User talk:AntiSpamBot/Mar2007

Edits to Mark Bavaro

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

Shadowbot is reverting because you're including a link to example.com in your edits. Take that out and you'll be left alone. Shadow1 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Example.com? I have no idea what you are talking about. --FeloniusP 20:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

Angelfire blanket

got called for spam for posting a link to http://www.angelfire.com/80s/newmonkees/ here. Bot seems a bit aggressive to me, but I guess you've heard that enough by now, hopefully this helps your revamp. —Fitch 00:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Revert to statistic change

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

It looks like that was triggered by the proboards link on the same line. Shadowbot checks not only added content, but changed content, and it assumes that the entire line was changed. Shadow1 (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead and revert back to the original. I wonder if the bot should avoid reverting a link to a possibly-spam site if the old and new links are on the same host? I'm sure the bot is doing much more good than bad, and this is probably an unusual case. --Robertb-dc 22:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

NEDM in Coburn (band)

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

Lewis Sabran

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

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

Declaration of Calton Hill

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

TinyURL

There is an example link on the TinyURL article, it leads to a random TinyURL page with directions for Atlanta. I tried to replace it with http://tinyu.rl.com/2unsh (Links to Wiki's Main Page)(Sans the first period). ShadowBot reverted my edits. I decided to mention this on the Talk page and tried replacing it again. ShadowBot replaced my again. Rather than stacking up reverts and clogging up TinyURL's history page, I just decided to leave a message on here. --Scorpios 04:40, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits made to 300 (film)

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

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

Ernie Ladd

RE: bot revert.

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

The link was to a page that confrimed this fact.

72.82.188.178 03:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Philippine nationality law

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

Your edit to Herb Gerwig

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

i think you two have a lot in common. somebody needs to suck it up and ask the other out on a date and stop all this hoo-ha! ;) JoeSmack ^Talk 11:46, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The Art of bot Flirting, its not very subtle is it... --Hu12 12:21, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Shadowbot reverted Sans Arcs

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

Spam revert of Tristesse de la Lune

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

Whitelist requests

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

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

Bug in Shadowbot

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

I second that -- Henriok 15:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Shadow1 (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Blunt revision on MorphOS

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

I have restored the edit, taking out the link that triggered shadowbot. The explanation was in the warning you recieved, as well as in the first edit summary shadowbot provided. Republica.pl is not allowed (the site is not in English, and there may be other reasons as well why it is blacklisted). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow.. Perhaps someone should edit their bot to just remove what it thinks is wrong and leave all other edits. I honestly thought that republika.pl was the name of some Perl script that the bot ran. Thanks for the help. -- Henriok 15:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Bot editing without being logged in

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

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

Should be fixed now. Shadow1 (talk) 19:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Warning placed but no actual revert

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

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

No

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

Bot reverted legitimate edits

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

The edit involved the change of an invisionfree url, which is since a recent spam-attack blacklisted on shadowbot (forums are hardly allowed per WP:EL anyway). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:18, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah... you beat me to it. Thanks. Robotman¹⁹⁷⁴ 17:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Postage stamps and postal history of Sharjah

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

Philippine nationality law (second objection)

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

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

update your bot, please

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

Shadowbot did not revert on the wikilink, it reverted on the addition of the external link to mothercare.ca. That link has been blacklisted after recent spamming of this link. Hope this explains, have a nice day. I'll have a second look at the revert. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Besides, the wikilink shouldn't be there. We don't have external links to every single parenting organization; we shouldn't have wikilinks to their pages either. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 19:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)