User talk:XLinkBot: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:10, 25 October 2012

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.

RevertLists

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by .

FAQs:

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by .

Why were all my changes reverted when the Bot only had a problem with the last one?

Recently I made several changes to a web page. I made these changes separately. The last change was to insert an external link which the XLinkBot didn't like. The Bot reverted all my changes when it appears it only needed to revert the last one. I'm confused. Why did it choose to make the most sweeping change, rather than the least sweeping one?

Please see the FAQ mentioned at the top of the page. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SERIOUS BUG

Same thing as above happened to United States House of Representatives elections in Alabama, 2012 and Daniel Boman. The candidate's official campaign site is on Facebook (no other exists). The other changes were made seapately at other times. It appears this bot is using ROLLBACK rather than reverting the one edit in question. please fix or on't run it. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 04:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAQ mentioned at the top of the page. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

revert on Super Typhoon Page 1990

You just reverted my edit on Super Typhoon Page in the 1990 Pacific typhoon season. I added a reliable reference so I don't see any point in reverting it; especially since there wasn't anything there to begin with. Therefore, I have reverted it back to the original text. If you have any questions, please visit my talk page. Thanks 72.87.102.31 (talk)

Sorry for that. In the referenced edit, you repaired the page after a previous edit 'broke' it. Therefore the bot detected that you added the links at the bottom, which included a youtube.com link. I see you did the right thing, and reverted the bot. Thanks for the hard work, and again my apologies. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:00, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot

I was replacing one external Wiki link with another. Why is it okay to have one external Wiki link there, but not another? 70.196.4.240 (talk) 01:10, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

the bot does not look at the links that are there, it only looks at the new one. Wikia is discouraged (you're right, it is not spam, it is just a link that often fails our inclusion standards). That goes for both the one that was there as for the one you added. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:58, 13 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

td2000 changes

ok abt blog link removal. i cleaned it up & removed redundant words. the current form is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haywirethriller (talk • contribs) 11:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removed relevant external link

I had added an external link in the article Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound, to a YouTube video called "LIPUS inventor in the news". Half an hour later this bot removed my addition. Seems kind of random. --46.9.42.65 (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You mean here, where you added a YouTube link about the inventor of LIPUS to the article about LIPUS. And to the top of the list. YouTube links do not pass the guideline that often, and if this one would be appropriate somewhere, it may be on the page of the inventor, certainly not here. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for replying to my post. Would the link be acceptible at the bottom of the list? You say the video is about the inventor. I disagree with that (have you watched the video?). LIPUS is obviously an area that is being explored right now. The topic of the video is not the inventor, but that the inventor was in the news. So in that sense it's about LIPUS and its attention in society. The information in question is just as appropriately presented in video format as in text format, and then YouTube is simply a video host and so shouldn't be deemed as "bad" unless video as information is considered useless in an encyclopedic context. --46.9.42.65 (talk) 16:44, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is a typical case where discussing on the talkpage of the page is a good idea, there are likely more knowledgeable editors there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a famous sculptor. Mykola Shmatko

I've added the link, but why do you remove it? http://www.facebook.com/rerter/info#!/nikolai.shmatko

This link is directly related to the well-known sculptor. Please leave it on this page!

--95.134.139.151 (talk) 09:42, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I removed it again, please don't add it again. The official sculptor website is there, which links prominently to his other websites, including the Facebook. The Facebook on the Wikipedia page is therefore completely unnecessary (and even if it would not be linked, it may still be unnecessary). We are not writing a linkfarm here, we are writing an encyclopedia. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bot is not working properly

A registered candidate's only official campaign site is a Facebook campaign site (not a personal site) which the bot didn't like. It is an acceptable link, so I went to revert the bot's change. The bot had reverted MONTHS of changes, almost 1000 bytes, instead of that one link. This is not how an anti-vandalism bot should work. 184.78.81.245 (talk) 07:53, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And you can undo it in seconds again. Months of work? You've only been there on a couple of days, not whole days and whole weeks or whole months. However, you are right, some Facebook links are appropriate, and the bot is reacting on that. The solution, as you did, is to revert the bot. The reason for undoing all edits by one editor is explained in the FAQ (in short: Undo-ing only one edit only results more often in breakage of pages than undo-ing all edits by one editor), and whether it undo's one edit or 10 edits by one user, the solution if it is wrong is still the same, undo the bot edit. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:03, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

confused about citations link removed

waroftherosesthegame.com: 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

I am confused by the removal of a link to the publisher as a reference for the system requirements of a game. I replaced the edit without the link that the bot disliked but I honestly do not see that it is an improvement to remove the link to the source of the information. At the top of the page it says 'Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic'. [[1]] --AeronwenTrewent (talk) 17:23, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I need to have a second look at it. It may be that the link was spammed badly enough that some counter measure was necessary. Nonetheless, such sites can be used in an appropriate way, and this looks like such a case. I have reverted to your first version. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:30, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was used to spam, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2012_Archive_Jul_1#War_of_the_Roses_referral_spam_on_Wikipedia. Your link is fine. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:37, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Link removed

i'm sorry, but I don't know, why you deleted my links? There was a Biography of the singer. The singer is albanian of course the biography will be on albanian. where's the problem?

Hello, XLinkBot. You have new messages at Beniskej's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Beniskej (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hana Cakuli

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hana_Cakuli this person, is a friend of Fortesa Hoti. Thei sing together in almost every festival. This person doesn't have either other sources than Fortesa? Why ist this page not deleted? I don't understand what's the problem with the links.

The Links: Hana Cakuli ---> http://www.teksteshqip.com/hana-cakuli/biografia

Fortesa Hoti ----> http://www.teksteshqip.com/fortesa-hoti/biografia

The exact Same thing!

Hello, XLinkBot. You have new messages at Beniskej's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.