User talk:XLinkBot

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.

---

RE: August 11

Hey you messaged me from like August 11 and i haven't had time to reply. So sorry, I just wanted to put a site up that was more reliable for the warrrior cats. Well since I can't, do you think you (or someone else) can revert edits in the minor characters tables? People keep saying false stuff like Willowpelt and Patchpelt are the parents of Graystripe (Which is false), and Ravenpaw are the younger siblings of Frostfur and Brindleface (Which is false), and all the other nonsense? That would help alot. 66.27.159.220 (talk) 16:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess you'd want to go trough the reliable sources guideline. If you feel that the sites do abide by this guideline, then try to use them as references (see the citation and the footnotes guidelines). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

HAS XLINKBOT GONE BAD? Deleted links that seem to comply with all wiki rules - Deleted valuable content

It seems as if XLinkBot has become a bit too draconian. Has it turned into a bad bot?

04:07, 2009 September 26 (hist) (diff) Operation MAR LEWE ‎ (BOT--Reverting link addition(s) by Citizen-of-wiki to revision 316247234 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKcDQT8qTTs, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8wCVwlNjGQ&feature=related, http://www.youtube.com/wat), I took some time to look at the external links & spam guidelines. I feel this links are within the above policies and guidelines and are Reliable and Verifiable, and do not violate Copyright. Please let me know if you agree that it is OK to undo the above changes made by XLinkBot.Citizen-of-wiki 04:44, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nah, Rich media sites (and Youtube is one of those) are discouraged per 'links to avoid', and they do have an extra section lower. However, it seems you are right that these are official movies, maybe you could consider using them as references, or undo the bot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Pardon?

I *corrected* a link that was *already there*. Good job! High fives all around! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.238.160 (talk) 21:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Live and Learn

We want to stick to the Wikipedia guidelines. Thanks for the edit on Richard Shaw Brown. Now I know. Thanks.--125.24.114.15 (talk) 22:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks for the understanding. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:15, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

why the revert

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page Power Rangers has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.hulu.com/mighty-morphin-power-rangers (matching the regex rule \bhulu\.com\b). If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 18:39, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

The link I posted for Power rangers the moive on the Hulu site i don't see what is wrong with it being on the power ranger's page seeing as HULU acquires the right to post the movie form Twentieth Century Fox . read Hulu's about page (link http://www.hulu.com/about) and it tells you all about how the site works. i was only trying to give fans of power rangers the link to the movie on Hulu. sorry if i cause any problems.

Hulu is free and legal through an advertising supported model. Videos are available for unlimited streaming; watch favorite shows and clips over and over, for free Videos contain fewer ads than on TV. Advertisements appear during normal commercial breaks Hulu acquires the rights to distribute its videos, making them available to users legally

oh and as for the vandilsm warning sent to this IP i'm not the same person who has been posting stupid stuff. the IP is used many students at Macon State College

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.16.190.96 (talk) 19:02, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, this link still fails our external links guideline, and we are not a linkfarm. The revert of the linkaddition seems quite correct IMHO. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:18, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

{{Talkback|GadsebyE}}

Answered on user talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Pro Bono Publico

I'd appreciate some guidance on the Pro Bono Publico external links that were removed. The article's very general nature had encouraged the addition of many links from those providing pro bono services, legal or otherwise, and as a participant, I enjoyed the variety of pro bono initiatives reflected in those links (e.g., I didn't know about Taproot). I refrained from deleting links that were not for legal resources.

If the link that remains is appropriate because it points to further relevant data on pro bono (lists of organizations), I'd suggest that the www.lawhelp.org link is as useful since it would point individuals to locate their particular state's website to help them find legal information and connect to pro bono organizations.

As I understand your external links policy, it's better to work relevant items into the actual article text and footnote them--so I'll try to describe these resources that way, if that's okay. Also, would you please consider the wording of the one external link - there is no "Access to Justice program" at the ABA (though there are many at the state level)--that link is pointing to the American Bar Association Center for Pro Bono (thanks for that) but we provide more resources (for free) than just the directory of organizations.

Ctrprobono (talk) 18:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that is correct. Next to the external links guideline you might also want to see this section from 'What Wikipedia is not'. I'll have a look myself as well. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Ctrprobono (talk · contribs), please do not d redirecting links as you did here and here thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 19:55, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Rotterdam links

I think the following links are almost essential to the topic Rotterdam as not much other video and photo material is shown or linked to right now

• Video Rotterdam 1920/1960
• Rotterdam 1920 - Video
• Rotterdam 1940 - Video
• Rotterdam 1900/1940 - Photo

, greetings Floris5 (talk) 21:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not linked because most would violate our External links guideline, just like these. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sterling Long-Colbo

my name is Sterling Long-Colbo

I added a link to one of several fan sites to our book

one is from Facebook and is a Facebook Fan Page - not a personal page - and i do believe taht it complies

please advise otherwise as I am re-adding

http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-7-Scouts-And-The-Mystery-Of-The-Commie-Spies/143989574856/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sterlinglongcolbo (talk • contribs) 18:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I think they do not belong there, per our External links guideline. Also, you might want to have a read through our conflict of interest guideline. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree a Book Fan Club, Fan Page and FaceBook are all WP:ELNO's. --Hu12 (talk) 19:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

External links

I think your bot should scan the version it reverted to for the same stupid links it warns about, since if they occur, then obviously, there's a problem in the reverted version already. Perhaps it should add an external link warning template to the page it "reverted" to since it is already problematic. 76.66.197.30 (talk) 06:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It is a good suggestion, though a bit difficult to implement (as the offending links can be in so many places in the document). I could try a not-revert and issue a message on the talkpage of the user. Often the link simply should not be there anyway. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reporting mistake XLinkBot made

[1] The old link is to a website that links to the new location. That new location was thus used to replaced the old link as is proper. XLinkBot mistakenly reverted it. So I undid that mistake. Dream Focus 12:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

But to say that this is a proper link .. this does not add anything more than what reproducing the same 5 sources in the text would do. Unsuitable external link. Both should go. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

posted on complaint boards on internet

Im confused.

UFO Research Network has articles related to the Gulf Breeze Hoax. MIG has investigative reports on Missouri cases.

Why do you allow UFO INFO and ABOUT( which is clearly a money making webiste) and not mine?

BBecker BBecker (talk) 19:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am the owner of two websites, MIG - Missouri Investigators Group (http://ufomig.bravehost.com) and UFORN - UFO Research Network (http://uforn.bravehost.com) both of which have been up and running and on the Internet for 10 years. MIG is dedictaed to UFO Research and Investigation with articles and investigative reports. UFORN has articles on the Ed Walters/Gulf Breeze hoax.

Wikipedia has a search category called UFO Groups/Organizations. Under this category they have allowed UFOINFO and ABOUT (ABOUT being clearly a paid website) which are similar in content to MIG and UFORN, however neither MIG nor UFORN are allowed in Wikipedia. Each time I have uploaded the URLs they have been removed saying that Wikipedia is not "a repository of links section", if not, then why allow ABOUT and UFOINFO? I have been through this before with these people on another issue and the UFO article I submitted on the Gulf Breeze hoax was denied admittance. Wikepedia is nothing more than a bunch of arrogant, egocentered males who use the "guidelines" any way they want to to keep out anything they dont like.

BBecker BBecker (talk) 20:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, BBecker, saying that we are nothing more than a bunch of arrogant, egocentered males (sic) who user the "guidelines" any way they want to keep out anything they don't like, while you are arrogant and egocentered enough to link your own websites at the top of the external links sections, as you apparently are the one to decide that the link is the most important one (diff. Use the guidelines, BBecker, well, they are written by many, many wikipedia editors, both male ánd female, and are generally agreed upon by even more editors. Who are you to decide that they hence don't make sense. And, in your response, you clearly do not consider that a) maybe those other links do not belong there either (see WP:WAX), or that maybe they were included after discussion (as said guidelines suggest). Thank you for your attention. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Monica Sone

What is wrong with incl. the link to Monica Sone incl. her comments, interviews and thoughts?

Monica Sone http://monicasone.blogspot.com/

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigglewigglefans (talk • contribs) 06:52, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a primary source.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 07:21, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Image delete messages

Hi, I created a new wiki page for Melinda Caroll (she is my wife). I wasn't certain what to use for 'license' on the images I added thru the wiki common vehicle and when I click on the photos there is a 'subject to deletion message' in red. How do I get rid of that message? I don't want to see the images deleted. We own the images that I used. Also, I would like to create a link or reference for the comments about One Warm Coat, a charitable organization. Would you direct me to the proper guideline page for doing that? Thanks, George (gerosete) Gerosete (talk) 08:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not a specialist in this, but does Wikipedia:Uploading_images help? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:03, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Pozzetto Massacre

I edit all very good, you are the son of a bitch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.79.46.254 (talk • contribs)

See item below. And please remain civil, there are issues with those edits. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:33, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Earliest uses

I've undone this edit. I find these "earliest uses" links useful. We should not have a bot undoing them without human attention, nor a human undoing them merely because they're links to that particular site. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The bot reverts edits in which links to specific domains are added. Experience has determined that removing only links or reverting only the edit in which the link was added when the editor has made a series of edits causes more problems than it solves.

The domains which XLinkBot reverts are listed at User:XLinkBot/Revertlist, Any administrator may edit this list, it's format is the same as the Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist. Domains such as tripod.com and youtube.com are reverted when added by IP editors or non-autoconfirmed editors because they are more often than not, used inappropriately. --Versageek 19:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In this particular case, only the link was removed, not other material.

So you're saying if an editor adds a lot of good material to an article, and also a link that is frowned upon, then all of that editor's contributions to the article need to get deleted? Can you explain that? Michael Hardy (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, that is not what we are saying, and it is also not what the bot says. I also has a reasonable catch built in. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, because you now found one bad edit, below (which however is duly explained by the bot as well), while it is doing, at least that is the impression I get from others, a lot of good work, you feel it necessary to block it? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Where was it "duly explained"? I haven't seen that. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:01, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This line about "you have found one bad edit neglects several things:

• I pointed out two bad edits.
• Those are the only two edits by this bot of which I am aware (I could look at the edit history, but to introduce oneself to a stranger by calling attention to one's mistakes is never going to go over very well).
• The last time I heard that line, I heard it dozens of times from Wikipedia's CSD community: "you have found only one bad edit" iterated dozens of times for different bad edits, when the only edits from the CSD community I'd ever seen were those dozens of bad edits, when they spent six weeks deleting several articles on mathematics every day because they were article on mathematics, and must therefore be speedily deleted, after which my harshly rebuking them caused them to clean up their act absolutely abruptly, even while they told me that such rebukes couldn't do any good. Eventually the CSD community became civilized. The same still needs to happen with Wikipedia's anti-spam community, as I've pointed out elsewhere. Michael Hardy (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Elsewhere? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:47, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

We're talking about two bad edits at least, and possible newbie-biting.

I'm really lost as to what is being said here. In one article the bot not only deleted a link but also deleted most of the article along with it, on the grounds that the link was a link to youtube. So the bot's owner says deleting only the link would cause problems. I don't understand that, so I asked for clarification. You responded that that's NOT what is being said. But you don't offer any alternative interpretation. You also say there's a "reasonable catch built in", but I'm wondering why I should believe that just after I see an edit where the bot deletes most of the article because a link to youtube was added. If there's something wrong with linking to youtube, the bot could delete just the link to youtube. But the alleged "reasonable" catch didn't stop if from deleting the whole article. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:59, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, if leaving a friendly message as it does is newby biting .. Do you think that the message is unfriendly? Does it not explain what the issue could be, and what the user can do?

We did not say that if an editor is adding a lot of good stuff and a bad link, that then it bot SHOULD revert. It does, and it gives an explanation what the editor should/can do after that. You say 'the bot is bad, because it reverts all', you have not yet asked, why does it revert all and you did not ask why we do not try to remove the link only.

The reasonable catch is that when there is a lot of data added, the bot does not revert. It also does not revert twice, it does not leave a warning on first edit (but a remark), etc. etc.

The other case it removed only the link, on a free hosting domain, where links, generally, don't add to the document.

I am sorry, you block the bot before asking questions, you say that it makes two mistakes. For one the solution is a discussion if that domain is really OK to revert. For youtube, I know that in a lot of cases, the bot is correctly reverting it, as there are problems with it, but there there is another issue at hand.

Generally, bots get blocked when owners don't respond, and not because they make a mistake. You have assumed here that the bot only makes mistakes and blocked it quickly. I am sorry, I find this a bad block. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:15, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Duly explained: "If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information ..." .. is that not exactly the issue you block for? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:17, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I started a thread below. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

This bot is brainless

This was an incredibly bad edit. Clearly this bot both lack and badly needs human supervision. Michael Hardy (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Mwaagh, in that edit three youtube links were added, which are discouraged. Yes, it also reverted earlier edits, but the tags should have remained as well, as those issues were not resolved. Some seem official movies, is the copyright on these videos OK? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

What "tags" are you referring to?

Why would there be a copyright issue on youtube videos? That's an issue for youtube, not for Wikipedia. If the videos are not on Wikipedia, but rather on youtube, then Wikipedia doesn't need permission.

The edit not only deleted some links; it deleted most of the article's content. Michael Hardy (talk) 21:21, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Nope, see WP:COPYRIGHT, and WP:ELNO, they still are discouraged. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:36, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Just in case: "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors." --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:49, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

The tags {{unreferenced}}, {{cleanup}} and {{orphan}}, I meant. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I have re-removed the external links. The first one seems professional, and has an unknown copyright status, the second one has a tag that the soundtrack has been removed, while of the third one, the Beatles track is not; still the copyright status of that is unknown. All three are not in English, the last two are original research. Though you are right about the content of the article, XLinkBot seems quite right to call these links questionable. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:05, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what Michael Hardy is saying is that the bot should just remove the links, not revert the entire edit. I agree. — Carl (CBM · talk) 22:24, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

I would agree as well, but that is simply impossible, as there are too many ways of inserting external links, and where removing the link only would leave 'debris' (empty tags, an opening asterisk on a line without content, etc. etc., or simply leaving the rest of the spam content). Gentlemen, it is a bot, bots make mistakes, they all do. We have done our utter best to make that a minimum. IMHO the bot leave a very friendly explanation of what to do when one gets reverted, explaining exactly what you here describe. Blocking this bot for that results in a lot of external links going through for the next two days, many of which violate our policies and/or guidelines. I know that it is a WAXy answer, but all of our antivandalism bots have this or similar problems, so I am tempted to say, if you want to check it all by hand ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:32, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

(as a note, I don't believe that removing this youtube links was a mistake, removing the rest of the edit, yes, and I think that that is where the problem lies). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:34, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Started a thread below. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:39, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Fresh start - explanation of reversions

It is over bedtime for me, but let me try and explain (most of these are also explained in the bot-approval):

• The bot reverts only new editors and IPs, when they insert a link. It only reverts once, will not revert a re-insertion, except when that happens after other edits. It will also not revert undo-like actions.
• The bot on first revert leaves a welcome message and a message (not a warning), and tries there to be as not-bitey as possible by explaining why an edit was reverted, and what the editor can do.
• It obeys a strict 3RR (3 edits in 30 hours, not one more)
• It does its utter best to see if a link was inside a template or a reference
• It does not revert large edits (the one example above was deemed too small)
• It does not revert after other antivandalism bots

• The bot reverts all edits by an editor, and asks them to re-evaluate. Why do we do that:
  • an editor can add "* example.org" to an external links section
  • an editor can add "[2]" in the text
  • an editor can add "spam company" in the text
  • an editor can add "Please find our product at our company website" in the text
  • ... more examples ..

That is impossible to filter. You can not just remove the link, as that would, expecially in the last example, not remove the spam.

• reverting only a last edit, and not all edits is a setting, and has been tested both ways. It is then seen that what happens is that smart spammers are splitting the two edits, so that the rubbish stays (they do first "please find our product ar our company website", and then turn the 'company website' into a link), or they do it because they find out that "www.spamcompany.com" does not result in a working link, so they have to add 'http://' in a next edit. Or they make typos. It is found that it generally works better to revert all, and ask the editor to reevaluate.

• Important note: it does not have a bot-bit. That is so its edits are visible to recent changes patrol, I don't know how much it happens, but then regulars can quickly revert the bot when it does a mistaken revert.

Now, there are domains where there are good cases, but where the majority of the links on a domain fails, WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:SPAM, WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:COI, etc. (not all, if it was all, we would probably blacklist them). Youtube is an example, myspace another. I have done a list of myspaces some time ago, and found that on 30 reverts, it made one 'mistake' (where the link appropriate, though there were already better ones, but lets put it in a way of: I would not have reverted that one edit). 5-7 were questionably OK, the other 23 were absolutely improper external links. You are right, there will always be cases where it reverts a good link on such servers, but if that becomes too much, then that rule should be reverted. I have planned for some time to do the same for youtube, but, as in this edit, there are often links which are questionable (here I am afraid that two break some form of copyright, one was repaired on youtube not to break copyright). Generally, the youtube links that do not break copyright and are good external links are exceptions (as they often make good references, anyway), for the rest, if they don't break copyright, they generally are not suitable as an external link because of content (a video of granny making cake is not a good external link on Cake...).

I hope this explains a bit further. This should probably be included on the userpage, though most of it is in the BRFA (the bot has actually mellowed since!). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:38, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

You could take a more middle route. For example, it is not too hard to detect (most) links that are items in the external links section. If removing all these gets rid of all the bad links on the page, then it isn't necessary to roll back the reset of the edit. If there are still bad links after you remove lines from the external links section, then reverting the rest of the edit is more justifiable.

When I looked into one example, I found there is an even simpler improvement: only revert the actual edit that added the links. For example, the bot reverted this edit because of this edit. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:53, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Whatever algorithm is used, there will always be cases which "should" have been handled another way. XLinkBot is very commonly seen in edit histories and the small number of problem reports indicates that people are generally pretty happy with what XLinkBot does. The message left by the bot is very well crafted and it should not concern any good-faith editor. If this bot were not running, there would be hundreds of youtube and other dubious links added within a week, and like all bots, an occasional mistake is considered worth the benefit. Johnuniq (talk) 01:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why the bot reverts other edits besides the ones that add the links. I run several bots, and am quite aware of their limitations, which is why that practice seems strange. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

That is a setting, CBM. It can be changed in runtime. As I explained somewhere above, it has been done both ways in the past, and this seemed to give less problems with pages being broken than the other way (we are talking here about the optimum between 'a spammer testing some edits and finally managing to insert the working link; reverting this results in the test edits still remaining', and 'a good editor who adds quite some data and a link that offends the bot; where all gets reverted and the editor is asked to re-consider everything'. The first situation leaves debris (just like taking out the external link only), the latter leaves a clean edit; both need the text of 'reconsider that addition' anyway, both can be undone/rollbacked, etc, but the debris has to be manually removed from the edit. I don't think that reverting all edits is much more bitey or bad than reverting only one edit. We could work on trying to optimise the message and the options.

We are not talking about external links in external links sections only! There are many, many spammers who add in the body of the article 'You can by Viagra at [http://www.example.org our company] for reduced prices' .. so then we revert a possibly good link in the external links section, but not the blatant spam that is in the text. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I could not find an example for XLinkBot, but had a look at VOABot II. It seems VOABot is reverting all as well: offending diff + offending diff + revert of both offending edits. Now I don't know if VOABot actually filters that, but it seems that it also reverts all edits by an editor.

Please keep in mind that spammers are a totally different ballpark from vandals. While vandals are generally uncoordinated editors, spammers know what they are trying to accomplish. Still, we have to make sure that good faith editors do not get a victim of that practice, but it gives a bot more an idea of the problem we are looking at. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Better VOABot example: a vandal here adds some text to a link and removes a template, this edit does not seem too bad, I don't think that VOABot sees this as vandalism yet. In the next edit the editor removes the text, replaces it with 'nothing', a lot of newlines, and 'HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA made you scroll', obvious vandalism. VOABot II reverts all. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

regex issue

Independent of the stuff above, I tried to witelist the domain "jeff560.tripod.com" by adding this regex to the bot:

(?<!jeff560\.)tripod\.com

That does what it should if you test it in perl, but the bot rejects it. Apparently the error message is

ALERT: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/:en:User:XLinkBot/RevertList) edited.

Faulty regex ((?<!jeff560\.)tripod\.com) inserted, see diff!!

The regex is OK, so something else is tripping. Also, the < in the message should be <. — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

huh .. that is curious. Think this is a real bug. I recall something similar in another bot, lately, which may come from api-results. I will have a look at this, and also at 'real' on-wiki whitelisting of links. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see it alerting on the regex at the moment. If the bot regards the regex as broken due to some conversion (and it should work, the external-link extraction process works with lookahead and lookback regexes), then it will simply throw an error message in the log, and not revert (it actually should crash on it, as I missed two 'eval { };'-statements around two regex-testing-if statements. That crashing has happened before with good-faith admins who wrote broken regexes, so the crashing works ;-).

Still, that alert is worrying, there is something wrong there. I presume the alert was given by COIBot? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes; I had contacted Versageek to say I was putting the new regex in, and she passed along the error message. — Carl (CBM · talk) 10:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, the bots are still running and operational. I'll have a look where it is broken, but I think that it is all fine. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:38, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Melinda Caroll wiki page

Oy Vey! I don't know where to place 'hang on'. It says under the 'tag'...where is that? You have a lot of rules but not many instructions that are easy to follow.

Now you want to delete the page I created because it violates copyright of information on a web site that WE own and operate. I'm about to give up. We own www.gsmusic.com. Much of the information for the wiki page created about Melinda comes from that web site (as well as other web sites noted and referenced). This is becoming much more difficult than necessary. Do you folks receive money from people who want to have information added to wikipedia? Is that it? I'm sorry, I can't afford it. If you wish to delete the information and the page I created with text and info from a web site that we own (we own the copyright - it's OUR material) then go ahead. Thanks anyway. gerosete George Rosete 07:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerosete (talk • contribs)

The tag is the thing that makes the message, the 'speedy message', but I see it is already gone on Melinda Caroll. Regarding your website, you might want to consider reading the external links guideline and the conflict of interest guideline. Also the business FAQ could be good to read.

I think that the problem was that it seems to be copied from your website. That is, generally, a case for concern, because when you have a copyright on it, and Wikipedia copies it, then that would be a violation of the copyright, even if you yourself are giving it to us. You might want to read through the copyright policy and Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission (I think those are the two). You might want/need to transfer that permission (but I am not sure). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:29, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Page Deletion

This is the page of artist Aunia Kahn, I don't understand how this is not wrtten well it is exactly like many other artists pages on Wiki. Can you help me, thanks.

1. The notability of this article's subject is in question. If notability cannot be established, it may be listed for deletion or removed. Tagged since May 2009.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aunia_Kahn —Preceding unsigned comment added by SaraElis (talk • contribs) 21:00, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I had a look. Your argument is not a reason to do the same, maybe those other pages have issues as well. I have retagged the article. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

welldone !

hi ! i've been watching ur anti-vandalism effort's around the clock ..... all your revert's here ( 319843685 ) were amazing ....no human could imagine working so in a jiffy ..... good luck ....& btw i wish to award u this barn star but ur user page is edit protected so im putting it here ....kindly accept ..... --Doctor muthu's muthu ^{wanna talk ?} 02:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		for ur instant & productive revert's in the Hogenakkal Falls article . good luck & kind regards Doctor muthu's muthu wanna talk ? 02:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

why revert hot100brasil ?

I'm adding the external link: http://www.hot100brasil.com/chtalbums.html, but is reverted by bot. Why can't I quote the chart result and add the reference link?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicemanpower (talk • contribs)

hot100brasil.com is a depracated chart, as it has apparently a 'dubious methodology', see Wikipedia:BADCHARTS#Deprecated charts. Hence, it should not be used as a link, nor as a reference. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Another Flawed Correction by XLinkBot

XLinkBot failed yet again at correcting false external links: On Martingrove Collegiate Institute, it claimed that my updating of a math teacher's website for homework was in reality a bad website that should be automatically reverted. Does this bot have issues with the webs.com domain? If so, could that please be added to the list of domains this bot doesn't like?

Thank you!

JamesB (talk) 03:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Webs.com is a free hosting site, which is, at the moment, plainly spammed by a socking account. If you look at Special:Linksearch/*.webs.com there are many that fail our external links, conflict of interest and, as I mentioned, spam guidelines. However, there will be some which do pass, and hence it is on XLinkBot, and not on the Spam blacklist (which would simply disable all linking).

If in your case you feel that the webs.com is indeed a proper and good link (I will have a look as well), then please feel free to undo the bot. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I would have a look, and I did. I have removed a whole list of websites there, as most of them are not directly linked to the subject of the page. E.g. the website of a teacher on the school does not belong on the wikipage of the school, it belongs on the wikipage of the teacher. Also the website of the library of the school does not belong on the wikipage of the school, it belongs on the wikipage of the library of the school. If neither have wikipages, then that is not an excuse to put them on the wikipage of the school, the page of the school should link to them. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:38, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

I have some further questions about the links you deleted. 1) I can understand how you may have a valid argument regarding some of the teacher-related links. However, since the classes themselves are directly tied into the school (for if there were no classes, there would be no school), would it be allowed to have the external links lead directly to the webpages of the classes themselves? 2) Again, the library is a critical part of the school. Embedded near the center of the building, it is not a public library, but one run solely for the students. Why can the library be classed as 'not part of the school'? Would it be better to create a two-line stub page about the library and put the link there, and why?

Regards, JamesB (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

What is wrong with my contribution on Copenhagen?

I am of good faith and I have difficulties in understanding your policies of taking off contributions without the smallest explanation

Luc Aleria —Preceding unsigned comment added by LucAleria (talk • contribs) 10:56, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it too difficult to justify your position? Which is your position? You are not clear!!!!

Luc Aleria— Preceding unsigned comment added by LucAleria (talk • contribs)

Well, it is a bot, so it does not answer by itself, the operators have to do that, and that may take time.

I have disabled the bot, it should not have reverted your edits. I have to check. I have also reverted the bot on your edit. I am sorry for the inconvenience. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Luc Aleria— Preceding unsigned comment added by LucAleria (talk • contribs) Thanks. I am ready to improve and to learn.

I had a bug in the bot, which now has been resolved. I had a look at the two movies, are you sure they would pass our reliable sources guideline?? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Hero Quest boardgame page of wikipedia

• heroquestbaker.altervista.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

There is a spammer that uses the ip 204.58.233.6 (ip of a national bank) that deletes every day the link of the site http://heroquestbaker.altervista.org/indexenglish.htm the only with the permission of Hasbro, publisher of Hero Quest. Can you block this spammer ?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Heroquest89 (talk • contribs)

Eh, I think you are the spammer here, Heroquest89. Did you actually read the external links guideline. Unofficial fanpages are certianly links to avoid, especially at the top of the list, and even more since you seem to have a conflict of interest. Please do NOT insert that link again, but discuss the link on the talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why the site http://home.quicknet.nl/qn/prive/lm.broers/download.htm that is illegal for Hasbro, remains in the Hero Quest page, while the site http://heroquestbaker.altervista.org/indexenglish.htm that has the permission of Hasbro, has been deleted. Hasbro is the publisher of this game.