User talk:AntiSpamBot/Nov2007

1

rvv rv 2x
My rvv was reverted twice. It's not supposed to fuss twice, whatever it's complaining about. (SEWilco 01:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC))

stop attacking me
This http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_in_the_United_States&diff=170929045&oldid=170928370 included a website as a reference to a quote. It was in fact copied verbatim from another article in Wikipedia.--74.134.164.46 09:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Tell your bot to leave me alone: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.134.164.46&diff=cur

Your bot continues to harrass me. It has now violated the 3 revert rule. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Censorship_in_the_United_States&action=history

This thing is very hostile. All I'm trying to do is improve an article and I am getting threatened by a bot! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:74.134.164.46&diff=170929909&oldid=170929686 Whatever happened to WP:BITE

Being a bot is not an excuse for edit warring
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. – Gurch 11:46, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The bug has been fixed. Shadow1  (talk) 20:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Antispam bot left me an incorrect message
I had the following message: and yet I did not make the edit concerned - mathematics not being my strong point, I steer clear of that area and would never edit such an article.212.32.123.19 16:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the message. It may be that you are using a dynamic IP, and that the message is actually for a user who used the IP before you.  You can avoid such messages if you create an account.  Hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:35, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

self-realization fellowship page-- bot removed link
A link to a facebook group was removed. There are blogs and other online communities listed under external links. This would be considered another online community. Maybe the bot thought it was spam? Can you please put the link back? thanks. Guy 713 19:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That other link are there does not mean that another should be added. Facebook links are seldomly appropriate, as are other blogs, online communities and forums.  Hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Incomplete revert
IMO a bot must revert all.

I would also suggest that a bot must indicate the user name of the edit it reverts to. Some bots already do this. In this way a bot will not hide a possibly suspicious author in my watchlist. `'Míkka>t 20:43, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Bonzo Dog Band page
I run and established message board for fans of the Bonzo Dog Band and it's link keeps being deleted by the spam bot, the page is already linking to another message board so I know it's not a problem with message boards. The link I'm trying to insert is: http://bonzodogfans.proboards107.com/index.cgi

It is not spam fans of the band will find it useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.73.115.136 (talk) 12:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

St John Bosco Year 12 2007
To whom it may concern, I recently constructed a wikipedia page that was removed for irrelevancy to the international stage, which is fair enough. I was wondering is there anyway i would be able to retrieve a copy of its final state to save for my own personal use?

Thank You

Don_Butch —Preceding unsigned comment added by Don butch (talk • contribs) 22:44, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Maricopa Revert
Bot reverted my edit to the External Links because it links to a forum run by proboards.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.223.4.11&redirect=no

This is a forum to help new and current residents gather information.

18:53, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Still, it is a forum, self published information which does not tell more about the subject. Please review our external links guideline.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:44, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not Spam.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jigsawbabies&redirect=no

http://forums.bluecollardistro.com/reggieland/ is not spam it is the only remaining website for the band reggie and the full effect.

all other official websites no longer exist. http://forums.bluecollardistro.com/reggieland/ provides up to date information about the band.

bluecollardistro.com runs the merchandise for the band and is linked off of the band's record label vagrant.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigsawbabies (talk • contribs) 19:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To me it looks like a forum, self published information, which is not suitable as a 'source'. As you can see AntiSpamBot says that it should probably not be linked to, per our external links guideline.  Hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Not a spam link
I have tried to post some links on relevant pages for more information about music artists and interviews that readers will find interesting. The site is not a spam site, it has been established for over a year and is completely non-commercial. the link is  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyriclounge (talk • contribs) 08:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You were adding external links only (see our spam guideline), and, as I posted on your talkpage early, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a linkfarm. Please discuss your (see our conflict of interest guideline) link additions on talkpages first, or find an appropriate wikiproject. Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:16, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Lucky (Nada Surf album)
My edit wasn't a spam link. I understand your policy towards MSN groups, however, the press release mentioned there doesn't appear on any other HTTP ressource. I'll fix it by publishing the original PDF file on another website, but until then, I consider this statement is enlighting enough to be shared.Nadasurfan (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It mentions a press release .. so maybe the original press has the document. It does not have to have a HTTP resource ... as long as the original document can be found, it should be OK.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

South Brother Island Revert Mistake
The bot made a mistake in reverting an edit made to the South Brother Island article. I reverted the change back but just thought I'd give you a heads up... Nrbelex (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

motorboat removal...
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_sexology_topics&diff=173632286&oldid=173631987

motorboat is a cultural term. I don't think you will find any publication on it. kind of sad as urbandictionary was about the only place that I found that describe it well.

An encyclopedia, encyclopaedia or (traditionally) encyclopædia is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.

So, to an unknown person (previously me), motorboat is not a sexual term, but to enlighten person, this is knowledge.

Zeroin23a (talk) 06:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)