBC or CNN? Or use the information as a reference, since it is from a reliable source.

Established editors, who know the concerns with Youtube links, and many other, for new users it is often the case that the links are in violation with one or more policies or guidelines (summarised here: Wikipedia:External links). Such link additions are reverted. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

About the Comsat Angels external links revert.

I can understand simply editing out the one link from Blogspot that would be offensive, but why edit out all of the other links? Some of them were very useful! The first one in particular serves as the most official site for the band that will probably ever exist short of the band reuniting and starting up their own official site. Please help me out. I was not trying to reinsert link spam but was rather trying to do an article more justice than has been done to it, to enrich it, to enable it to be more of a resource than it is at the moment. If you want the external links section to be without the Blogspot link (though it links to a music blog that I personally, as a New Wave/early '80s modern rock fan, respect), then fine, so be it. But please don't edit out the whole external links section. And please do something about the warning. I didn't mean any harm. 69.148.174.204 (talk) 07:35, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

It just reverts whole edits, it is difficult to see which part is the really unwanted part, and to parse that cleanly. Now the user itself can have a look and perform the edit with either removing the 'offensive' links, or decide that this specific case is appropriate. The warning is a standard first-level warning, with an explanation of why the link gets reverted. The top warning should assume good faith, but warn. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:14, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Flames of War Fan Sites List

Not allowing http://flames-of-war.blogspot.com/ to be listed under Fan Sites just because it is a blogspot blog seems a tad anal. Saying that it is in conflict with you linking policy is ludicrous when you consider the remaining Fan Sites left on the list are either DEAD LINKS or are ALSO in conflict with you linking policy. 222.154.239.87 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. If the others are dead links, then review and delete them, if the blogspot you want to add is OK with regard to the guidelines (note, the bot says "probably shouldn't be included", not that it is totally not allowed), then feel free to revert the bot. Can it be verified that this is an official fansite? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Gamma Phi

Please turn off your bott for this site. RealOldSchool (talk) 10:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

No, sorry, the links you are adding are not appropriate. Please review Wikipedia:External links, Wikipedia:Reliable sources, etc. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:27, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

This was a valid Dark Chess link

Hi XLinkBot,

This was a valid link that was referenced off a Blogspot. I'll reference the specific target link though if it conforms better to the guidlines.

-AlienDjinn —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlienDjinn (talk • contribs) 21:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Happens, are you sure that it is a good primary source (see also the reliable sources guideline), is the information not e.g. scraped from other sites? If so, just revert the bot, it should then ignore you. Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Canada Basketball

What is the mechanism for adding a valid, but whitelisted, link to an article Canada Basketball? The bot deleted an entirely appropriate EL because that link had been marked as COI (appropriately) due to the editor who originally added it. Nonetheless, the link is the official web site for the subject of the article and should be added. The subject of the article is I think sufficiently notable to remain even if its original author had a COI problem. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

There are a couple of IPs adding the link, and they sometimes create new accounts and perform mainly/only link additions. XLinkBot only reverts new users and IPs, established accounts can add the link. Also reverting the bot should not result in another reversion (though we get warned about that). I guess you can revert the bot, or add the link. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't realize that "established accounts can add the link" and I didn't want to be reverted myself. Thanks. Sbowers3 (talk) 14:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

YOUTUBE

WHAY CAN'T YOUTUBE VIDEOS BE ADDED AS EXTERNAL LINKS?!?!?!?!?!? IF THE HAVE INFORMATION RELATED TO THE SUBJECT IT IS HELPFUL TO HAVE THEM!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.172.117.40 (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Have a look at the external links guideline and policies like what wikipedia is not and copyright, in many, many cases youtube links are not appropriate (though there are exceptions). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:55, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

And get your broken Caps Lock key fixed while you're at it. :-) -- 217.171.129.73 (talk) 02:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

overzealous bot

This bot is out of control. It is removing legitimate links from wikipedia. Someone needs to disable this rogue code. 75.172.75.141 (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Links to support groups do not comply with our external links guideline, or with the policy 'What wikipedia is not' (not a repository of links section). --Versageek 03:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks

I see your point i removed both the youtube reference and the link from the videos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Benpreston2001 (talk • contribs) 11:17, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

youtube

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gittler_guitar

quotes video content in text

added link to youtube is killed by XlinkBot

why that??

btw: the bot is killing other content changes made in the same edit session as well ... a little bug, I guess —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankpaush (talk • contribs) 10:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Removed again. We are not a web-directory. Sites should provide more info, not a just video. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 15:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a limit for reversion?

For example, here it reverted lots of added text only because it contained, among other things, a myspace link. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 10:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, difference in diff-size of larger than 1500. It can be changed in the settings, but this is generally fine. Sometimes people add and delete a lot of data, making the difference smaller than 1500, and then the bot reverts. If that happens on a good edit, just revert the bot. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Unidad de Fomento

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Unidad_de_Fomento&diff=200829300&oldid=200827939

Your robot not only reverted a legitimate link, but also other non questionable edits I had done.

I thought someone could delete a link just because it was in Blogspot. What I didn't think was that it would be a robot the one who would not read my message. If someone manually deletes the link I won't revert it.

200.111.44.186 (talk) 18:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This link is nowhere near legitimate, please don't add links to blogs to articles as they are considered unreliable. Of course, that does not mean that the bot was right by reverting other additions such as infobox. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 20:00, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

A bug in the bot

Hi! I've recently received a test from your bot and I was accused of entering external links, but I only reverted vandalism ?! Please have a look at your bot's edit and please remove this test template from my user talk. Regards, Patrol110 (talk) 21:29, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 15:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Listed as a bot

Could this account please be listed as a bot rather than a regular user? Gary King (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are asking because you'd rather the bot's edits not appear in RecentChanges?

We actually prefer that XLinkBot's reverts appear (in the same manner as reverts performed by the anti-vandalism bots). In many cases, follow-up by a human can be helpful, either to assist the good-faith user or to deal with other nonconstructive edits made by vandals & spammers. --Versageek 19:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

myspace

Below are external links that are listed on just one of the pages that I posted the New London County Myspace page. I have also seen Myspace pages at the bottom of many actors pages. How is that any different?

New London County's Official Myspace Page New London Main Street - Non-profit organization for the revitalization of New London's Historic Waterfront District. Greater Mystic CT Region - Local directory of organizations serving the population of Greater New London (Greater Mystic). New London County Historical Society - Incorporated 1870. Historical and genealogical research library in the 1758 Shaw-Perkins Mansion. The Antiquarian & Landmarks Society - Keepers of the 1678 Joshua Hempstead House in New London, the Nathan Hale Homestead in Coventry, and others. New London Maritime Society - Museum in New London's 1833 U.S. Custom House, site of 1839 Amistad landing. Chart Room - Selected historic maps of New London since 1614. Ocean Beach Park - City park since Hurricane of '38. New London's beach and boardwalk on Long Island Sound. Connecticut Storytelling Center - At Connecticut College. Holds annual storytelling festival in April. Connecticut East Tourism - Connecticut Commission on Culture & Tourism. [17] - The official doublethink website. One New London - Local political party. New London Official site - New London government run site —Preceding unsigned comment added by Newlondoncounty (talk • contribs) 00:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, myspace is only allowed if it is the official myspace of the band, in by far the most cases the additions (by new editors) are not. If your edit is correct, just revert the bot. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 15:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The Explorers Club

removed external link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davellis41 (talk • contribs) 06:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I see you already reverted. That was the solution. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 15:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Fenton Art Glass

I finally found an article I found interesting, and that I had a lot of knowledge about. I own over 400 pieces of Fenton, and numerous books on Fenton Art Glass. I plan on doing a lot of work to this page. I started out by linking to a few pages for some easy to verify info and then added a list of collectors groups and online groups that are about Fenton art glass. Your bot objected to The Fenton Art Glass eGroup. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fenton-glass/. The bot then proceeded to undo all my edits to the Fenton article, even those before I added the link? Why did it revert multiple edits if the last one was the issue? What exactly is wrong about adding a link to a group that collects Fenton on the Fenton article? AlbinoFerret (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

groups.yahoo.com is not allowed per WP:NOT#DIRECTORY, and fails WP:RS, and therefore often a concern. That it reverts all edits by one editor is a choice, if it only reverts the last, in most cases a lot of spam/vandalism stays, if it reverts all it also reverts good edits. Both methods have been tested in the past, it appears most edits fall in the first group. Hope this explains. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 15:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback of a MySpace link

Too thorough You apparently rolled back two consecutive edits made by an anon ip on Hum (band). One of them was adding content and the other was simply adding a MySpace link. Since you rolled back both edits, you deleted the content from the first edit as well. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Is a difficult choice .. in most cases consecutive edits by spammers are all spam, and are therefore (just like rollback and the other anti-vandalism bots) reverted all. Indeed sometimes that is too effective, but in by far the most cases correct (if it would only revert one edit, a lot of vandalism/spam would stay). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 15:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

your bot reverted a perfectly good edit

Your bot reverted this edit [4] on the grounds that it came from wordpress; however that link is completely appropriate given the author (Terence Tao) and subject matter (Prof. Tao describing a recent result in geometric measure theory that has gotten a lot of attention from all over the math community). I realize a lot of blog links are inappropriate, but whether to include any particular one is a content decision, a matter of editorial judgement that should not be made by a bot. 207.241.238.233 (talk) 21:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Wordpress has no editorial overview. For that a better source must be available, if it is notable enough to mention this (e.g. in a journal about mathematics). I replaced it with a {{cn}}. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 14:58, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Surely a link to Terence Tao goes to verifiability, not notability, and this is a textbook case where a wordpress cite is acceptable. I am a fan of XLbot, btw, but its scrupulous msgs and carefully-weighed practices maybe undone by Template:uw-spam1, which says "do not" rather than "may not". 86.44.28.245 (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Ditto the above

You removed (at Flo Steinberg) an excerpt from a 1971 Rolling Stone article. I think we're on pretty thin ice when some automatic censor removes legitimate published journalism from a longstanding, legitimate news organization. --151.205.28.11 (talk) 23:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Perfectly good edit? Nah. You link to a scrape of a document. I am sorry, that is not a reliable source, I guess you should link the original (or mention the original, there is not a need to link). --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 14:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

James Amann

Documentation on gasoline taxes is from the CNBC website Documentation on three strikes is from a Hartford Courant blog

Is this an example of "bad externa links"? Hello..... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.9.141.78 (talk) 03:29, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you are linking to a scrape, why not link to the original data on the CNBC website? Or provide data about the newsitem (when, which program), the link is not needed, if you connect it to the CNBC item it is verifyable, which is more than can be said of an item on a blogspot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Essex Junction, Vermont

Great bot! Peculiar incident though. It caught a newbie putting myspace in Essex Junction, Vermont. It immediately reverted it. He apparently thought he hadn't put it in right and re-added it. The bot did NOT seem to catch it the second time! Student7 (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that is correct. The bot does not revert to itself or to one of the antivandalism bots (at the moment Cluebot and VoABot II), as well as some other protections against edit warring etc. The bot only reverts links which are generally used wrongly, but it is possible for users to override the bot by reinserting the link (e.g. the official myspace of the subject of the page would be an allowable link). It will result in an off-wiki alert (see #wikipedia-spam-t on IRC), and when people are watching the channel, that should be checked. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:26, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Timeout.com blacklisted

Your blacklisting of Timeout.com lead the bot to revert this attempt at adding a legitimate reference to an article. Food for thought, Skomorokh 15:30, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there has been quite some spamming from Dennis publishing, and apparently there was quite some inappropriate use.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Nov 1

And more items. But I think that User:COIBot is better here to monitor (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/timeout.com, it is indeed an appropriate source. Hope this helps (though it may be good if someone would have a look if there are no SPA's from Dennis publishing active anymore). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Msg structure

Whatever is the case in other instances, the structure of the msg you left on an IP talk page that i had occasion to review is horrible.

Your sig style gives the appearance of an unsigned msg, coincidentally followed by a signed msg. If you would simply refrain from indenting the sig line, as i am doing with this msg, i think it would be clear that the sig applies to the whole edit, and not just to the portion that is indented at the same level. I think you'll see how doing it as your bot does would change the natural interpretation.

--Jerzy•t 18:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

the bot blanked the NASA page

The bot apparently all but blanked the NASA page [5]. I don't have time right now to look into why, but I reverted it. --rogerd (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is certainly curious, that edit is bound to be bigger than 1500, so the bot should not revert. I will have to look into that more closely, this is a bug, probably. Thanks for reporting and reverting. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It is more curious than that, the bot made a mistake while reverting:

• diff=<http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=NASA&diff=204422248&oldid=204400365> user=<78.149.14.223> title=<NASA> size=<+51> rule=<\bblogspot\.com>

I don't see where this glitch comes from, all it should have done is load the data from the last 'correct' version and save that. I will keep an eye on this 'glitch'/'bug' or whatever it is. Thanks again for reporting. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Links in comments

A moment ago I reverted a revert by XLinkBot. (It was a very unfortunate action by the bot, as it completely destroyed a newly created page.) I conjecture that the XLinkBot action was caused by the appearance of a myspace URL. However, that URL occurred in comments, not on the page. Maybe it is a mistake to kill pages because of comments. Perhaps the parser in XLinkBot can be improved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.84.53.62 (talk) 21:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm .. it should not have done that. There indeed needs to be something improved in the parser. Could you give me the diff, maybe I can see where it went wrong, what would really help to see how to improve. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the anonymous editor's contributions, I would say it was this edit to Artmoney. He/she should not have made us have to hunt for it, he should have posted at least the article name, and it would have been nicer to have posted the diff. --rogerd (talk) 13:27, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Squire, Sanders

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Squire, Sanders, and it appears to be very similar to another wikipedia page: Squire, Sanders & Dempsey. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

See post below. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Simmons

A non existing edit was reverted ending with a substitution of the disambig Simmons page by the Simmons & Simmons page.--Stone (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Bllooodddyy .. I know what the problem is, the stupid ampersand. One of the other bots had the same problemI saw that this was happening, and I have repaired that 3 days ago .. and now I look further, I actually repaired it in this sequence. There was a spammer active adding a link to a whole series of lawyer-companies sites, a lot of them with the ampersand in them. I hope I have really repaired it, please alert me if you find one after the 16th (my calculation of time has a problem now, the box is 5 hours behind me, so I have tried to repair it on April 16 at 11:18, and you are posting this at Apr 16 at 14:23. The bot reverted at 11:27 .. hmm .. that would be after the repair .. I have to keep my eyes open for this one). I do hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

some refactoring, was not another bot, I implemented another attempt to repair, and I did not see another revert on a page with an ampersand in the log. I really hope this has helped now. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems to have been resolved: XLinkBot tried to revert this edit and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gavin_%26_Stacey&diff=next&oldid=206924462 this] was the result. Thanks again for reporting this! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:30, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

RE:Revision history of Love Boat (study tour)

Good work on your part in the effort to eliminate extraneous links. However in this particular case you did not do your research or check in depth. The friendster loveboat2000 site is an alumni site for Taiwan studytour participants like some of the others. If you look and read closely to the message board there are testimonials to the tour's impact and there is absolutely no spam nor is it used for advertising. It is further evidence of the many people who had a significant cultural experience when going to Taiwan on the tour. To delete such a link is to show a cultural insensitivity and an obtuse racial blindness to significance of these networking sites to the Overseas Chinese Community. Please continue your efforts to reduce spam and porn links on Wiki, but please also leave well meaning and appropriate links to sites such as these alone. Thank you.

Cruella De VIlle

Regarding the alteration of this page (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cruella_de_Ville&diff=205995108&oldid=205995092)

The CDV Wikipedia page is the ONLY up to date information site for the band...!

I included the list for videos availble on YouTube as factual information (as well as showing what few video performances of the band have survived)... and the link to facebook was only added so fans had a chance of contacting each other - again there are not many CDV sites on the internet.

So I don't understand why these have been edited... especially the video list

PLUS you've reverted to a version the contains a link to the CDV "Stage 6" webpage... Stage6 has closed down so the link was removed.

James (a CDV fan in contact with Philomena & Colum Muinzer of CDV)

link to Christian Rap Recording Artist Myspace in relation to Christian Rap in Wiki

--142.165.222.6 (talk) 19:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)www.myspace.com/robdonison is not a site that promotes an artist. it is simply a collection of Christian rap artists that record that genre of music. is is possibly the most informative source of Christian rap artists on the internet and is an essential link ofr anyone wanting to connect with artists in this genre of music. if you are not clear on this, please check the site itself www.myspace.com/robdonison rob donison is the manager of the site and is an music award judge, not an active recording artist.

Yes, see Wikipedia:External links, the link is not appropriate, it may be appropriate on the wikipage for Rob Donison, in almost all other cases it is not. If however you think it is really appropriate, just revert the bot, it should not revert you twice. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

extra reverts

The bot is reverting more edits than just the one which adds links. If an editor has made multiple edits in a row then all of those edits may be reverted, including edits that don't add links. See Freyed knot (if noone has deleted the page yet). 144.110.129.62 (talk) 07:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Illinoise

Why was the "in other media" section of Illinoise deleted? Check the edit log - the reason for deletion is not good enough. If you're gonna remove this for one page, you have to do it for every single page on Wikipedia that is laid out like this. Simple as that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.161.206.86 (talk) 12:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I have read the entire links "rules" page and fail to see any violation to a fan forum that is designed to provide discussion of the the article subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.4.163.198 (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Non standard warnings layout

Please use the layout described in Wikipedia:UTM#Multi-level_templates thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 19:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why reverting YouTube links on Durham Miners' Gala?

Linking to YouTube videos is not banned on Wiki. Nor do the links contravine copyright. Stop reverting! I am reporting this stupid bot. 88.107.110.247 (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)