User talk:XLinkBot/Archive 5

Reverted email address
This bot removed the email address big@boss.com from the article Sobig which was only normal text and not an external link. It was to show which email it came from.Small Boss (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Email addresses, especially from 'real' persons, should not be included in mainspace, and are hence reverted. Please do not re-insert the email address.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:39, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

legit women's group
link is to a legit, public, non-profit women's writing group. i understand the name may set off your alarms, but it's a good and proper women writers' mailing list. thank you. Chixtopia (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I answered on your talkpage. This is a typical violation of WP:ELNO #13, and that is why groups-sites are generally not suitable as an external link.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

bot deleting links
I added a legitimate link to the Bohm Dialogue article, and the bot deleted it says if I felt it legitimate, to add it again. I did, and bot deleted it again. It is a legitimate link. Contains videos and papers unavailable elsewhere. What do I do now? Thank you. Ahalani (talk) 14:30, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, you have only one remark on your talkpage, and the link was still there (XLinkBot recently edited that article only once). However, your link, and some other, are not appropriate external links, so I did a cleanup of the article.  Some of the links were to signup, others to examples, but only 2 were about the subject of the page.  The page still needs some work, though, see the tagging on the top there.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:53, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Don Bosco Matriculation Higher Secondary School
hi, i have made a number of edits to eliminate the essay style. How do i get the Bot to explain what parts may still need revising? Thx.

Nasserg (talk) 23:48, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The bot only looks at external link additions, in your case, YouTube links are not appropriate. I see others already took care to look at the rest.  Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Gilda Radner
When the bot deleted a link, it also deleted over a KB of text. See [here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gilda_Radner&action=historysubmit&diff=356116347&oldid=356116264] Purplebackpack89  (Notes Taken)  (Locker) 05:32, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Yep, that is a setting, it is explained in the FAQ, see User:XLinkBot/FAQ (see also the box on top about the FAQ, the second item). In short, it reverts all edits by an editor who inserts a link, as the chances are bigger that the version before the editor is 'clean' is bigger than only the edit that resulted in the insertion of the external link (many link additions are by new editors who first try to insert a link, figure out it does not work, repair it to make the link work ..).  Indeed, that may result in also good faith good parts to be reverted, but that is why a) the bot is explaining that to the user in the message on the talkpage, b) that is why the bot does not warn, just leave a remark on the first revert, and c) it takes 6 warnings before the editor gets reported for review (i.e. way slower than most active 'spam fighters' would be).  I hope this explains.  Thanks for taking care of the page!!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Steven Baker
Please do not delete information posted by Steven Baker and FreeLife. I am his PA and we have decided to edit the page. Why are you changing it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehallmec (talk • contribs) 13:27, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that is quite clear, I would say:

Steven has since created a Facebook page to increase his business potential. www.facebook.com/stevenbaker.atfreelife [www.facebook.com/stevenbaker.atfreelife]


 * (from diff, diff, and similar in diff and diff)
 * Have you actually read what message the bot is leaving you, and which policies and guidelines are being cited there? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

MTW's Saturday Classic Rock Show
Hi Wikipedia

My apoligies for including the external MySpace links in the body of the earlier version. I have now updated myself on the guidelines. I have instead just concentrated on enhancing my earlier reference with some additional information about myself and my show kind Regards Mick Kenny aka Mik The Who

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Classicrocker1032 (talk • contribs) 20:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good job, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:51, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Youtube links
Hi

I think I know the answer you're going to give but I'm going to ask in case I'm wrong. Are you allowed to post Youtube links on the talk pages of articles? --5 albert square (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you are, if you are discussing something for the article in the post. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:50, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

about Idler arm external link
you just removed external link from Idler arm page the external link show how to design idlr arm  by cad program i think it is related to the subject.

and at the top of the page say (This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; suggestions are available). (December 2009) !!!!

thank you Mfarouk1984 (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Mfarouk1984


 * I hope the bot doesn't mind me responding to one of it's questions but I think I know the answer here.


 * Under WP:ELNO (the external links page that the bot always refers people to), number 11 says:


 * "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites, except those written by a recognized authority. (This exception is meant to be very limited; as a minimum standard, recognized authorities always meet Wikipedia's notability criteria for biographies.)"


 * The bot will revert links to pages like blogspot, youtube etc because they're not on the bots approved links. By all means, add links to the page, but they must comply with External links or they will be removed, even if the page is needing more references.  Any questions feel free to ask the bot or myself :) --5 albert square (talk) 20:48, 18 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, indeed, the text "This article is an orphan, as few or no other articles link to it." means that other Wikipedia are not linking to it. That is not a reason to add external links.  5 albert square sums it up good, the links do not really comply with our external links guideline, and are hence being removed and reported back to you for reconsideration.  Hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:55, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Change of settings
Just so you know, I've made this edit to the bot's settings, after an anon complained about the sentence at WT:EL. Hope I didn't step on anyone's toes or anything. :) --Conti|✉ 13:29, 19 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point, and that is exactly why this is in the settings on Wiki .. so others can help upgrading the text. Feel free to add, improve, whatever!  Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

J. Steven Wilkins
The link to Pastor Wilkins' blog has been reverted several times from auburnavenue.wordpress.com to auburnavenue.blogspot.com. While Wilkins' congregation does keep a presence at the blogspot address, the wordpress address is his active personal blog. Kyriosity (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2010 (UTC)


 * You can undo the bot edit, it will not revert undo-actions. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:59, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Not in the bot group
Hi! I noticed that XLinkBot is not in the bot group and thus makes edits without b tag. I wonder if there is a reason for this... -- Basilicofresco  (msg) 09:16, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, there is. That is to ensure that XLinkBot's edits appear in the recent changes list, so they can be checked by recent changes patrollers.  On one side edits sometimes need checking, on the other hand, sometimes real spammers should be blocked while active, and XLinkBot is there a good warning sign, while ensuring that it keeps mainspace clean.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:12, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I added this question to the FAQ. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:27, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

American Waterways Operators Request XLinkBot Not Remove Link to YouTube Video
The American Waterways Operators (AWO) has updated its "industry trade groups" website to include a link to the Waterways Council, Inc.'s (WCI) Video: "Keep America Moving" (3:55 Minutes). AWO has received permission from WCI to link to this video, as it is an industry education video. Please cease any removing activities. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.16.245.66 (talk) 15:08, 22 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you actually read the external links guideline? These Youtube links are inappropriate, per that guideline.  I have removed them again.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:14, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Ashot Khachatryan
What is it?. Why was rolled back my edits? Arminiy (talk) 10:30, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for the question. You added an external link on tripod (as the bot explained to you), those sites are often inappropriate (but not always), and are sometimes even spammed.  However, here it was not the case, and I have therefore reverted the bot.
 * May I suggest you have a look at the citation guideline and the footnotes guideline, the references in the article could use an update, I think (I have tagged the section as such). Happy editing!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Arminiy (talk) 12:46, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Hebe Camargo
I made an issue in the article Hebe Camargo only with the intention of improving the article, but my edits were reverted. I ask that the modifications made by me are restored (remake). 187.22.219.128 (talk) 18:26, 1 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi 187.22.21.128


 * I hope XLinkBot or it's owner don't mind me replying to this :)


 * I would suggest that you read WP:YOUTUBE, this explains why a great deal of Youtube videos do not comply to Wikipedia standards and why the link will be deleted. I hope this helps you --5 albert square (talk) 19:34, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Batman: the Brave and the Bold
Can you please stop deleting my edit to the B:tBatB page? All I'm doing is adding a link a Batman: the Brave and the Bold wiki I made last year.76.255.214.133 (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2010 (UTC)an anger contributer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.255.214.133 (talk • contribs)
 * Hmm, I would say, could you, as the bot suggests you, read the external links guideline (especially the links to be avoided part #12), and since you say it is a wiki you made, the conflict of interest guideline. Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:37, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Bequal
Sorry for adding the link to Bloons Wiki on the article Bloons TD. Didn't know. Won't happen again. Promise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bequal (talk • contribs) 00:23, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem! Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:31, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

sir why remove this link choryashimewada
wrong name - Chauriyasi Mewada Brahmin right name - Choryashi Mewada Brahmin

sir you give very nice data about mewada brahmin but sir you Write chauriyasi mewada but sir as per our trust regd. that it is Shri Choryashi Mewada Satsang Mandal ( શ્રી ચોયૉસી મેવાડા સત્સગ મડળ ) for that i edit and add new name & i try to develop some blog also so i add the link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piyuupad5 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I have no clue what you are talking about. Which name, which article, and who got reverted (I don't see a remark on your talkpage).  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:32, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Sergey Afanasiev (racing driver) article changes
Hi man!

Why my changes made to Sergey Afanasiev (racing driver) was rolled back? Not only external links but also relevant information about driver season 2010?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Buonalingua (talk • contribs) 15:30, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * See the FAQ, linked above, and the warning you received on your talkpage. Those explain it all, but if you have further questions, don't hesitate to ask.  Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Link to a XMMP site
Hi, why was the link to http://xmpp.answers.wikia.com/wiki/XMPP_Answers removed? And what are the requirements for adding this link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.113.202.158 (talk) 08:59, 8 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Open wikis hardly ever (if ever) pass the threshold for external linking (they could pass when they are stable and have a lot of editors etc., ánd if they then add actually to the page). Here I don't think it will pass.  Have a look at the external links guideline, you might find more information on external links.  I hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:00, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Re:Link to Edselmail Group
Please tell me Why was my link rejected? http://autos.groups.yahoo.com/group/edselmail It's a moderated group by me that has a lot of photos and files on Edsels.  It's also the sister group to the Restoration group above that has been accepted. Why is one all right and not the other? I would like to put it on the main Edsel page Thanks, Myedsel
 * Hi there,
 * The reason it was probably rejected is given here in Wikipedia's general guidelines for acceptable external links. In particular, I'd think the Advertising and conflicts of interest guidelines apply, as you want to add a link to a site that you maintain.
 * Also, another common guideline at Wikipedia is that additions should stand on their own merit, not be kept because other things like it exist. They might exist because no one has yet noticed that they shouldn't, not because they should. Northumbrian (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Exactly, see #10 in Links normally to be avoided. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:17, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

My group is 12 years old and has over 500 Edsel owners, the largest in the world. They all love their Edsels and will help out any new owner with any questions he may have. The site is not about me, I just keep out the spammers. Please check it out and tell how to get it listed on the Edsel page. Thanks again, Mike Myedsel (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That is not the point, Myedsel, we don't link because it exists, we are not an internet directory. Please read WP:EL.  (and still you are involved, even if you don't earn money with it, see WP:COI).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 21:44, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Twitter
I added to a person's Wikipedia page a link to that person's official Twitter feed. I got back a somewhat snippy automated message informing me that I should read the guidelines - and yet the guidelines clearly state:
 * Except for a link to an official page of the article's subject, one should avoid:
 * Links to .. twitter feeds.
 * Links to .. twitter feeds.

But this was a link to an official page of the article's subject, so I don't see how it wasn't in compliance with the guidelines.

The guidlines do suggest that where possible the number of different links to a subject's various sites should be limited - but in this case this was the first and only link to the subject's own web page in the article.

Warren Terra (talk) 02:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are right, and that is why the bot suggests to revert. Note (although this does not go for your edit!) that although the twitter may be official, that it is still not in Wikipedia's purpose to include links to every single 'official' page, so if there are already other official pages, the twitter, although official, would still be superfluous.  Moreover, twitter feeds may be official, they can still be superfluous if they do not provide any information (I once had a discussion about the official twitter of Britney Spears, which at that moment had a post by her telling her father on his birthday that she was coming home to have cake, the rest of the posts were equally informative .. it, often, does not add anything).  It is not just 'it is official, so it can be included', there is more to look at, which makes twitter feeds very, very often not suitable external links.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:43, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Alicia Rhodes' Myspace page
Hi there. I'm trying to work out if the bot was correct to remove a Myspace link that I tried to add to Alicia Rhodes as an external link. I understand that in general Myspace is not reliable source of information. But is there not an exception made for Myspace links in living-person entries where the Myspace page is written by the person in question? I have previously added a link to an official Myspace page for a living person without it being reverted by this bot. Ironically Rhodes' entry already has a link to an Official web site which as far as I'm aware is a pay site giving no free information and which may not even be run by Rhodes herself. Surely that has far more reason to be classed as spam than her Myspace page?Polly Tunnel (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice dilemma. In principle, if there is an official page, then the official twitters/myspaces/facebooks generally become pretty superfluous (they just don't add anything, are generally unstable, etc. etc.).  Here you get in a nice one, where the 'official' homepage can be disputed, and the myspace is official and maybe more useful than the 'official' page.  I guess you need to be on the talkpage for this one, though I can't see much objection against undo-ing the bot edit.  I hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:02, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Dirk. I'll take it to the talkpage next. Polly Tunnel (talk) 11:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

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

I've removed http://www.alivenotdead.com/takakonishizaki. Please let me know if there is any other things that I should take out. Please don't just revert the page. Let me know and I'll change it, so that we don't do duplicate work.

In addition, I've emailed wiki to get a security lock or protection for the page to allow only I or any other administrator right person can edit the page. Do you think you can help to follow this too.

Thanks Arthur

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.alivenotdead.com/takakonishizaki, http://www.alivenotdead.com/takakonishizaki. 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) 06:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Naxosmusic" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Naxosmusic (talk • contribs) 08:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that article is in a really bad shape. Could I ask you to review our manual of style and our conflict of interest guideline?  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that "Naxos Music" is the subject's husband's record label. This account has been blocked as a spamusername; the article itself has been tagged as having COI problems, and prodded as being about a non-notable musician. I won't even dwell on the spam account's desire to WP:OWN the article. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  14:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Email addys
Hi.

The bot is reporting the link reason in the edit summary, this can often not be good by the privacy policy. Example: (welcomemessage + good faith remark) - links: insertemailaddresshere).

Keegan (talk) 05:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Good point .. will have to hack the bot for that. Thanks for alerting me to this!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

C-Squat Bands
Dog That Bites Everyone is a C-Squat band since I am in the band and live at C-Squat. Plus read the Dog That Bites Everyone Myspace page where it say in the about the band "from the recesses of C-Squat basement"

Revsuperb (talk) 19:26, 29 May 2010 (UTC)Revsuper


 * I have removed the whole list, we are NOT the yellow pages. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Another legitimate Youtube link
Your bot also reverted the addition of to Chinese fishing nets (of Kochi). This is a non-commercial TV documentary explainng the operation of these lift nets, and seems, in the context, to be an entirely useful and relevant addition to the article. Would you please add this link to to your whitelist. --Epipelagic (talk) 08:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Similarly, it is undoable to whitelist all specific 'good' youtube links. Most have one specific use, and the chances that they get mass-added by a lot of IP/new users, is small.  By the way, those really good youtube links are more suitable as references, which are not reverted by XLinkBot.  Reverting the bot is the way to go, I am afraid.  Again, sorry.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * So how do I revert the bot edit? Do I just reinstate the link in the relevant article? --Epipelagic (talk) 23:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note that the user that was adding this link was spamming it, it was probably only useful on the one page but the user added it to lots of pages.  Captain n00dle \ Talk 12:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I myself forgot to mention: it is of no matter if a link is non-commercial or commercial; for youtube I would even argue that the commercial links are in by far the most cases more appropriate than non commercial ones.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an exceptionally good point, I wonder if this should be mentioned in a guideline somewhere? Anyway, this is not a forum for such things. Regards,  Captain n00dle \ Talk 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Gilpin's Falls Covered Bridge reverts
I'm new to this, so some questions - I can appreciate the reasoning in excluding external links, though in this instance it leaves a bit of a quandary. The builder of the Gilpin's and his name have almost been lost to history, overshadowed by the work of some the nineteenth centuries best known bridgewrights who built long span bridges over the Susquehanna with one portal there in Cecil County MD. I know of no other source material to cite for the history of the bridge or the name if its builder, but this local Cecil county historians blog. Why was the other added information also reverted? Does the bot revert all concurrent edits? Is it reasonable of me to redo the other edits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by JosephGJohnson (talk • contribs) 16:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for the question.  Yes, I think it is entirely reasonable to undo, and you may even consider to re-include the blog (blogs are in by far the most of the cases unsuitable, but there are exceptions).  If you think that the blog is a trustworthy blog written by a specialist etc., then you could actually consider to 'upgrade' its function, and use it as a citation (see the citation and the footnotes guidelines), then it is superfluous as an external link (the bot should not revert references, so that will be fine; and if I see it correctly, it will from now ignore you anyway).
 * I have reverted the bot for you. Please have a look!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks much Dirk - JosephGJohnson (talk) 11:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Notability & More!
I have just added my first page, Wait Your Turn, (after about a million revisions!) and the warnings at the top say I need to prove "notability." I have looked at loads of similar pages (Bringing Up Bobby, The One Lamb, The Lost & Found Family) and I don't feel like they prove "notability" any more than my page does but they haven't been deleted. Please let me know what to do about that.

Also, the warning says to add references from third parties -which I have- I wondered how I make that warning go away?

Finally (sorry about SO many questions!), I wasn't sure how to upload the DVD cover art to the page. Thanks! Irish100 (talk) 20:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
 * If there are sufficient and good third party sources, then, preferably another editor, will remove the notability and third-parties tags. Comparing with other pages is not always a good idea, it is a Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions-type of argument.
 * Be careful with uploading, the image has to comply with quite some rules, but you can use Upload for that. I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Baby/bathwater
I'm kinda concerned about rollbacks like this.

This new user,, gave up on Wikipedia in frustration, after trying to make good faith edits; just look at their contribs. The reversion of all their edits just because they did not know about a YouTube link was definitely a contributory factor.

I have done my best to restore their faith; see their talk page.

The bot edit, in this case, was quite bitey, really. I hope we did not lose a well-intentioned new editor, but I fear that is what has happened.  Chzz  ►  09:57, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * No. A) the bot left a very friendly remark, not a warning like the FIRST remark that was left (and the first was left without a welcome message, which the bot would have left when it was the first editor!), that is what I regard bitey.  Secondly: "I attempted to provide concise and correct information in my edits but apparrently it wasn't good enough for some people here and no matter how many times I entered it, it is always UNDONE" (.. how many times I entered it? (it was entered once  It was explained why and what (at least by the bot).  By the way, we are editing a BLP here, where there was, even in good faith, wrong information entered (diff, see [pipl.com/directory/name/Hagar/Roy][www.imdb.com/name/nm0353271/bio][sammyhagar.humanarchives.org/][hubpages.com/hub/Famous-Birthday-Listings-October-13], and many more), yet the editor undid that edit.  By the way, could you show me the ref you inserted here ??  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Legitimate Youtube link
The bot reverted an addition to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfEbMV295Kk in this edit. The video is put up by IBMSocialMedia which is an official program of IBM. Could you add the youtube user IBMSocialMedia to your whitelist?Smallman12q (talk) 21:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Youtube video's are not only on the list because they are often not official, but there are several concerns under WP:EL/WP:NOT which make youtube links .. generally less suitable. Though I could whitelist specific youtube video's, it is impossible to whitelist those from a specific source.  I am afraid that this has to be solved by the bot's suggestion of reverting the bot-edit.  Sorry.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that is a satisfactory answer. With more and more international news organizations establishing their own YouTube channel the bot's indiscriminatory actions will become more and more an issue. Also, in the case such as here where the YouTube link is embedded in a citation template, I believe there is additional reason not to assume the YouTube link to be inadmissible. __meco (talk) 10:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hey, that is curious, the bot should not revert that one, since it is used in a template. Let me check this out.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * As a side point, a) this was an external link, which, when followed, does not show ANYTHING for 10 minutes, b) if it would show anything, I wonder if and what it would add (see #1), and c) this is NOT an official youtube movie. I am working on the templates, wikitext bugs me there.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:46, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Just to round this up: YouTube links often violate our guidelines, the most grave of that being WP:COPYRIGHT (copies of official news broadcasts NOT uploaded by the broadcaster!), quickly followed by WP:ELNO #1 (there are a lot of video's on YouTube which are unnecessery, no, we do not need a link to your (insert famous family member here) on Family member). Then there are some other, smaller concerns (one still needs to install software to see YouTube, even with 99% coverage on normal PCs, there are those who don't have it), they tend to be big (which is a nuisance if you are behind a dial in, which still happens), etc. etc. But well, if it really adds, those concerns are smaller. Of the official ones and the good movies without copyright problems, still a significant number do not add anything beyond the contents. We do not have to link to every news broadcast on a subject, we are not a linkfarm.

XLinkBot does its best to not revert when the link is in a reference, or in a template. The latter of that is already slightly controversial, as very crappy youtube links (like the latter discussed here) can easily be added inside a template, which would make the bot not revert it ...).

Then, XLinkBot does not warn on a first revert, it merely notifies you that the link addition has been reverted, and suggests you, friendly IMHO, to revert if the bot made a mistake. It should not revert that edit again then, unless it gets re-reverted, etc. Then there are several warning levels that follow (and if a brand new editor manages to get reverted 6 or 7 times in a 4 hour period, then the edits at least deserve some discussion .. and it is still not the end of the world, if blocking would be needed, that still needs to be evaluated by a human editor).

All in all, although I do see that there are official channels, and it would be great if they could be excluded (if only the YouTube url would be recognisable as being from an official channel ..), I still believe that by far the most of the YouTube reversions are good reversions, and I don't think that there is reason to remove the rule (yet). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Who cares about wikipedia and it's WP:EL WP:NOT shit anyways? If Information is usefull in some way accept the link. There is too much stuff being deleted anyways from the wikipedia. Noone is responsible for the content which was uploaded by someone if you link on it. Like videos on youtube, people upload there stuff there that it get's watched. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.238.137.32 (talk • contribs) 17:24, 24 June 2010

Change to reversion reasons page
Just a quick suggested change to the reversion reasons page. On the description of "why" for blogspot, it references point 11, not point 12. meamemg (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand. The blog-text that XLinkBot pastes on the user talkpage when it reverts a 'blog'-rule does not contain a link to WP:ELNO.  And #12 is, AFAIK, wikis, so #11 would be correct (I will link #11 in the blog reason now, by the way)?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:19, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

????
Not sure what this edit was trying to achieve - - edit summary does not match action. Exxolon (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That one makes me scratch my head as well. It probably got told of the external link in the page creation, but why then revert the next edit.  It should not do that, I will have a look where this came from.  Curious (and hopefully unique) error, I am afraid.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Bot killed, there are more errors like that. Needs investigation.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Hopefully repaired, these errors were generated where in the page creation a link was included, and where the editor did an edit before the bot could get to it (it does quite some checks, which do take some time sometimes; also the load of the rest of the machine is sometimes slowing it down a bit). It then went into a case where it reverts the last edit of the editor, and not a fail on page creation.  It now should do that, I will keep an eye.  Thanks!!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:20, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Stop your bot breach of copyright
Your bot is removing links to a site that from which wikipedia takes texts, http://www.anglefire.com/in/rivington the text is under creative commons attributation, if the link is not there then wikipedia is in breach of my copyright. You need to change your bot settings or cease use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.40.167 (talk) 18:48, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * WHAT? Have you read the policies and guidelines here?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The bot is removing a link to a page that is used as a source on wikipedia articles that was released under creative commons share alike attributation 3.0 the pages need to state the source and attribute. Your bot needs to adjust to enable the attributation, the site named should be on your exclude list of not then wikipedia is in breach of creative commons, please sort out your bot.  --88.109.58.9 (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing to sort out. There is nothing that stops you from using the site as a proper reference (the bot does not revert proper references), and not as a mention at the bottom of the page.  And the bot clearly gave you an answer as to how to react to 'wrong reversions', that is why I asked you to read the policies and guidelines, especially those that the bot has cited to you.  And, if I may ask, you are publishing copyrighted information on an angelfire site, are you sure it is a reliable source at all.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:22, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, that is indeed my recommendation, not say 'parts of this', but use it properly as a reference to reference which statements come from the site (and for others, use the original citations that was used to write your document on the site; although the information on the site seems pretty reliable, it is always better to use the original sites and/or sites with peer reviuw / editorial oversight. See WP:FOOT, and use that.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:30, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Mad Child
Your bot undid a rvv. Might want to take a look. *** —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.51.164 (talk) 08:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've undone it again. Please see WP:UNDO - if you use the undo functionality the bot will not revert you on such actions.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:45, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect reversion by XLinkBot to the page: Anne_Rice ?
I was merely correcting the link to her official facebook page (you can check this at annerice.com). I've looked at the guidance info but it appears to me that if the original link was OK then my amendment should also be OK. If I am indeed doing something wrong then please excuse my ignorance. I am a very occasional contributor to Wikipedia.

Edit: Ah, mystery solved! I've just noticed user: Ronz has now removed most of the external links. I did wonder if they were supposed to be there anyway. (I saw a comment somewhere to the effect of "Wiki is not the Yellow Pages"!) I just didn't like coming across a dead link.

All the Best! 81.157.114.243 (talk) 02:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)


 * OK. I see you got it.  Basically, if Anne Rice has her official homepage listed, then all those other official fori/twitters/etc. all become superfluous.  Sorry that it reverted you on a link-repair, though, the bot was wrong and right at the same time .. Thanks for the understanding!!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Inadequate deletion of information by your bot
I added usefull information and your bot deleted it:

I think, it's idiotism, because the information was really usefull. Your bot is destructive and must be deactivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.47.251 (talk) 22:53, 29 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, we are not a linkfarm, but an encyclopedia. Maybe you can incorporate the information in the text, and please see th external links guideline for more information.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:37, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Those article consists of multilanguage links, many of them are much less important than links I added. Check it, if you're unsure. Maybe the reason of deletion is that the name of one site reminds e-mail address: Karty@Mail.Ru. So it is not e-mail and your bot mistook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.47.131 (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a WP:WAX-argument, and all the links do is add more of a linkfarm. Please discuss the links there and your links on the talkpage, and see what should and what should be removed there.  Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:42, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Evelyn Lear Wikipedia entry
Hello. I attempted to add an external link to the Evelyn Lear entry but it was rejected, in line with Wikipedia policies. The link takes the reader to a YouTube playlist that has the complete 1965 Deutsche Grammophon recording of the grammy winning performance of Wozzeck that Lear starred in (along with Fischer-Dieskau). It is the only recording of this work available on the internet, and there are no copyright restrictions on the videos. Here is the link if you'd like to check it out for yourself. Thank you.

http://www.youtube.com/user/classicvinylbiz#grid/user/9CC070D6C01A0816

--Classicvinyl (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
 * YouTube is often a problem, you might want to discuss this specific case on the talkpage. There is a lot of information out there on several subjects, but that does not mean that Wikipedia has to link to all of it.  Discussing might shed some light on this specific example.  I hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:44, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

WHO DARE YOU!
MY EDIT WAS TRUE! DID THE LINK MAKE ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE 2 YOU? Weird Al DOES have a new polka medley, it has THOSE SONGS, and I have PROOF! THIS IS A CRAPPY WEBSITE, I'M OUT OF HERE! (removes his account). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.98.216.38 (talk) 21:50, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You might want to read the reliable sources guideline, and the other policies and guidelines the bot cited to you. Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Link Removed
I would like to know why my link(http://oltlabc.proboards.com/index.cgi) was removed. Could you please show me the list of links that you mentioned in your message.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.203.160.18 (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The list is linked to in the message on your talkpage (though that contains only a couple of examples, the full list is User:XLinkBot/RevertList, for most an explanation is in the log linked from there). Proboards.com is often a problem link, as it is covered by parts of WP:ELNO (self published data, blog/forum like etc.), and some of the sites on proboards have been spammed quite aggressively.  Please check this link against the external links guideline and consider it on those merits.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Bruce Ridge
attempting to update the article on living classical arts advocate Bruce Ridge.

One link under arts advocacy did not work. The link was to a Polyphonic interview. The correct link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClNJXuYoAjs

We attempted to correct the link but it was rejected.

Also, we attempted to add a new link under Arts Advocacy, but it was also rejected. That link was bullet pointed as "Address to American Federation of Musicians- June, 2010" and the link is http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eg1BsYf6PGE

We do not understand why the links have been rejected. Can you help? It seems like an easy problem.

SymphonyICSOM —Preceding unsigned comment added by SymphonyICSOM (talk • contribs) 05:09, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi...

attempted an "undo" but I guess we don't understand. Please advise. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SymphonyICSOM (talk • contribs) 05:28, 4 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Your 'undo' was correct, though it got removed by a non-bot user. Please read the relevant policies and guidelines cited to you in the warnings and welcome messages on your talkpage.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

No EIN/Random Character Select feature scam in Australia
For some odd reasons the ones released to Australia does not have  EIN as a unlockable character or a Random Character Select feature in any of the modes but how ever in the game booklet instruction manual which came with it clearly shows two questions marks at the Character Select Screen shown in the game book on page 8 which is not shown in the game for unknown reasons. EIN is seen as a playable character in other regions but not in Australia. Not many people from Australia are aware of this scam or false advertising shown in the game booklet including few retailers where they sell the game. EIN supposed to be an unlockable character after beating the game and including a Random Character Select feature where it automatically makes you choose any Dead or Alive Character to its own decisions. There were also cheats published on few gaming websites that both EIN and the Random Character Select feature are unlockable including websites like GameFAQs and IGN. There's also been an issue that Australia is not the only one who came up with this problem including few other regions. Here's a video of the Character Select Screen showing EIN and a Random Character Select feature in Survival Mode in the link and here's a video showing there's no EIN and a Random Character Select feature in the same mode in the link at the Beginning of the video. In this link it shows you pictures of Dead or Alive 3 Characters outfits including EIN appearance and his 3 costumes. TO MR. USER XLINK BOT IF U THINK IM LYING CHECK IT OUT FOR YOURSELF,I EVEN GOT THE GAME INCLUDING MY FRIENDZ AND FAMILY AND ALSO ASK PEOPLE FROM AUSTRALIA ACTUALLY DON'T JUST BUY THE GAME IN SYDNEY AND YOU SEE WHAT I MEAN AND CHECK OUT THE GAME BOOKLET THANK U!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.172.216.71 (talk) 00:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine, and the bot is not disputing that (for as far as it can dispute something ...), but YouTube is NOT a reliable source for that kind of information. Please provide a proper source, see the reliable sources guideline.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:59, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

/* External links */
I tried to add a link a group I create on Facebook to get people to either join or at least increase attention but it was disallowed. Why can't group an individual created on Facebook be allowed like mine Martin Nash group be allowed? Would it be better if I was blogspot or Blogger? Dwightforrm (talk) 05:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Dwightforrm


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a social networking site - as such many links do not belong here. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to  promote your facebook group. In addition, links to fansites, facebook or blogspot are Links normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. --Hu12 (talk) 20:06, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

hi i have a question whats a vandal? thnkx75.176.180.59 (talk) 20:10, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I redid the link what User talk:75.84.199.38 did to La Concha Motel article.
I redid the link what User talk:75.84.199.38 did to La Concha Motel I put them in the external links article if User talk:75.84.199.38 does that again please revert it back what I recently did only if he does it again. Dungcamed2010 (talk) 22:18, 13 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the link. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:52, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

RW Wiki
Please insert a link to RW Wiki. It has over 1000 articles and a large amount of editors.The Joergers are the only user (aside from CBFan) to have a problem with the wiki. It talks about exotic robots like Shapeshifter, Blue and Elmower, who British fans never knew, and the fact that it has articles for almost every robot is great. Aside from the Joergers, every roboteer has been welcomed enthusiastically by the admins for editing their own robot's pages, such as Maddox de jongh (Project one) and Mike Konshak(Propeller-Head). It is large enough for a link, and so deserves one.86.154.99.24 (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Repeated attempts by the Robot Wars wiki to have a link in the Robot Wars (TV series) article have been rejected. The Wikipedia editorial staff have reviwed an appeal for special dispensation, and that appeal was rejected. The user 86.154.99.24 has just recently vandalized the existing link section in an effort to exact revenge against a registered user who opposes inclusion of their link. In my experience, this type of vindictive behavior is typical of some organizers of the Robot Wars wiki. I suggest we ignore them.Run Amok (talk) 22:33, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

youre the only user to have had an isue, Joerger.86.154.99.24 (talk) 05:45, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

We should ignore Mark Joerger as he is the only user to have a problem with our so called fanboy site(not counting CBFan), out of hundreds. Therefore the Wiki should be looked at again and linked to, so wikipedia can have links to the DUtch wars.86.154.99.24 (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Removed all of them, you all should be reading WP:EL, thoroughly. I'll keep an eye on the article, but seen the external link war that is going on, I feel like protecting it.  FYI, none of these should be there ... --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:29, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I will rewrite my article shortly
I am in process of rewriting my article and found some examples on Wikipedia, which I will take as a guideline. Best wishes Carmen Kaye —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ckaye (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You need some independent references. Did some wikification for you.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Tahan
I posted this on Versageek talk page but it's probably better here. If I understand right, XLinkBot removes bad external links, but why did it do this revert on constructive edits by Rightous2? Slightsmile (talk) 19:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is discussed in the FAQ at the top of this page. In short, it has been found that reverting all edits is better because it is highly likely to leave the article in a clean state, whereas often an editor can make two or three attempts to get a link correct, so reverting only the correct edit (which succeeded in making a link) would leave the article broken. Johnuniq (talk) 02:10, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing
Why you deleted the part of Regine Velasquez in the song I Don't Wanna Miss A Thing? She has a version of this song and her version is the greatest of all! DON'T DELETE IT.--121.54.15.166 (talk) 05:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please read the warning. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do you delete the part of Regine Velasquez in this song, she has a single of that song. THAT'S THE PROOF THAT FOREIGNERS HAVE NO TRUST TO FILIPINOS especially Regine (REGINE VELASQUEZ IS THE ASIA's SONGBIRD!) --121.54.15.166 (talk) 10:19, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, read the warning. And no, a youtube video is NOT a reliable source.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:46, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

External Link In Turbo Pascal Website.
I'm Sorry, but I'm slightly confused why my Updated Link ( http://turpas3.angelfire.com/ ) to my website was refused. Having read a lot about what's acceptable and what's not I can only assume that because my website is a hobbyist page which is on a Free Provider it's not allowed. If so I'm confused because my previous page was on a Free Webpage, though had to be closed down due to Geocities closing down! :( Could you please advise why this was reverted?

--Cpm22 user (talk) 07:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess you should read WP:NOT, WP:NOT, WP:EL, and then decide whether the page really adds to the page you added it to. As the policies and guidelines say, we are not a linkfarm, not the yellow pages, etc.  May I point you also to our conflict of interest guideline.  If you have further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:16, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Adding email addresses to edit summaries, user pages
I've just noticed that XLinkBot adds the email address it is removing to its edit summary and the message it leaves on a user page. I know that well-behaved search bots won't pick these up, but nevertheless it seems counterproductive to spread the email even more widely. Even if you leave it in the user message it should not appear in the article history. See this diff for example. (Same applies to web pages in user messages, perhaps in edit summaries too but I haven't seen one.) Mirokado (talk) 23:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Email addresses have another problem, not only the linking. I agree that those should be excluded from edit summaries and from talkpages, and will change that 'bug' as soon as I can.  The other links are not seriously a problem, user talk pages and the edit summaries are not searchable by e.g. Google, nor extremely visible (so generally do not provide traffic as a link in mainspace would).  Having them in the edit summary gives patrollers a chance to review, having live links on talkpages helps anti-spam fighters to find the links and hence the spammers (for the real spam sites).  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes I agree with the above and thanks. Mirokado (talk) 15:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have tweaked the bot, so certain regexes can be hidden from the edit summary and/or from the summary left on the talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I have now seen an action relating to email which didn't quote the address. Mirokado (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggested link to revert in the future
On article "Global Information Network", there has been repeated spamming by IP's for a similarly named organization using the URL "http://www.globalinformationnetworkbonuses.com/". This URL is for a pyramid scheme scam, and is not that of organization that is the subject of the article. Thank you. Wuh Wuz  Dat  21:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Not too many additions, but all IPs. .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:40, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

XLinkBot reverts correct links to fake links
Hi. This bot reverted a change I made to an external link (a la here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=376871917&oldid=367009150 ). The current link for the band's Myspace page actually links to "Myspase.com" which then redirects to a survey website - subtle but sneaky. I corrected the link and explained this in my edit, however I was still reverted as I was not in compliance with the external links guidelines - which as far I can tell, does allow linking to Myspace pages so long as they are controlled by the band.

Not trying to win any wars here, but why are my efforts to protect the innocent Wiki-reader from dodgy links being automatically reverted? I think the autobot should have a human minder... 131.236.151.211 (talk) 04:39, 3 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the friendly remark, and indeed, your repair was quite OK (I have however removed the youtube and myspace, the official website is there, making all other 'official' websites superfluous; we then get to an argument that we should link facebook, myspace, youtube channels, linkedin, twitter ... the other websites are discouraged unless they are the sole official one, but well). But indeed, these type of edits should not 'earn' you a revert, but that is why the system has been programmed to be extremely soft, and the bot does try to be extremely friendly on a first revert (no warning, just a remark, and it tries to include a welcome message; after all, myspace and youtube are still discouraged, and when I looked at 30 myspace reverts of the bot some time ago, there was only one case which in the end was similar to this where I would have said 'I would not have reverted, although...').  Human minders are there as well, the bots edits do show up in Special:RecentChanges for checking (it is why it is not flagged as a bot).
 * Regarding Myspase.com, I am looking at that situation.
 * Which redirects via
 * to
 * This stuff is annoying and abused enough (this case being an example) to be blacklisted on sight. I'll report it elsewhere in a second and perform that action (click on the 'tracking' in the summaries to see where I have brought it).  I may need a specialist to see if there is more rubbish related to this.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
 * I hope this explains, and I hope to see you around! Thanks, and happy editing!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted myspase.com, 1939.com and freebiesforest.com. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This stuff is annoying and abused enough (this case being an example) to be blacklisted on sight. I'll report it elsewhere in a second and perform that action (click on the 'tracking' in the summaries to see where I have brought it).  I may need a specialist to see if there is more rubbish related to this.  Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
 * I hope this explains, and I hope to see you around! Thanks, and happy editing!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted myspase.com, 1939.com and freebiesforest.com. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:20, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Links Reverted on Mount Cuba Center
Hi I am the official representitive of Mt. Cuba Center. We use our youtube and Facebook site to provide information about our programs  We have direct control of these links and approve all content posted to the sites. Also how do I change the title of an artilcle. The title should be Mt. Cuba Center (our legal name) now Mount Cuba Center. Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fvsad (talk • contribs)
 * Hi, thanks for your questions. First question: We are not a linkfarm, we do not list all possible websites linked to a subject, if there is an official link, all myspace, youtube, facebook etc. links are superfluous.  For some guidelines, see the external link guideline, 'We are not a linkfarm' and 'We are not the Yellow Pages'.  Second part: We generally use unabbreviated names, and use redirects for the others.  So I think that the article should be at Mount Cuba Center, and there should be redirects from Mt. Cuba Center, and probably also from Mount Cuba Centre, Mt. Cuba Centre, and the different cases with the different capitalisation (Mt. cuba centre, Mt. Cuba centre, Mt. cuba Centre etc.  But I might be wrong here regarding where the article itself should be, if so, it can be moved to the correct one.
 * May I strongly suggest you to read our conflict of interest guideline. It does not forbid you to edit, or whatever, but please take extreme care on how and what you write.  If the style of your edits is too promotional, or if you are removing well referenced, or adding non-referenced material, you might be blocked on sight.  When you add information, preferably references from other sources, not from your own; see the reliable sources guideline.  I hope this explains a bit.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Wilsons of Sharrow
Please get off my case. I am a 72-year-old veteran with MS. I was born near Endcliffe Park, Sheffield at the outbreak of WWII. The story of Mi Amigo Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress air crash in 1943 was just that -- a folklore story until the memorial was erected by Air Forces Association Sheffield branch 27 years after the tragedy. (I am a RAFA member too.)

I want to put the record straight using links to the The Star (local newspaper and an old employer) and BBC news. Sorry if I got the title/s to the story mixed-up and repeated the new page. Janus38 (talk) 08:22, 7 August 2010 (UTC) Janus38.


 * I've updated the article a bit. Please note, that a) it would be better to reference in a different style (I have tagged the article as such), and b) you might want to check the source of the youtube video's, although some can be used as a reliable source, a lot can't.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:21, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Question
Is there any particular reason XLinkBot doesn't always take 60 seconds or less to revert a link addition? I'd figure that they could be reverted immediately like ClueBot as bots only follow orders without thinking.

If it's because suspicious additions are lined up for the bot, then that would probably answer my question. mechamind 9  0  00:50, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I am afraid that it is due to the amount of work that the linkwatchers (which parse the external links out of the text on all wikis) have, and XLinkBot does a good number of checks, for which it also has to get all the information (so part of its speed may be due to the speed of the api). Moreover, indeed, although it does have a number of reverters, you don't see on wiki all the edits that it actually does not revert.  The ones that I now see in the live-feed of XLinkBot are 71, 45, 30, 51, 30, 64, 36, 21, 73, 22 and 31 seconds.
 * Maybe I should add a couple of reverters, and see if it improves. I'll keep an eye ..   --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:25, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Acceptance discussion?
Didn't know this existed -- seems quite contrary to the anyone can edit mandate. Rather than beat a dead horse, can someone direct me to an archive of the discussion that led to this being accepted? Gerardw (talk) 15:10, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, anyone can edit; I don't see how this is more contrary to the anyone can edit mandate than anti-vandalism bots. We are not blocking editors, applying edit denying edit filters, protecting pages or applying the spam blacklist here (which would remove that right).  Discussions are plenty (see archives here, e.g.), but are you referring to the bots BRFA requests (see Bots/Requests_for_approval/SquelchBot?  Or are there other specific concerns you have?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:49, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see that you are referring to this edit. Indeed, some of the links there are reasonable, but a handful are typically to be avoided per our guidelines (about.com, blogs).  Moreover, quite some links are inserted (see WP:NOT and WP:NOT).  I see that Versageek has cleaned up the links accordingly.
 * We have chosen in such cases to revert the complete edit (parsing out the 'offending' external links is technically impossible due to the many ways links can be inserted and attempting such automatically would (often) 'vandalise' the page), and leave a message (not a warning) on the users' talkpage, pointing to relevant policies and guidelines, and asking them to reconsider the external links that they have inserted. Furthermore, XLinkBot's edits do appear in the recent changes log, and are hence evaluated by editors there, and XLinkBot has several mechanisms in place which do not enforce the policies and guidelines (only reverts once, does not revert autoconfirmed editors, follows a (very) strict no-3RR, and forgets quite fast that a user has been reverted earlier (resetting the count).  I hope this explains a bit, and takes away any concerns.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:07, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Won't this [] remove XLinkBot edit's from recent changes? Gerardw (talk) 02:29, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment from a talk page watcher: I see at least one XLinkBot edit in my current watchlist, which took place after the rights change to which you link. To check the "recent changes" list, I expanded the list to show the last 5000 edits and searched for "XLinkBot", and edits turned up there as well which took place within the last hour. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:38, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. Confirmed users would be fine (but I think XLinkBot is ..), reviewer would be bad, indeed, I would want these edits to be reviewed independently. XLinkBot does make mistakes, and sometimes the change from one deprecated external link to another is a non-blp-violating change (say, www. .com/ -> www. .com/ will be reverted if the free web host is on the revertlist, but then should be re-reverted or deleted completely ...). I am not too familiar with the autopatrolled thingy, I am not sure what effect that will have. If that hides edits from the feeds it would be bad as well. But I see all three have been removed again, so it is a bit moot now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Ashtray Navigations external link
Hi I did some edits on Ashtray Navigations wiki 12:32, 11 August 2010, when I wasn't looged in. I was unaware myspace was a banned link, and I am happy to remove it from my revision. However I believe everything else I added was relevent and non-promotional. Please could my edit be reverted minus the myspace link? I'm new to this so any help on this would be appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaleeyed (talk • contribs)


 * Thank you for your remark. Actually, you have hit one of the few cases where the MySpace link is totally appropriate.  The external links guideline strongly discourages links to MySpace, YouTube, Facebook, BlogSpot etc. etc., but with exception if it is thé official homepage of the subject.  As it is not Wikipedia's goal either to include all possible external links to all official sites of the subject, one would have to choose.  Often there is 'www.subject.com', which makes all the MySpace, FaceBook and BlogSpots inappropriate, so yes, in most cases, MySpace links are just not proper on the page (note, they are not banned per sé, it is just that they almost always fail our policies and guidelines).  Here there is (not yet?) a 'www.subject.com', and the MySpace link seems to be the only official link.  I have reverted the whole edit, and did a bit of formatting.
 * I hope this explains, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:23, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Abdullah theabz, 21 August 2010
undefined

i want to add a link of the official Tekken fan page as listed on Facebook.com

Abdullah theabz (talk) 12:44, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First, please read WP:ELNO. Even if it is the official Tekken fan page (and the only page that can say that is the official Tekken page, which then would make the fan page superfluous), it fails our guideline.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:47, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Welcome in sections
When the bot 'welcomes' people, it doesn't put a == Welcome == section heading, e.g..

Putting == Welcome == gets users off to a good start; if the welcome is not in a section, it leads them to think that is normal on a talk page. Putting the 'welcome' message into a headed section gets them used to the concept more quickly, and avoids confusion down the line. Could you consider changing it? Cheers,  Chzz  ► 20:47, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Hmm .. I never add the welcome template in a section, and I think that having the warnings in their own sections already shows the sectioning. I'll add an option for it in the settings in a next round of developing, but I am not convinced that that should be done like that.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:58, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Friendly does it - I believe it actually checks if the specific welcome has a heading or not, and if not, makes one. Huggle does it too, and - from considerable experience of the issue - I can assure you, if the welcome is not in a section, the user is far more likely to simply edit the page and put or whatever else, without getting the idea of sections. Hundreds of times, in answering a helpme, I've changed Welcome to == Welcome == and then put their help request into a titled section. I don't know if I can find an actual policy or guideline, but Talkpage does say, To discuss a new topic, start a new section, as do other guides; I don't see any reason why a 'welcome' would be a special case; all I can really do is, try to assure you that I've seen the trouble so many times. Starting off with a good practice really helps. It's not worth making a huge fuss over, it's not all that big a deal; just...well, that is my opinion - that it really should be in a section. If that can happen, great; if not, I'll keep just changing as and when it helps clear things up. Thanks for considering it, regardless.  Chzz  ►  08:55, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I adapted the code, and added the settings (and enabled it). Could you have a check if all goes correct?  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:04, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems to work fine. Further things can now be adapted in the settings.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:18, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds great; nice job.  Chzz  ► 17:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:25, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. XLinkBot
I found some links added by the original creator that were entered incorrectly. Just thought I'd correct them. Guess I'll get someone with an account to do it. 170.71.252.34 (talk) 01:17, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, just so you know, it's the link itself that the bot has an issue with, not whoever added it. If I added the same link it would be reverted.  I can only suggest that you try and find an alternative link :) --5 albert square (talk) 01:45, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually not, 5 albert square, you are, in mediawiki terms, autoconfirmed (see the User:XLinkBot/Settings for XLinkBot's ideas about that. IPs don't have that.  However, I think that none of those links should be in that document in the first place.  Please see WP:RS and WP:V - that material is not a suitable reference, and I would not even use them as an external link, it should plainly be removed.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Bengals Twitter
The edit reverted was from the Bengals official twitter. Please fix your bot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.83.46.100 (talk) 21:40, 30 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Good revert. Twitter links are not a reliable source, and not suitable as an external link (except some very infrequent cases).  Please read our policies and guidelines.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:19, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   00:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Updated external link
Just wanted to check if the new external link i added is ok, as the original external link website for paper tiger comix has expired. Thanks. Doctor seanelius (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC) --Doctor seanelius (talk) 12:34, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the question. I think this is one of the cases where the myspace would be appropriate, I have hence reverted the bot.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

RE: September 2010
Link to be dereverted.

71.21.93.61 (talk) 22:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Youtube links are automatically reverted because most are to copyrighted material.

The most recent Youtube link, to a Chaliapin vocal performance of Schubert's Doppelganger, is obviously not under copyright due to its age. The accompanying slideshow was created, uploaded, and made public by the poster.

The link should not be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.105.102 (talk) 03:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, you should read the policies and guidelines again. Copyright is one of the reasons why youtube links are reverted, but there is much more.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Miss-fire
Hey. This is the first possible mistake I've ever seen this bot make so I wanted to report it in case something needs to be tweaked. A user added a link to Facebook which I then reverted. The user then added some categories which was soon followed by XLinkBot attempting to revert the initial addition of the Facebook link but instead removed the edit where categories were added. I imagine this only happened because of the very small amount of time between the addition and my edit so I doubt this is something that happens frequently. Just wanted to bring it to your attention. Ol Yeller '''Talktome 17:22, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that that is it. Thanks for listing this, I'll have a look, and see if there is something that can be done about it.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Finally but please read this
I finally managed to get to your message tho why it was a problem I don't really know. Anyway, thanks for your message explaining. I did put my reasons for expansion & didn't expect everything to disappear for a few dud links. I will when I have more time (having spent too much on this article anyway) correct the links, but meanwhile I have a question: if the YouTube links aren't copy right valid, how come they appear on public YTube? PS am still deciding on a user name is why it's an IP, but it's always me. One more question, if it's because I'm using IP only, will it pass if I'm a registered user?

Thanks 110.33.16.128 (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I removed the specified link - hope that helps. 110.33.16.128 (talk) 01:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Youtube is very often a problem, not only due to copyright (which is the worst of them), but it often also ticks several points in WP:ELNO (and often even the core of WP:EL). But there are exceptions, and that is why we chose to revert the links and inform the users, and not blacklist it completely.

Creating a username will solve you being reverted in a couple of days, new editors are reverted as well for the first 4 days and the first so many edits. The bot aims at notifying new editors of link additions which are very often questionable by informing them of the relevant policies and guidelines. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Bug: no link removed despite claim
This edit claims to be removing a link but doesn't. It reverted the latest edit, not the one with the link. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, indeed a bug. I need to have a look at that, bit a unique situation, I think.  Thanks!!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Futsal
Thankyou verymuch. Sorry about my link[]i dont know anything about licen .i a new wiki player. but i want to share about real Thailand futsal and football. ThaiFutsal (talk) 3:55, 19 September 2010
 * Thank you for your remark. Have a look at the policies and guidelines quoted in the remark on your talkpage.  They tell it all.  Happy editing.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:00, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Youtube of an ALU Implemented in Minecraft: Undid an XLinkBot Removal
FYI I undid an XLinkBot edit here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arithmetic_logic_unit&oldid=387822613

I believe XLinkBot was being overzealous in this case and this particular youtube link in fact complies with all policies and is extremely significant and valuable to the article.

--bishopw (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

JJVarab
Hi this is JJVarab and I am trying to update my Jeffrey Varab wikipedia page with facts and it keeps reverting to to old "in error" page. Help? :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjvarab (talk • contribs) 19:56, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you please read the warnings, and follow the blue links to the policies and guidelines cited. Wikipedia is not here to promote you.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Simply put, you aren't allowed to. If the article concerns you, you should never edit it, as the worst person to be considered neutral on the subject of you is you. Plus, you were essentially turning the page into a resume and that's definitely not allowed. Half  Shadow  20:04, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Official Myspace Page
Dear XLinkBot,

I am unclear as to why an Official Myspace Page link is acceptable for many bands, but not for the band I added the link for, Outrage (Jp). I read your acceptable links policy and it said that Official pages may be added to external links where content comes from the source. Please give me a better guideline to tell when Official Myspace Page links are acceptable and when they are not. I was using other Wikipedia pages as examples to guide my editing.

Regards,

Fullmetaljaki (talk) 13:23, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, myspace is in most cases superfluous, that goes for this band, as well as for others (reasoning similar to 'What about X?'. If there is a official homepage already, then the myspace is generally not necessary anymore (and neither are facebooks, youtube channels, etc. etc.).  When the myspace is the only ánd official one, then it is indeed suitable.  That is why it is reverted, and the bot is giving you the suggestion to reconsider and if necessary revert, and not completely blacklisted.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:42, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Exempt pages
Is there a way to make an article exempt from this bot? In active election articles, such as Edmonton municipal election, 2010 and Calgary municipal election, 2010, there are lists of campaign websites made available, so that a detailed description of each candidate doesn't get written, (avoiding promotion violations). Often registered users don't know of a new website unless an IP attempts to add it to the article. I believe that these IPs shouldn't get warning messages, per WP:DONTBITE, as they are following the example that they see. 117Avenue (talk) 07:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * And you believe that such pages could not be subject to real spamming and or other forms of promotional edits. Note, most of these editors don't get warning messages, but a welcome and a remark, I believe that it is essentially not biting there, unless they insist.
 * Now about that page. I believe that ALL those references, should go.  Essentially, those are not references, those are links to the pages of the persons, a web directory of the sites.  All those editors who are editing that page and adding another twitter feed, are basically following a bad example.  If you look at it, the page is simply unreferenced, and it is difficult for me to assess whether or not this page is not actually violating WP:BLP.  I would actually suggest that all the references are removed, this is not within the scope of Wikipedia, we are not a soapbox!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll add on: candidate sites should be linked from the pages of the individual candidates, and most are. Twitter feeds are nowhere appropriate (they fail WP:RS and WP:EL).  Note, that until these lists are complete, that the article also fails WP:NPOV (it is advantaging candidates with twitters/homepages over the others ..) ... I've tagged the articles for lack of enough secondary and tertiary sources .. it seems not to hang completely on the primary sources of the homepages of the people, and the twitter feeds.  And where are the myspaces and facebooks .. I would almost ask.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * So what is to be done then? Remove all the candidate summaries, campaign sites, and twitter feeds? If I understand you correctly, you think that official websites aren't reliable, and you want third party sources. Not every candidate gets mentioned in a newspaper, the article will not be neutral if that path is followed. 117Avenue (talk) 05:49, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not how Wikipedia defines neutrality. Neutrality doesn't mean that everyone gets equal coverage.  Neutrality instead means following independent media coverage in a proportionate (neutrally weighted) way instead of editors substituting their own ideas about who to cover.  If you look at United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2008 you will see that Barack Obama and John McCain were not the only candidates.  That doesn't mean Obama and McCain should not get more coverage than the others.  This really shouldn't be that difficult; there are many many election pages on Wikipedia and including dozens of Twitter feeds is not standard practice.  The absence of those feeds did not render the creation of a neutral article impossible.Bdell555 (talk) 06:51, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I presume that there is an official list of candidates .. it only takes one reference for all. That does not have to be an online source, but these 'sources' that are there, and especially the twitter feeds, are all primary sources .. I can start a page saying that I am a candidate, and put myself in that list .. would you know if I am wrong?  The point is verifiability .. someone with access to the paper version can then at least check whether the candidates are there, if it gets disputed.  Now we have nothing ..
 * I would remove all the twitter feeds .. they really don't add anything, and they are the links that XLinkBot is complaining about. The other, personal pages, I have less of a problem with, they are primary, and they would need a secondary or tertiary source to back them up (e.g. the official candidate list), but at least they link to the correct person.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree with Dirk here. 117Ave, your conception of "equal coverage" = "neutral coverage" by bringing in a WP:SELFPUB source to match other WP:SELFPUB sources (so sourcing ends up being equally dubious) can't be consistently applied anyway, because some candidates don't even have WP:SELFPUB (eg a Twitter feed) material out there.Bdell555 (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I have removed all twitter feeds from these pages. That should result in less editors following the example of the other twitter feeds, and hence less reversions of XLinkBot .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:35, 5 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to be clear, I decided to include Twitter feeds because a newspaper and school board candidate list included them. But I can understand that they don't add anything to the article. 117Avenue (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Don't worry, 117Avenue. No harm done.  Happy editing!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:50, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Ashutosh
मै आशुतोश कुमार तिवारी, पिता- श्री गया तिवारी. मेरा घर डिहरा है. जो सासाराम से ८ किलोमीटर दुर है, और कुम्हऊ रेलवे स्टेशन से २.५ किलोमीटर उतर दिशा कि ओर और गारा नहर पर स्थित है. हमारे गाव कि आबादी ६४० है. हमारे गाव मे किसी भी प्रकार के साप काटने पर दैवी शक्ति से ठीक किया जाता है. लोगो का मानना है कि, बहुत समय पहल इस गाव मे नाग देवता एक औरत से जन्म लिये थै. उसी समय से आज तक साप काटने पर इलाज किया जाता है. हमारा गाव प्रचीन समय से ही हिन्दू धर्म मे आस्था रखता है. हमारे गाव मे बहुत से हिन्दु मन्दिर है. गाव के पुरब मे बहुत बडा तालाब है जहा मा काली का मन्दिर है जो बडा ही मनमोहक है. हमारे गाव के बीच मे महावीर हनुमान जी का बडा ही सुन्दर मन्दिर है. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carryhp (talk • contribs) 10:55, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * ? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:57, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Mackenzie Gray
Hello!

Am representing Mackenzie and noticed his current page was extremely out of date. I uploaded his new biography to make the page more interesting and informative. It all went well and I put in several links to both external and internal sites that were associated. I tried to add to the resources section - adding his facebook fan page - and got a message that it wasn't allowed. I completely understand that, but what I don't understand is why then was the entire new entry deleted and his out of date bio reposted? Please help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sue.edworthy (talk • contribs) 17:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Re-reverted, answered on talkpage of user. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:21, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello again, thank you fro your response. the bio I replaced the out of date information with was not simply copied from a website, it was written by his agent and forwarded to me as a word document. It is of course on the imdb website as well - I put it there. Am unsure as to how to proceed - am I expected to rewrite it again, despite the fact that it was an original? Please help, i want to get this right. I am not clear on why an out of date incorrect entry is preferable to a correct one. thank you, Sue —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sue.edworthy (talk • contribs) 22:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)


 * this version is the same as his BIO on his homepage, and seen that the Wiki version is not 'wikified' I strongly suspect that it is just a copy from there. The Wikipedia entry has to be written from scratch, not copied from somewhere else.  And the style of the article as you write it is not how articles are formatted here.  Please, do have a look at the documents reffered to in the welcome template in the top of your talkpage.  And please, do have a look at our conflict of interest guideline as well.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Suspect Spam reverting
Hi, I am not sure if this page is being spam reverting by a user named benjwong, as I've been trying to give a holistic account of a living person rather an incident in this person's life.

Please advise if benjwong is indeed spamming or else how we could accomodate each other's versions?!

Million thanks!

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ricky_Wong_(Hong_Kong_businessman)&action=history

"Calvinlo0601 (talk) 04:40, 11 October 2010 (UTC)calvinlo0601"


 * Please leave a message for that specific user, on User talk:Benjwong, and/or discuss your suggestions on the article talk page, Talk:Ricky Wong (Hong Kong businessman). As far as I can see, this question is not related to XLinkBot.  Chzz  ► 04:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

wth?
this bot just reverted a whole bunch of edits I made to an article. I am reverting and I want this BOT out of my face. if you need to edit the page, see the talk. TY.

Fatandloud (talk) 03:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Hello Fatandloud


 * Yes, the bot would have reverted your edit as it included a link to Facebook which is strongly discouraged as per WP:ELNO. I cannot see anything on that Facebook page that says it is an official page and it is set up by that person.  Absolutely anybody can set up a page on Facebook, but it doesn't mean to say that they are that person, I know that Kara Tointon once had a prankster set up a fake Facebook page pretending to be her, even Kate Winslet and Angelina Jolie have been victims.  The bot has no way of checking these so for safetys sake, it reverts them.


 * I hope this helps you understand this now --5 albert square (talk) 11:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that, but why did it revert ALL of my edits? Fatandloud (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have no idea why it reverted the rest of them, the rest looked ok. Maybe there's no way that the bot can just revert one edit?  Or maybe there was also a link in another edit that it objected to?  --5 albert square (talk) 13:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

See the FAQs, linked above, and the text of the remark on your talkpage. User:XLinkBot/FAQ is the one. In short, it is a choice, where both have their drawbacks and this one which generally leaves the less problems after reverting. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

QA
Hi i'm new at wiki but with very long and advanced experience with Mobile phones, Any reason you deleted pros & cons ? it is important to have professional info with such summery that is currently missing from the wiki page. please advise ? Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.21.190 (talk) 18:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I have no clue what you are talking about. You did, under this IP, not have any contact with XLinkBot.  Could you provide ore info?  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:27, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit Conflict (Acid Bath)
I understand this is a bot, but I undid your change on the Acid Bath page, and then proceeded to remove the link you deleted to comply with Wikipedia's external links policy. Unfortunately, your change was counter-productive as it did much more than remove the intended link. I am referring to other changes the bot reverted. No reason was given as to why you didn't just remove said link but instead, reverted necessary additions to the article. Hopefully, someone will improve this shitty bot "XLinkBot" to avoid repeated occurrences of this mess. 72.240.82.155 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, it's not possible for the bot just to remove the link. If you look at XLinkBot's contributions, you will see that it will always revert the entire edit.  For all the bot knows you've referenced the link elsewhere in the edit. --5 albert square (talk) 21:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I'm sorry. I honestly had no idea. XP. -YE —Preceding unsigned comment added by YoshiEgg360 (talk • contribs) 20:15, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

...
I'm just wondering why you reverted my edit on Longplay --99.255.104.101 (talk) 21:19, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hey just to let you know, this user is not a real human being, it is a bot. If you contest an edit that it reverted you may go to the operator's talk page here. Usb10 Connected? 01:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, the operator(s) also watch this page, and this is probably a better place to ask such questions (keep discussions together, and it affects the bot). 99.255.104.101, you were inserting a YouTube link, as the warning on your talkpage suggests (in the links to the various, we are not a linkfarm, or internet directory, we don't link to places where you can find stuff, we link because it provides more information.  I have hence re-reverted you.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Reinserting a link
I undid the revertion of my link from the Deep brain stimulation page. Details are on my talk page. 85.65.243.51 (talk) 06:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Those are not actual reasons to include the link - we are not a linkfarm or an internet directory. The article is heavily referenced, so the question is a) what does it add that is not already in the text, b) could it actually be used to expand the article and then used as a reference, and c) it is still a YouTube video .. there are millions of people to who that link is totally useless, etc. etc.  Thát are the reasons why YouTube gets reverted in most cases, not because of Copyright failures.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible malfunction ?
I am not sure if the link that XlinBot deleted is a good one, but IMHO it does not seem as obviously wrong as to be deleted by a bot. The edition was this. Could anyone take a look and see whether is a normal deletion or some malfunction which should be taken into account?. Thanks. Dumu Eduba (talk) 10:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nope. Blogspots are generally not suitable as an external link, highly avoidable.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for the answer. Dumu Eduba (talk) 13:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

NZB
XLinkBot reverted this edit with the explanation of BOT--Reverting link addition(s) by Ranron to revision 345157346 (%3Cbloggs@nowhere.example (redirect from mabdul 20:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
 * already answered earlier. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Parody of Every Girl by Young Money
Parody Song

71.21.93.61 (talk) 22:35, 8 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Not sure what you want to say. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Link Banned For No Reason
I came across the site in question while surfing the web this morning for more information after I read this article, and I learned more from that site than from all the Wikipedia articles on the topic combined. I tried to share the site as a source on a couple Wikipedia pages, and my edits got reverted. Why? Jr mcalasatar (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, have you read the external links guideline, as the bot suggests? Webs.com is not 'banned', however, the link is totally superfluous here, and certainly does not need to be mentioned at the top of the list.  We are not a linkfarm.  I hope this explains, happy editing!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

But that site seems to be a legit source though? Jr mcalasatar (talk) 16:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that is one of the problems with free web hosts. One has to be careful with them.  Anyone can write a webpage on such pages and then sell it as the truth, some are fine, others questionable.  Maybe this one is, but then, this webpage does not seem to give any information which is not already included in the page itself (the Wikipedia page you added it to is already quite big, and has several references already) or in one of the references used on the page.  And a quick glance over the references gives me the feeling that those are probably more reliable than this site (not saying that this site is not reliable, but there are sources which have editorial overview, which are generally deemed more reliable than those without).
 * But you say you learned from the site, in which case, I would suggest to expand the Wikipedia pages to match it. Maybe this can be used as a reference here and there, or maybe there are better references to be found as well.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I think I see what you're getting at. Thanks for addressing my question. Jr mcalasatar (talk) 16:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Removal of youtube links
Hi,

As I understand it, youtube links are not entirely banned. Which is why im unsure as to why xlinkbot removed my youtube links. The wikipedia page is my sons "feliks zemdegs" who currently has six world records in speed cubing. I simply wanted to link his world records to the corresponding youtube videos which I took and therefore do not violate any copyright etc. Id be grateful if I could add these links or understand why they were removed.

Thanks

Lembasts (talk) 07:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)David Zemdegs


 * Indeed, not entirely. However, most YouTube links do not add to a subject (of the type that 'a video of a birthday party of your grandma is not adding to Birthday', they are not accessible to a significant number of users, they still need a reasonable internet speed, they are user supplied data without editorial oversight (we generally only have the word of the uploader in many cases that what you see is really what it is supposed to show), editors have conflicts of interest, and if there is, in principle, editorial oversight (if the video is created by an official entity, but not uploaded by them) then copyright problems are often there, &c. &c.  Those are enough reasons to generally revert these links on sight.
 * That being said, there are some cases where the links are on topic, adding to the story, or in short, where all the possible concerns as worded in our external links guideline are being met with good arguments (and there are those which are official videos where the copyright owner would make their data reliable, uploaded by that same copyright owner - e.g. a news company uploading their news items). That is why YouTube is on XLinkBot's revertlist and not on the MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist.
 * If you think that here you have good counter arguments, then I think you could follow the bots suggestion, and undo the revert of the bot. I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

So all I do is undo and it wont redo the reverts? If that is the case then i am curious as to everyone doesnt simply undo and therefore make the bot redundant? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.92.132 (talk) 08:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Almost. First, we assume good faith, second, the bot gets monitored, and warnings get sent to IRC when someone uses undo, triggering bot operators and other interested people to have a look.  Third, reverts do show up in the recent-changes logs, so recent changes patrollers will notice.  Fourth, one will see that in watchlists or page histories.  Using undo does trigger editors to have a look quicker if the edits state 'I am undoing the revert by XLinkBot' (or something similar) - if the bot had a problem with the edit, then surely it needs a second eye.  Moreover, if real spammers use the undo, or when a really bad link gets pushed after the editor was being pointed to our policies and guidelines, then the addition of the link is not in good faith anymore, and there may faster be consequences (e.g. if real spammers use undo, I have no mercy and will block without further warning, and will also be more inclined to move the link to the blacklist if the specific link is really rubbish).  Therefore, I expect that a user does not blindly undo the bot, but considers, discusses (as you do now), explains &c.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your excellent explanation. So having discussed this and determining that the links are very reasonable then I can undo the next xlinkbot and the "reviewers" will give it the thumbs up - I hope. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lembasts (talk • contribs) 02:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Train ferry
Can I added this link on train ferry page http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0CoE_j2zg0&feature=related Thank you. 151.51.8.100 (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Strange deletions
The bot is removing content, in addition to links on The Launderettes article. The bot also removes "some" spam/SPS links, but not all, i.e., MySpace. Thanks, Cindamuse (talk) 11:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * XLinkBot reverts additions by anonymous and non-autoconfirmed users if they contain a URL which matches one or more listed on its revert list.  This list includes most of the popular social networking sites. Please see our frequently asked questions about why the bot reverts all additions rather than just removing external links. -- Versa  geek  21:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

What is the best way to do this ?
help me XBot removed my external links to YouTube in my proposed edit to the subject "Minuet Step". I apologise for being a Newbie! I have now read the guidelines on YouTube links. As suggested by the XBot I have undone the removal, but deleting the external YouTube links, and trying to replace them (or at least the most important one of them) by a reference.

However, to study a dance step, words are not really enough. Therefore the addition of a video, ideally in context and in period costume, adds very significantly to readers' ability to understand the dance. It is therefore very disappointing not to be able to include at least the link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yurw5Cf4HY - the best example that I have come across.

Is there another way to achieve this result? Mgnotley (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * YouTube links are not forbidden, but there are very, very often problems with it (outlined in the external links guideline). However, if it really adds to a page (as in this example), and there are no problems with copyright (which I don't think is a problem here), &c. &c., then the addition can be appropriate.  If in doubt, try to discuss on the talkpage.  I hope this explains, happy editing!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

C.J. Raja
HI This is CJ.Raja. Why my page Raja Liaqat Ali is supposed to be deleted I know that Raja Liaqat Ali is known Journalist of Pakistan. There are so many other Journalists in the List of Pakistani Journalists who can be suggested to be deleted for they are not known and their work is not linked.Please don't refer my page to be deleted and take off that delete notice. Secondly help topics in wikipedia are very complicated for nobody could read and fully understand it because of lots of links. Cj.Raja (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm not sure why you ask the bot, but regarding deleting - see 'What wikipedia is not', and the notability guidelines. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:33, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Chail Military School Chail
I have removed the link but just added a word webs to indicate the website but it is strange that we are not allowed to provide external link. This link would save lots of space on wiki. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgian Chail (talk • contribs)
 * Space is not our problem, actually, we incorporate info, not link to it. We are not a linkfarm or a web directory, this is an encyclopedia!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:36, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Undo / Revert
Hi,

Is it possible for XLinkBot to undo edits rather than revert them? In the case of the latest article I've been watching,, the (new) user had been addressing my concerns re references and categories, and the bot reverted the lot because in the final edit they happened to add a link to youtube. I have partially reverted the bot to restore all but the youtube link. It's just that while reverting the bot has removed more than just the offending material, it has removed the good faith edits as well, and I can imagine that leaves users feeling aggrieved. --  role player 11:25, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You mean, undo one edit vs. undo all edits? Yes, it a setting - however, it was found that undoing all edits generally leaves less problems in terms of broken pages, and residual spam rubbish (though may be more bitey).  This is explained more in detail in the FAQ.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, thank you for letting me know. --  role player 12:51, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi,

Thanx for giving me info about external links.--RafhanShaukat (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

YouTube
The bot removed a perfectly valid YouTube link here by an IP user in October. It was properly formatted, appropriately licensed, and uploaded by an educational institution (MIT). It was also the user's first apparent edit, which could be harmful to the "assume good faith" idea. Are *all* YouTube links reverted at first glance or is there extra conditions needed to be met first? (e.g. poor formatting, problem user).

Don't get me wrong, that particular page has had vandalism problems, so that might be enough of a reason. But other than that, it seems to be a dangerous precedent if all IP users aren't allowed to paste links to properly licensed material (as more and more YouTube videos are becoming these days). Wouldn't flagging be better in this instance?--Tim Thomason 12:09, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Perfectly valid .. well, YouTube still needs software installed to see it, the files are often big, and some devices can't see it. Moreover, the video is about the Space Shuttle, not about Dave Myers (it does not tell about Dave Myers).  I would say that there are significant concerns even without having copyright problems, which make YouTube links generally to be avoided, and that its use should be thoroughly thought through.  I would personally have removed this link per the external links guideline (I see you reverted the bot - I will not revert your edit, but I really do believe the link does not belong here).  There is a lot of material either properly copyrighted or not copyrighted, and YouTube is also actively keeping up, still there are severe problems with many of these links.
 * Biting - maybe, but the bot is welcoming users, is not giving warnings on 'first offences' (bot more a notification), does (generally) not re-revert. I don't think that it is too bitey, that would be the case if it would spread spam3 or spam4 warnings at a first addition.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I see. The video's might be a discussion point for the Myers talk page (you actually learn a lot from Myers on his experiences with NASA). I was just concerned that there might be a blanket revert with the bot on all YT vids, which might be (or becoming) archaic with the increased CC and PD videos being placed online by educational institutions. I'll see about putting up the proper flash player notice for the link.--Tim Thomason 02:38, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Archaic, no. There still is A LOT of rubbish (in Wikipedia terms) on YouTube, and even if the link is not a violation of copyright, it still is very often not a necessary/suitable/appropriate link (as I say sometimes 'no, we do not need a video of the birthday of your on Birthday', and even here, this YouTube link is not a suitable reference for the notability or information on Myers, the majority of the video does not tell about Myers, it would only tell that Myers is a specialist on the Space Shuttle, but for that information this video is not a suitable reliable source either (I could give a perfectly sane and correct story about Space Shuttles (after some study), and record a video about it, still that does not make me a specialist, nor makes the video a suitable piece of information - note, I am not saying that Myers is not a specialist on the subject, but this video is not showing that per se) .. the use of YouTube video's is really quite limited, even for valid ones.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Edits look OK
I have gone in and verified that these are acceptable, non-spam related links. Thanks for looking out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seriouseditor65 (talk • contribs) 04:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It is not about spam, it is about twitter. Twitter external links are just plainly discouraged per our external links guideline. I have cleaned the section on the article.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:37, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Problem IP
This IP repeatedly deleted your messages on his talk page and has been making disruptive edits with threatening edit summaries: User talk:98.229.63.165. What should be done? -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, they read the warnings (though not thorougly enough - and misinterpret the guidelines) - I would consider a block in order to .. push the editor toward discussing and considering that maybe the links are not OK. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

YouTube linked removed
A YouTube link I added to my page under External Links was removed. I wanted to include that video in my post as I thought it showed images from the game well, summarized what I wrote and is visually creative. Is there a reason why it was pulled down? Thanks Scichick (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I am not sure what page you refer to, and what edit XLinkBot reverted. But you might want to have a look at the external links guideline for information about which external links are, and which are generally not suitable.  I hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:20, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

request
Hi, I was wondering that there is no entry in the FAQ about requesting a new link to the list. An IP is constantly adding http://a-cto.narod.ru/marquee/ to the marquee element article. Can somebody add this link to the blacklist? mabdul 20:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think this is the purpose of XLinkBot, and - as far as I can see - the unregistered IP editors only added the link to the page twice. If the spamming becomes a serious problem, you can ask the link to be added to the site blacklist at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 13:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

links that should not be posted on wikipedia
can i know what list of links that i cannot post on wikipedia? —Johnmylove (talk • contribs) 13:27, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * There are many to avoid, see: External_links. Avoid linking to a website publishing song lyrics or other material without the proper permission at that website. Also, it depends on each user: do not link to a website which is a personal conflict of interest (such as a website you or your employer own). Avoid sites advocating criminal activities, or which publish unfounded rumors about living people, etc. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: DELTA BRAVO
Hello XLinkBot. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of DELTA BRAVO, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not blatantly vandalism or a hoax. Thank you. Ged UK  14:44, 4 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Nope, it was not the bot... the bot reinstated the tag. :-).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:55, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

External Links Comment
Dear XLinkBot:

I read your comment and believe that two of the links I added do contribute to the Log Management listing. I believe the others do not and will not attempt to add them again.

Should I undo and then edit the listing or re-add the links that I believe do add to the article.

Thanks!

Sotied (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * That would be an option, indeed. Otherwise, just discuss on the talkpage.  Thanks for the question!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:22, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Zap alias article
Greetings,

Updates to the article have been made (Dec 21st, 2010), and it would be great to have your confirmation on the references and data added to it.

Please review. THANKS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.118.84.31 (talk) 03:54, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what the bot has to do with this ... --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:19, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Dasher Chess Picture
hey whats wrong in my use of dasher chess picture. it is a free software that came with my membership fee in icc. i can use it for whatever i want, right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Traveler1925 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, I don't know. I think you will have to ask for help on the picture page.  Note that pictures are subject to strong rules!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:44, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Theis bot is reverting ALL wikias indiscriminately
Which is actually againg the very rule it cites (Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors. Mirrors or forks of Wikipedia should not be linked.). The bot is reverting all wikia wikis, even the RE Wiki with over 7,000 articles (also the SNK Wiki with over 1,000 articles, and so on). Can someone do something about it PLEASE? --94.246.150.68 (talk) 23:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)


 * To avoid this problem, you'll need to get an account. XLinkBot doesn't bother experienced editors.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Secondly, this Wikipedia has millions of pages and even more edits, and I would not consider to use this as an external link. It is a wiki .. having 7000 articles is not a measure of being substantial, wikis are inherently unstable.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

HELP
Hi,

Can you please shed some light as to why three days worth of my work has been removed?!!!!

Brotherhood (125.7.87.171 (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC))


 * Basically, the bot isn't smart enough to know how much of the work was good, and how much was related to the inappropriate external link. So—because this is usually the right course of action, though not always—it removes it all.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The bot does tell you the right way of action, and that is what you did (for more info why it reverts all edits, see the FAQ above). Regarding your revert-edit-summary: it does tell you which link(s) caused the revert, it does tell you where to find info on which links are often not appropriate (and the bot was right here).  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:17, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

XLinkBot reverting to a vandalized revision
Has XLinkBot been "fixed" to simply remove bad URL links, rather than risk reverting a prior edit which corrected major vandalism to an article? In February 2009, the article "Joe Cain" was re-vandalized by XLinkBot after a person had corrected huge hacks to the article, while also linking to Facebook.com, under External links. I have since corrected that major vandalism (which lasted for 22 months). It seems that XLinkBot could avoid doing reverts, because the prior revision might be even worse than the current revision which XLinkBot thinks has improper links. The reason a bot revert is so dangerous is that users could easily assume that a bot had made an improved change, rather than reverting to past vandalism already fixed, so the next user would continue editing the article as if the Bot revision did not re-add severe vandalism. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:25, 26 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have disabled reverting by the bot until these concerns are addressed. Most likely a setting needs to be tweaked, but I am not familiar enough with its operations to want to risk doing that. Jehochman Talk 16:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

As has been explained quite often, that is impossible. This are glitches that happen, and which is why there are several saveguards available. Unfortunately, every now and then an edit like this may happen, which should be caught by recent edit patrollers. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:23, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Just as a quick note to this (I am away) - You can also turn this around, and XLinkBot has been used in that way: Reverting the whole edit has also helped in protecting blatant BLP violations by reverting additions of links to negative unreliable sources/attack sites. This is not a problem of XLinkBot reverting, it is a problem of not enough editors keeping an eye on BLPs. The editor is, friendly, notified that there was a problem with their edit, and asked to reconsider (as one of the saveguards - others being not operating with a bot-bit so it is visible to (recent changes) patrollers, not reverting on undo/revert actions, etc. etc.). Turning the bot off on one single 'mistake' is a bit .. excessive. It prevens not only the help of XLinkBot in preventing attacks to BLPs, it also hampers greatly the massive work the (very, very few) volunteers do on keeping Wikipedia clean of spam. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:18, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Sigh, I did not even check what edit you were talking about .. it is not even a BLP .. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See User:XLinkBot/FAQ for a further explanation of this. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Rugs for sale
When you've got a minute, we have a technical question for you at External links/Noticeboard. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:46, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Remarked there. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:54, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Bot reverting link-formatting edit, link still there
Noticed that the bot appears to be having trouble with edits that modify existing external links. The bot reverted this edit by an anonymous IP even though the edit did not add the links - it merely changed the link's title. I'm not arguing that the links should be there, quite the opposite, but the bot's attempted remedy does not fix the problem, instead it undoes the whole edit but the links are still there.

Incidentally, I'm sure you get this question a lot, but is it possible to just have the bot remove offending links directly instead of relying on the undo/revert mechanism?

The bot's efforts to decrease external link spam are much appreciated, by the way. Thank you,

-- Joren (talk) 18:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * That happens every now and then, indeed. Does not make either the addition/change correct, nor that they were already there.  External links in the text are discouraged, youtube links are discouraged (for a handful of reasons), etc. etc.  The bot reverts, notifies the editor of the revert - and all we can do is hope that the editor actually solves the problem and removes them ... (or that someone else does).
 * Yes, we get that question a lot, maybe I should expand on it in the User:XLinkBot/FAQ .. no, there are so many ways of adding an external link; should:
 * 'blah blah MySpammyCompany is the best blah blah'
 * become
 * 'blah blah MySpammyCompany is the best blah blah' or
 * 'blah blah is the best blah blah' or
 * should it be removed completely
 * -> obviously the last
 * While
 * 'blah blah MyBand produced a youtube video staring MyLeader(independent ref)'
 * become
 * 'blah blah MyBand produced a youtube video staring MyLeader(independent ref)' or
 * 'blah blah MyBand produced a staring MyLeader(independent ref)' or
 * should it be removed completely
 * -> the best solution is the first
 * The least damaging is to revert all edits by an editor (reason for reverting all is explained in the FAQ already - it has to do with editors doing in the first edit 'blah blah [www.myspammydomain.com MySpammyCompany] is the best blah blah', figuring out that the link does not work, and repairing in the second edit it to 'blah blah MySpammyCompany is the best blah blah' - reverting only the last edit leaves the spam, and the editor needs to be notified anyway) and ask the editor to reconsider the edit. It might be an idea to reword the text of the remarks/warnings in the User:XLinkBot/Settings so that it also mentions that one could consider to remove also the links that are already there.
 * I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:17, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * See User:XLinkBot/FAQ for a further explanation of this. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:42, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Boog!e
Thanks for the help talk on my page for more advice24.251.91|talk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.12.91 (talk) 22:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

link to Heart Sutra playlist - finally
so this has finally become true: that a bot is no more a helper for us humans, but against a simplification of working processes for what bots should be constructed or programmed. the ones who show true interests in the Heart Sutra (which contains its interpretations, too) now have to go back to a search machine and watch out for Heart Sutra interpretations themselves again - an unnecessary detour initiated by a bot. good night, then.Muelliemessiah (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your remark. Well, I don't know if you noticed, but there is a distinct difference between the targets of Wikipedia and a search engine.  The latter is pretty obvious, the other is described in what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia is not.  I hope this explains, thank you and good night as well!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 75.168.206.222, 14 January 2011
I was editing the artical about the metrodome and it deleted my youtube clip of "the dome" colapsing. I think there is no copyright issues and I thought this video would work great! I want it on the page! here is the link http://www.youtube.com/embed/IxuxNLf87_Y

75.168.206.222 (talk) 01:30, 14 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Copyright problems are only one (though the worst) of the many concerns with YouTube links in Wikipedia (required bandwidth to make it useful, software that needs to be installed, systems that can not display the links, etc. are others, see the external links guideline, YouTube links fit quite a number of the rules mentioned in the WP:ELNO-section, and in the intro of the guideline. However, it is not a 'never', and when you think that the article gains in information etc., then you could consider to re-add it.  If in doubt, please discuss the addition on the talkpage.  I hope this explains, have a nice weekend!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:18, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

My link was removed...
I am trying to start a support group for Sympathetic Ophthalmia and posted on your SO page. I wasn't thrilled with it being at facebook. Obviously it seems it's your opinion there is no need of a support group. That's why one doesn't exist at this point. Apparently according to your policy it would not seem to matter where it is. I am rather disgruntled in your decision to remove the link and little help offered. Suggestions??? The membership is free and it in no way detracts from Wiki. Defend yourself you heathen!....Lol — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mike Watson 1960 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your question. Well, you obviously found the external links guideline already.  No, Wikipedia does generally not need links to support groups and the like.  Wikipedia is meant to inform about what a subject means, the support groups for it are outside of the scope.  A specific part of a policy regarding this type of 'promotion' is here.
 * Nonetheless, I expect that you are a specialist in the subject, maybe you can help and expand on the topic. Hope this explains.  Have a nice weekend!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:00, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

EL Not being reverted
Hi folks, I requested Shufra.com be added to the bot, and this was done on Jan 17. Today a link there was added back in the same spot, and had to be reverted manually. I'm just checking to make sure all it working there, or if this type of addition would be more appropriate for another anti-spam method. Thanks! Arakunem Talk 19:40, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The user used 'undo' - edits which are ignored by the bot... gets more abusive, it seems .. maybe the blacklist might help. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:33, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. I also see that it ignores links in References, which have also been tried in the past on this article. Blacklist might be harsh, but I'll see what the article editors want to do. Thanks again! Arakunem Talk 17:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, thanks for the clarification. I also see that it ignores links in References, which have also been tried in the past on this article. Blacklist might be harsh, but I'll see what the article editors want to do. Thanks again! Arakunem Talk 17:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Pin Art & the Ward Fleming Pinscreen
Hi XlLinkBot, Please respect my improvement infomation at Pin Art = Pinscreen thank you! Nip888 (talk) 06:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Have you read the warning? Those video's are not suitable links.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:06, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Please keep my improvement on Pin Art - i will study WP upload copyright tags
hi there, thank you for the warm welcome. i am new here, but everything i added is the FACT. I will contitually prove it. thank you!!! Nip888 (talk) 06:31, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see WP:TRUTH and WP:V. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:07, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

you can open the link Bangkok Metropolition Administration ?
you can open the link Bangkok Metropolition Administration ? on Bangkok page in wternal link

www.bma.go.th Oops! Internet Explorer could not find) and why i can t add facebook page in this wikipedia page

please fair to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.168.110.81 (talk) 14:36, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi, thanks for your remarks.
 * bma.go.th .. if it is a continuously not-working url, it should be removed, otherwise, it should be tagged with deadlink.
 * facebook page: facebook pages are hardly ever useful on a page, they fail our policies and guidelines, please see the external links guideline.
 * I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:02, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm
""" If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. """

Which *part* of a copyright policy might that be? It's *widely* established that linking is merely that, linking, not publishing, and incurs no special liability on the linker. In other news, Youtube is not obviously "a site which publishes copyright violations". Some expansion here seems indicated. --Baylink (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * No. Knowingly linking to material in violation of copyright is also a copyright violation.  See 'Linking to copyrighted works' in the copyright policy: "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States".  We think it is worth for the new editor to check that.  It is one of the problems with works on picture sites, youtube, sites like ehow/associatedcontent, and the like (others being that often several out of the list of criteria for links to avoid are being met, or the intro of the guideline, etc.).  I'll update the link to WP:COPYRIGHT to be more specific for what we mean here.
 * Regarding specifically YouTube - we are not saying that YouTube is a site which published copyright violations, however, there are still videos there which are in violation of copyright (even though YouTube is doing all to get rid of them, etc.), and that is what this sentence is pointing to. If a huge majority of a site would be files which violate copyrights then it might be better to blacklist such a site.  But that is certainly not true for YouTube.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Cause I read WP:ELNO, and none of the bullet points actually seemed on point for the specific edit I posted. I give no quarter to idiotic legal theories like "contributory infringement", there's no support for them in the US Constitution nor statue, but I understand why WP must be more concerned -- even though we're probably protected by Cubby and Stratton Oakmont, and later statuory law which followed in the footsteps of those seminal decisions. --Baylink@en.wp  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.93.30 (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:ELNO does not cover the copyright part, that is WP:ELNEVER (and WP:COPYVIO). Never knowingly link to material in violation of copyright; but there are other problems with YouTube (large files, need software installed, still needs to be on topic', etc. etc.) which are also often (but not always) a concern with YouTube.  There are exceptions, however, sometimes YouTube movies are appropriate and to the point, etc.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:50, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, COPYVIO doesn't cover this at *all*, and ELNEVER links to the page on copyright violations, which is decidedly equivocal concerning my instant case (linking to a media file which is a rendering of the specific item which the article describes (the American Top 40 'Shuckatoom' theme, linked from the article about it)); this is arguably covered by the Section 107 educational exemption, but I'm not going to fight it. --Baylink@en.wp  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.93.30 (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if we are on the same line here: I'm sorry, the sentence 'Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States' .. if someone (not the owner) uploads a piece of a copyrighted movie, then that uploaded movie on YouTube is a movie that violates copyright (e.g., someone records the BBC news, turns it into a movie, and publishes that movie on YouTube - then the copyright is with the BBC, and not with the movie on YouTube, the uploader there is violating copyright - but there it is not our concern, it is the concern of YouTube). Now a third person comes, and they link from Wikipedia to that specific YouTube video - then that is the type of infringement which is not allowed, that is 'directing others to a site that violates copyright' .. in ELNEVER, for thát material "For policy or technical reasons, editors are restricted from linking to the following, without exception: Material that violates the copyrights of others per contributors' rights and obligations should not be linked. Linking to websites that display copyrighted works is acceptable as long as the website has licensed the work. ..." - YouTube did not license the specific video from the BBC, hence, it should not be linked from Wikipedia.
 * Now, we can add to that, if it is a BBC news item, which is useful as a reference, then why not link directly to the BBC news item. It does not need (though it would be nice) a direct link to the actual footage.
 * I hope this explains .. or is there something that you would like to see changed in the wording of the remark left on the talkpage of new editors who add a link to a YouTube video? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Your problem, I think, is "to a site" -- Youtube has Safe Harbor protection, and is therefore not "a site which posts copyright violations". The actual warning message doesn't say "to a site", it says "to a clip" or words to that effect, which is actually closer to correct.  What you're trying to get across is "please don't link to webpages which contain items which violate someone's copyright *by their posting on that page*".  At that point, whether the Fair Use provisions of Section 107 protect Wikipedia, if *our* use of the link is covered by the exemptions they draw, *even if the posting site's use* is not, becomes pretty metaphysical, I guess.


 * Specific example: Wikipedia has copies of "Shuckatoom", the music cue in question, posted. While this posting arguably violates copyright, you can't really make a defensible case that *that single clip* is being "used commercially" by Youtube; their budget isn't going in the tank if they pull it.  That said, I could link to it from the Wikipedia article which describes it, as I did, *and then discuss in detail it's musical structure*, for the purposes of educating readers about how production music -- and especially show theme music -- clips, are constructed (which I did not).


 * At that point, *my* (and hence WP's) usage of the clip will probably fall defensibly under Section 107, especially items 1 (educational use) and 4 (even AT40 no longer uses the theme, I believe, and it has *never* been commercially available for sale).


 * My fundamental point, of course, is that yes, a large part of Youtube's content carries a copyright (arguably, it all does, under the updated copyright code). Since YT provides a reasonably easy to use method for copyright holders to have their content removed if they so desire, and since it's *very* diffcult to not know that Youtube exists in this day and age, we must construe it that any copyright holder who leaves their content up on YT *wants it there*, and is granting a license for its presence there by default, revocable by their request for removal; I believe the doctrine that applies here is called 'exceptio probat regulam'.
 * But we're way off into a discussion of legalities on one specific incident, and well outside the scope of your bot, at this point. :-)  --Baylink@en.wp  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.93.30 (talk) 18:41, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I think the warning by the bot does explain it like that. Thing is, YouTube video's are generally discouraged, and most additions are generally failing our policies and guidelines, and most not the 'you are linking to a movie which is violating some copyright' (YouTube video's ring some bells under our WP:ELNO-section: one needs to install software to see it, it is even not accessible to a significant number of editors, for it to be useful it needs quite some bandwidth/throughput (we're not all behind a high-speed internet, and some have to pay per Mb download), and no, we don't need a video of your 's birthday on our article Birthday .. to name a few).  Those are all reasons that we choose to revert YouTube, and notify the editors of the problems with it (including the copyright problem).
 * For the rest of the legal issues, I think that is something that needs to be discussed on WT:COPYRIGHT - those are issues in the wording of the policy (which is partially demanded by the board, I believe), and which may need a rewrite. I do however think that with these one might want to err at the save side, even if the chances are slim that actual action is taken against it or that it will have a chance of giving problems.  And even if there are no legal reasons, for some things I do think that it is also just bad form to link to such information ..  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:34, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Mwangi Mukami
I don't know how to either add this articles on my own page Mwangi Mukami. If it is not possible to edit it i will recommend it is deleted in its entirety as the orphan and nomination stuff don't thrill me at all.

Also let me clarify some points for your information-

In regard to my campaign of Barack Obama, the Articles appear in the following order in New York Times and Reuters

* Help Wanted * Kenyan group vows to defend Obama from smears * Hope Crosses the Atlantic

In regard to my Awards and Non-Violent Campaign during the Kenya 2007/8 post-poll violence, the work is well captured here

* Kenyan Youth Activist Says Leadership Change Needed to Stop Country's Violence * A Resolution Recognizing and commending Mwangi Mukami and for other purposes. * Moses Mukami invokes peace initiatives on Dr. King's birth anniversary celebrations! * Call for Transition Government Backed

In regard to my being President of the Children's Cabinet and Political Activism in Kenya

* Youth told to vote out political guards * The Spirit of Martin Luther King Jr. in Kenya * Passion for Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Dream Brings Visitor to Atlanta * Kenya: 'Children's Cabinet V-P off to Dar' * Children's Cabinet Cries Foul Over Trip * Government Now Dissolves Children's Cabinet * Children Cabinet to Sue Kwallah * Children Cry foul over review * Give priority to Homeless Children * A-G meets Children's Cabinet * Uproar At State Move Against Children's Body * Did Our Children Deserve the Sack?

My own official website www.mglobe.org has further information.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.9.35 (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you mean. But I think you should have a look at our conflict of interest guideline.  But I don't know what you are asking of the bot.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:05, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Baby out with the bath water
You deleted my addition of a YouTube link to the David Seidler article - fair enough, I didn't know they weren't allowed - but at the same time you also removed a whole slew of useful edits to the article. There must be some way you can operate without removing good edits and just remove the YouTube ones. I'm lucky I noticed it. You are not a very satisfactory bot. 86.142.104.222 (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh my god, you've just done it again! I don't know how to go about reverting edits so I undid yours, and then MANUALLY TOOK OUT THE YOUTUBE LINK.  Please stop it!!!!   You useless bot. 86.142.104.222 (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your question. This is all explained in the FAQ, ánd in the remark that is left on your talkpage (which also contains a link to the FAQ). Sorry, it is impossible to take out the offending link only (and that may leave broken pages), it is not optimal to undo only one edit (as that may also leave broken pages (though less), but also other things), and hence that is why you are kindly asked to undo the edit, and consider whether to remove the youtube link before saving. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:47, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Help?
Sorry, i actually tried to change the picture on Ian Somerhalders page- but i dort of messed up... I'm new to Wiki, and was wondering if maybe you could change to pic, to a nicer picture than this one? Preferably one from 2010, or from his Gotham photoshoot? Thankyou! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TVDFOREVER (talk • contribs) 21:24, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

dear idiot
please stop removing automatically links. 82.181.234.211 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC).

this bot does vandalism: take a look at the following diffs and see what the bot HAS DECIDED TO DESTROY. , The bot should be stopped, because functions excessively. 82.181.234.211 (talk) 17:40, 29 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This is User:Marrtel socking with such incivility when he should know better. He has received warnings on his userpage regarding AGF, etc.  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 19:24, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

USEF
Hi! This is Anna Jane White-Mullin, a USEF "Big R" judge in hunters, hunter seat equitation, and jumpers for more than 30 years. I was looking through the Wikipedia articles having to do with horses and thought I would add some links that would be helpful. In the article, "Bridle," I added two links--one to a video I made of properly putting on and taking off a bridle, and another to my video of properly wrapping a bridle for storage, so there shouldn't be any copyright issues. I have been a lecturer for the USEF Judges' Clinics and am the author of "The Complete Guide to Hunter Seat Training, Showing, and Judging," which was recently endorsed by the USEF and USPC, so I think I have valid information to offer that would help people searching the word, "bridle." Please let me know if I can add those links to the "Bridle" article again. Best wishes--Anna JaneAjwmjumper (talk) 23:49, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

NOBODY CARES ABOUT YOU OR YOUR STUPID HORSE JUMPS! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.69.182.1 (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, in part, you are the best judge for that. But I'd like you to have a look at the external links guidelines and 'What Wikipedia is not'.  YouTube (and other video) links are discouraged (but not forbidden) for many reasons (copyright problems being the worst), and Wikipedia is not a linkfarm.  If you are still in doubt, I would suggest to ask on the talkpage.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:26, 17 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Further to my comments below, this is the second or third time in the XLinkBot context that I've heard the exhortation "ask on the talkpage". Please let me suggest that there is *no* clearly unambiguous expansion of "the" as used in that sentence; you very probably should say which talkpage you are suggesting. --Baylink (talk) 22:39, 23 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm .. that is indeed an interesting thing. Problem is, that that sentence is directly taken from the, if not all, policies and guidelines (e.g., the external links guideline, the spam guideline).  It might indeed be made more specific, I'll try to do that
 * Here, I do mean the talkpage of the pages where the editor wants to add the link(s) to, though I am tossing in a second suggestion: try and find a suitable WikiProject and discuss with the editors there. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:12, 24 January 2011 (UTC)


 * A quick look suggests -- to me, at least -- that the usages on, frex, WP:EL, either *say* "the article's talkpage", or are in a context whereby that can be glarked. Your comments here, and the usage in the message which the bot itself leaves on a poster's talkpage, are sufficiently removed from that context that further disambiguation will likely prove useful.  You could, frex, mean the bot's talkpage, or yours.  :-)  --Baylink@en.wp


 * My remarks, yes - but the bot does not leave a message containing the suggestion to discuss on the (article) talkpage. As I said, I will try and be more specific in the future.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Apparent difficulty with special character
This bot, in an apparent attempt to revert these edits at Jyotiṣa, instead created the page JyotiÃ¡Â¹Â£a. I don't imagine this bug would come up often, but it's probably worth looking into. -- Lear's Fool 12:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sigh .. I'll keep an eye - those special characters indeed keep bugging me sometimes. Thanks for pointing it out, I'll try and do something about it.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:23, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Just happened with Tết - it created TÃ¡ÂºÂ¿t. This is a major bug. Logan Talk Contributions 05:08, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

RAPINI - video removed
Dear Sir, the youtube video you removed from RAPINI is a commercial video.If you think it is allowed, please restore it and remove my note there. Prof. A.C.. Italy 93.43.234.177 (talk) 09:20, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not sure what you are talking about. I guess you mean Rapini .. that article needs some cleanup - and YouTube video's really, really need to add something, otherwise they are generally not suitable for quite some of the reasons mentioned in WP:ELNO, copyright violations (which is mentioned in the warning) is maybe the worst, it is not the only, nor the most frequent reason why YouTube is not suitable.  I hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Dear Sir, I do hope that at least you know what YOU are talking about!, when you say that the article need some clean-up. I took me a week of research to put some order in the mess it was in. If you had taken the trouble to read it and check how complex it is, probably you would have appreciated my contribution. The video you removed gives information, from the mouth of the horse, in a very  tangled issue.

I wish you good-day Prof. A:C.,Italy93.43.210.190 (talk) 12:47, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was looking at this version. Note the malformed text, note the place of the box .. I'm sorry, but I think that this is not the way forward.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:53, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

help!
I'm new to Wikipedia and don't understand why my external link on the Capturing the Friedmans page was removed. It was a link to a Youtube video, but I don't think it violates the "external linking guidelines." I know the person who created it and he has given me permission to link to it. Can you please tell me what I did wrong and how to fix it? Thanks! --Cediwiki (talk) 00:08, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Youtube videos are rarely allowable as external links. We would need confirmation that the uploader is a real person really does hold copyright on the video, and he must have a reputation for honesty, or the uploader/speaker must be notable, and the video only used to support his/her opinions.  The bot does revert questionable sources (Youtube, myspace, google video, facebook, etc.) from new editors.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Note, that linking to video's also meets quite some points in WP:ELNO - they are not accessible to some people, need software installed, a reasonable bandwidth to be really useful, have to be properly about the subject (which it can be, indeed), and add something to the page as well (we're not a linkfarm, though a video might pass this in some occasions), etc. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:40, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response. The video is in fact an academic critique (simply in video form) of the film Capturing the Friedmans by a professor at Brown University. It's definitely properly about the subject and adds something to the page. Taking this into consideration, how can I get the video to stay on the Wikipedia page? Thanks again so much for your help! --Cediwiki (talk) 20:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Well .. it is still a YouTube video - it still needs special software installed, it still needs bandwidth - and by the looks of it, it is suitable as a reference? But you can undo the bot-edit (see the remark on your talkpage), in that way the bot will not remove it again.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:21, 1 February 2011 (UTC)


 * It was removed again. Please let me know what I have to do to keep it there!! I cannot imagine how Jesse Friedman's own website is considered reliable according to these criteria....If you're going to keep deleting the site I am adding, an academic critique of the film, then his definitely needs to go. A better solution would be to allow the additional source to stay. --Cediwiki (talk) 04:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, this time not by the bot, but by an other editor. You could start a thread on the talkpage of Capturing the Friedmans, and notify the other editor that you did so.
 * No, the page is about Capturing the Friedmans, so a link to his own official website has then nothing to do with reliability. Even reliability of the YouTube video is not the paramount question (in principle, the reliable sources guideline is not a main concern of external links - only if the external data is misleadingly wrong (so a real unreliable source) then it might be a question to remove .. but there are more factors there).  Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, and YouTube video's (amongst others) are not the prime choice to link to (with all the reasons that have been mentioned before).  So I guess, the best thing is to discuss there where it matters, on the talkpage of Capturing the Friedmans (i.e. Talk:Capturing the Friedmans).  I hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Argh. I thought the subject of the page was something else .. I am on my way there.  I have removed the freejesse website, as it is not directly related to the subject.  The youtube video (or the blog it belongs to) are better .. though maybe useful as a source in the article, which would be more in line with the intro of the external links guideline.  I hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:56, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of TÃ¡ÂºÂ¿t


Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Logan Talk Contributions 05:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Argh. Again that mistake.  Have to look at this.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer?
I found it strange to have to approve of the bot's edit here. I would've thought a simple reversion would be automatically accepted... &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 12:01, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No, better not. Reversion of external links is not as fool-proof as reversion of vandalism (and that is not even completely fool proof).  XLinkBot deliberately does not have a bot-bit for a similar reason, the edits are better reviewed (even the reverts).  Some of its reversions are a mistake (though for what it reverts, even on myspace and youtube, most of the additions are questionable enough), and might need to be re-reverted.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:05, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed it does explain. Thank you! &mdash;Elipongo (Talk contribs) 17:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

using links to my own blog site
I would appreciate if you could assist me in understanding the rules Wikipedia uses. I am an expert in anaerobic infections and other infectious diseases. I have blog sites on Anaerobic infections and sinusitis that contain important information. Can I use my blogs as reference or additional links? Since these blogs are mine and contain only my writings there is no copyright issue involved. I would appreciate your guidance. thanks I Brook MDDribrook (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, linking to own blogs is not the best practice, see the conflict of interest guideline. For the rest, the guidelines on external links, on reliable sources and the policy on verifyability directly apply.  I also would say, we are writing an encyclopedia here, our goal is NOT to link to information, it is to incorporate the information, and then reference it to said reliable sources (so it can be verified).
 * Undoubtedly, you are an expert in the subject of anaerobic infections and sinusitis, so I think that your expertise would be very welcome to help expand articles. Maybe you could be interested in joining a WikiProject (where editors with similar interests come together and improve articles under their interest - a list of projects can be found from that page)?  They can also help you further in how to help them/us to improve the articles on Wikipedia the best.
 * I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:57, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

List of SMS gateways
Can List of SMS gateways be exempted from e-mail address checking? It's normal for entries there to be in the format of an e-mail address, number@gateway-domain. I just undid several recent deletions. Thanks--Not R (talk) 00:37, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm .. difficult. I will have to have a look at this.  I am trying an intermediate solution for the moment, but this may need something different.  Thanks for bringing this to my attention.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:03, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I reverted a few more updates made shortly after this entry, and other additions seem to be left alone now. Thanks! Not R (talk) 16:59, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: X-men on facebook
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page X-Men: First Class (film) 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://m.facebook.com/xmenmovies?refsrc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fxmenmovies&_rdr (redirect from http://www.x-menfirstclassmovie.com). 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) 11:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC) If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, please ignore this notice.

Nowadays many company opened its official page on facebook, ok? Matthew_hk  t  c  11:39, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but a) we are not a linkfarm (we don't need to link to all official sites of the subject), b) much is not official (even if it looks like that), c) much is not on topic.
 * In this case - you entered a redirect .. which should anyway not be added, add the proper site (which here may be OK, though I would expect that there would be an official site which would be the appropriate one). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:56, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Oh, and this one is not suitable - it is not about THIS film, it is general. Hence, not directly linked.  Maybe wait until the official site is up?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:04, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

HCT
Hey Thanks for welcoming me in Wikipedia. Can you tell me why did remove my contributions in the Higher College of Technology? ShenmueIII (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, facebook links are very seldomly suitable as external links, unless they are the official site of the subject. But facebook is quite volatile etc.  You can find more information in the external links guideline.  I hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe something it shouldn't revert?
See this edit. I imagine it should ignore other copyvio-related tags in the same vein if it doesn't already. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ignore me, I found my way to the settings page. VernoWhitney (talk) 03:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Indeed, that was the way forward! Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Andrej Krementschouk
Hello bot. I disagree with this edit of yours: Douglas Stockdale is an unusually thoughtful, literate and respected writer, and this is a long and informative review. That he uses wordpress.com is by the way. This link adds to the article. -- Hoary (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * You haven't replied, and I am therefore about to revert you. -- Hoary (talk) 14:51, 21 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well .. sometimes people are away. No, I disagree with both.  Both are reviews of 'No Direction Home' - not something about the editor, but mainly about the book.  Those could be external links on a page about the book, though here they serve better as references to tell what respected reviewers found about the book ('the book has been well received and was noted for its .. and .. (refs)').  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:07, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

About aveyond wiki
Aveyond.wikia.com was dead before, all 2,000 pages, all are lost. It start reviving since February 2nd 2011 now it contains 45 pages but some informations on many pages lost again. A new wikia that I seen, it is very very helpful, it is developing and those infomations ralated to Aveyond is more and more. Why don't created link to it http://aveyondseries.wikia.com ??? Oh, another thing, if you know user: aislingyngaio who is the best moderator of Amaranth Games, you can add her aveyond wiki link http://aiatimes.byethost11.com. Thanks (User:Aislinghope) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aislinghope (talk • contribs) 02:38, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Both wikias fail our external links guideline and should hence not be linked. I have cleaned the section per this part of the guideline regarding external links.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:09, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Youtube videos
This bot should not remove YouTube videos, as it did here. If anything, it should set something like a flag—maybe using Youtube—that a human editor may check if the video violates anyones copyrights. Because, for instance, in that incident above, it did not. --bender235 (talk) 12:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * No, Youtube video's tick a lot of boxes in WP:ELNO, and we are still not a linkfarm. I have just re-cleaned Frank Karlitschek - the youtube video is clearly not appropriate, as were many other external links there.  That some YouTube video's are violating copyright is the gravest of problems with YouTube, but it certainly is not the only problem with YouTube.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:57, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, it doesn't. Seriously, of the 20 entries on WP:ELNO none prohibits linking to Youtube. It may prohibit linking to explicit material on Youtube. It may prohibit linking to copyrighted material on Youtube. It may prohibit linking to promo clips on Youtube. But it certainly does not prohibit linking to Youtube in general. For example, on Vontaze Burfict, there's a Youtube link at the bottom, showing a video clip from a recruiting service. That is (a) useful, (b) not a copyright violating, and (c) no promotion. Or another example, Asmaa Mahfouz, an Egyptian girl who maybe triggered the ongoing protest over there with a Youtube video. Of course that video needs to be linked in this article. And certainly no bot should remove it because of some dubious rules. --bender235 (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Of those 20 many are ticked as to be avoided. And that is what this bot is for.  Notifying new users that their links are to be avoided.  Just as this specific case that brought you here.  If all of YouTube would be copyright violations, it would not be on this list, it are the many other problems.  And those rules are not 'dubious', they are established for a long time as being serious.  If you question those rules, that should be discussed here.
 * There certainly are good YouTube video's out there, but, really, a lot of it is unsuitable. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:54, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * And simply because there are good YouTube videos no bot should remove these links per se. There should always be a human editor to make the judgement. --bender235 (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That would be better .. unfortunately there is hardly ever a 'human editor to make the judgement'. Note, also the antivandalism bots revert edits which are actually good, blocks block people who actually should not be blocked (IP blocks, mainly), blacklisting blocks link additions which should not be blocked, the abusefilter filters edits which are not vandalism, &c. &c.  I know, these are all WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS reasons that I am giving here, but the very example of YouTube that brought you here was a YouTube video that should not be there, and even on-topic links to YouTube videos are questionable for use in Wikipedia .. I still believe that the error rate on YouTube etc. is so low that it pays to have editors being reminded of our policies and guidelines, and when judged OK, they can always revert the bot.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)


 * JFYI: I started a discussion at WP:EL. --bender235 (talk) 13:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Needs to be shut off for now. The community has clearly accepted YouTube videos in some scenarios. This has been discussed numerous times. Let me know if you need a link to every discussion on the various noticeboards or policy pages.Cptnono (talk) 19:21, 12 February 2011 (UTC)


 * That consensus is not trumping WP:EL, and calling for shutdown while other solutions may be more appropriate is .. a bit extreme .. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have requested that the bot be blocked until it is improved. Wikipedia talk:Bots/Requests for approval Cptnono (talk) 23:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Just another annoyance with the youtube link reversion: I changed an existing link to a removed youtube video into a working video, also on youtube. xlinkbot reverted my edit, so we've still got a youtube link, but it just doesn't work. This does not feel like a win. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.172.208.195 (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, the message the bot left on your talkpage already answers this, if the link you added is good, then I offer my sincere apologies, and ask you to undo the edit.
 * But well, this is a recent work, a Marilyn Manson video clip. I doubt if Marilyn actually gave his permission for this, this seems copyrighted information.  Moreover, YouTube fails other parts of our External links guideline, and this specific case maybe even more.  I would suggest to remove it completely.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:35, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit comments
I'm puzzled as to why the bot is embedding the deleted URLs in article edit history, as it did here. Is this an approved behaviour? LeadSongDog come howl!  15:47, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. That is done so it helps recent changes patrollers to check XLinkBot's work.  As the urls in the edit history are not searchable, not clickable, and do not have a high visibility (one would have to browse the article history to find the spamlink) I don't think it is particularly harmful (nor effective in terms of chance that people will actually follow the link to the spam-site).
 * This behavious can be changed in the settings, there is a possible edit summary setting. Also, specific problematic urls can be 'hidden' (as is e.g. done for email addresses.
 * I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

anti geometric mean
dude......1st of all.u r so quick i appreciate it thanks for replying i know english very well.though not good in legal terms do u mean to say that me putting some external links in wiki page is not appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrenujparekh (talk • contribs) 07:43, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi! Thanks for the remark.  No, it is not inappropriate to put some external links, but certain external links do not pass our policies and guidelines, and simply should not be linked.  Wikipedia's first aim is to incorporate information, not just to link to it.  Have a look at the external links guideline, which tells you more.  Regards,  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:57, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Muchas Gracias!
Muchas Gracias XLinkBot ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Casadeandrade (talk • contribs) 19:07, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Prego! --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:13, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

help me
help me, i dont speak so much english and i need some help to u.

please dont delete my article. please — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerardpleitz (talk • contribs) 22:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, you are the best person to do that .. you might want to find some independent referencing, I am sure newspapers or similar will have talked about this subject. Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:12, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Help
How Do You Link Facebook Pages To Wiki Articles? T.Brown85 (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2011 (UTC)T.Brown85
 * The article contains an official link of the school - Facebook is then superfluous, if the facebook is important enough it is linked from the homepage of the school. Furthermore, there are many other reasons why this should not be linked, please see our external links guideline.  Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

YouTube
Why do you keep removing the You tube of the video chanel from Gail Gilmore?? It is an addition to Wikipedia to show a link to her music

Thea de Boer — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thea60 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your question. YouTube video's are discouraged for quite some reasons, they really have to add something to be suitable.  Moreover, a lot of interesting information on YouTube is a copyvio.  As the person that is performing is still alive, they do own the copyright on their work.  I do not see any indication on the two youtube video's that were linked that these video's have the consent of the performing artist.  Such video's should not be linked.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:09, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

False positive
XLinkBot reverted the addition of File:usn@sendai.jpg. This is not an email address or link addition but I can understand why the bot picked this one up. 203.7.140.3 (talk) 03:28, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I am trying to filter this now, indeed 'collateral damage', sorry. I hope you simply undid the bot edit.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Official Channels
This bot has recently reverted the edits in of numerous additions of links to the official Youtube channel of various people/groups. None of which by me, but I thought I'd ask here anyway. Are links to official channels generally discouraged along with videos? I understand the copyright violation issues, but if we're sending readers to their official YT channels, where it's displayed with the author's consent on the public domain, surely it should be okay? Sellyme Talk 04:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm .. we could consider to re-write the revert-rule in such a way that it does not revert links to channels. I would need to have some proper links and see if I can distinguish them properly.  Just as a note, that a link is a non-copyright violating link does not mean that we then automatically have to link to it, Wikipedia is still not a linkfarm etc.  External links are there to tell more about the subject, I mean, a link to the official BBC YouTube channel on the page of the BBC is still not an appropriate external link.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:13, 16 March 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but the link that I became aware of this through was to the Victoria Philharmonic Choir, where it would likely be a good resource and referencing point, as opposed to say, a Twitter feed. The VPC article only has two references and one external link at the moment, which seems rather little for an article of its size, but again, I know nothing about it, so I'm going by a hunch here, really. In any case, it's probably still a good idea to raise the argument to get clarification for future incidents. Sellyme Talk 11:18, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I had a look, but first some general things. Not having an external link (or only few) is not a reason to add one, the links should actually add something to a page. That may be true for an official YouTube channel, though. However, YouTube here can be swept under the carpet of the 'social networking sites' (MySpace, FaceBook, etc.), this YouTube is another web-presence of the subject, while there is an official website already listed on the Wikipedia page of the subject. That makes, generally, all other of such websites not really suitable as external links - first of all, they don't add, most of the time, stable extra info (twitter feeds are a good example of totally unstable and often not adding anything, unless you want to browse through hundreds of feeds to find something that is encyclopedic and not already mentioned in the article), often they are prominently linked from the official website (and since Wikipedia is not a linkfarm, they are not really necessary as they are properly linked - this is also the case here), and then, if they are not prominently linked from the official homepage, then sometimes it is a question whether it is actually the official page of the subject (there are many imposters or unofficial sites of subjects on many of the social networking sites).

So here, it is linked from the official homepage, and it contains just a couple of videos .. I would not say that this is a very needed link here, this is not adding any real information. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:48, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for all the clarification. I'm presuming the rule is generally going on what you (as a plural) feel is right, then? I checked WP:EL and there doesn't appear to be any hard guide-lines regarding Youtube channels. Again, thanks! Sellyme Talk 12:41, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

YouTube ticks some of the WP:ELNO-points (one needs to install software, many of the video's on YouTube are just not suitable or adding to pages here, are superfluous to other links there, some are plain spam (you can earn money with your videos on YouTube) and then of the ones which are of real interest, quite some are unfortunately copyvios). However, there are enough that are suitable, but it needs evaluation on a case-by-case basis. We do find however, that new users are not aware of our policies and guidelines (and especially the WP:COPYRIGHT concern is a big one), and have chosen to revert such links by new users on sight (under strict bot-rules), to notify the editor and asking them to reconsider. Rules should have a low error rate (a bit depending on the site), and a quick check on YouTube reverts which I did (I need to do a full analysis once) showed that most of the reverts were correct (and of the ~10 I quick-checked at least 2 were copyvios ..). If stats show that the reverts are too often wrong, then something needs to be done about it (we could consider to make the rule more precise where possible, or to remove it completely). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Too aggressive?
This edit seems too aggressive to me. The anon did a fair amount of good work, but the entire edit was reverted based on one link to a blog? Does this happen often?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Jimbo. Thanks for the questoin.  It is a setting ('revertoneedit=0'), which we have tried both ways.  Generally, this does not happen too often, most of the edits it reverts are on single plain link-additions.  The multiple edit revert / single edit revert is a bit of a loose-loose situation.  Sometimes reverting one edit out of a handful leaves a broken page (editors trying to get the format right) or non-reverted spam (editors first spamming text, then creating the external link), on other times it, like here, reverts (way) too much.  The messages XLinkBot leaves on the user's page try to explain this in as friendly terms I think possible (the messages can be adapted in the settings as well), and invites the editor to re-do the edit if needed (and I hope that recent-edit patrollers and/or other regulars on the page where the bot reverts also help in that - XLinkBot operates without bot-bit so its edits show up in the recent changes).
 * An extended explanation of the one revert / multiple revert can be found in the User:XLinkBot/FAQ. I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:15, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note, this behaviour is similar to the behaviour of the anti-vandalism bots .. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:30, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The reverted editor is not an anon (sorry, Jimbo), and has some contrib history at de, but little here. Seems to be a genealogist unaware of (or perhaps unconcerned with) wp:DIRECTORY or at least de:WP:WWNI#7. Some coaching is probably in order. LeadSongDog come howl!  17:53, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not saying that this is the case here (I really do think this was a good faith addition): Also, although wordpress is a pretty 'clean' blog, well controlled and well contained, it does get spammed (generally under a conflict of interest, people advertising their own blog - not directly to get financially better, but to get a name etc.), and wordpress does have some form of pay-per-view (but that is for high-profile editors - "We have a feature called Ad Control that lets WordPress.com bloggers with a lot of traffic (generally 25,000 pageviews/month or more) and appropriate content turn on AdSense and Skimlinks for their blog and split the resulting revenues 50/50 with us. If you’d like to apply to try Ad Control, please use the form below to send us a message."). Moreover, it is a blog, generally a discouraged place to link to, as they do not have editorial overview, and (though for wordpress that is not too general) some blogs do have inappropriate material (amongst others, material in violation of copyrights etc. - anyone can publish anything on a blog).  But that is all besides the more technical point of what you asked at first.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

I think something's gone wrong!
Hello!

I think this robot has gone wrong! I have recieved a message telling me my link has been reverted, but it hasn't. Why is this?

--LegoCityBusDriver (talk) 07:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, it undid your edits, but you already removed the external links yourself before the bot reverted it. Don't worry, all is fine.  Some external links, to whatever site, are discouraged or hardly ever useful, and we have chosen to remind new users of that.  Wikia is indeed part of the same company, but they are discouraged to link to because they are wikis, just as Wikipedia itself.  Just as Wikipedia, the information there is volatile, unstable, and it is hard to check if things are true (on both ends) - and hence, links to wikis are very often not suitable (but there are exceptions).  I hope this explains a bit, happy editing!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:04, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks... :)
thx for welcoming me i am new to wikipedia!!! i sort of like editing here. ^_^ btw...how come i couldn't add that link? i just want to understand why so i'll be careful in the future. -71.107.153.154 (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the question. Blogspots are generally not suitable as an external link, the same here.  For more information, see the external links guideline, in the links to be avoided section blogs are specifically named.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:45, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * oh okay thx! :) -71.107.153.154 (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Facebook Link Deletion
You deleted a Facebook link which had been cited under the heading "references" As it was not used in a footnote, but was consulted in writing the article, it seemed appropriate to cite it as a source for the article. Are Facebook references automatically being deleted? If it is used in a footnote will it also be automatically deleted. Facebook is more and more the source for things like date of birth, or College degrees or former employers. As more people move away from maintaining personal web pages, automatically deleting Facebook as a reference is becoming not tenable. --Benfeing (talk) 06:09, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Eh, facebook not only fails our external links guideline, I think it also fails our reliable sources guideline. Facebook links should only be used in very few cases, and to 'proof' someone's birthday .. I don't think that is sufficient for that ..  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:10, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You make an excellent point about Facebook. However, personal web pages and corporate business web sites are routinely cited on Wikipedia as references without this kind of automatic rejection.  Information shown on a personal or corporate Facebook page is no more or less reliable than the exact same information entered by the exact same person(s) on their Facebook pages.  My concern is that people and companies are increasingly abandoning their web pages in favor of Facebook entries.  For example, Facebook has become the primary marketing tool for recording artists, movies and TV shows where previously information on those person(s), films, shows and companies would have come from web pages. At the same time, many individuals have completed Facebook entries who otherwise have little alternative publicly available reference sources.  Some of the more detailed information on Facebook such as birthdays, city of origin, schools and prior employers is publicly available only on these Facebook pages.  A policy which deletes the Facebook references cited as sources will then leave the article in question lacking references and therefor subject to deletion. I think the status of Facebook has to be reconsidered as well as any "Bot" which automatically deletes Facebook references. We cannot attribute reliability to web pages and then automatically question the same type of information coming from Facebook pages.  Is there a way to have this discussion in a larger forum?--Benfeing (talk) 14:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * First, the bot reverts external links, which are for Wikipedia, not the same as references. Both references and external links are subject to rules, and unfortunately facebook too often fails either.  Specific company webpages do that less often, but if they do pass thresholds in reliability or suitability, then also those will be added to the ruleset of this bot.
 * We do recognise that facebook is pretty important, but if an entity has an official webpage, then its official facebook/myspace etc. become, under Wikipedia, superfluous, and should not be listed (see WP:EL). If an entity has only a facebook, then we generally run into problems with the notability, that generally (but you are right, certainly not always) that entity should not have an entry on Wikipedia, and not only the link becomes superfluous, even the whole page (and is likely to be deleted).
 * If someone really uses it as a reference (see WP:CITE/WP:FOOT, then this bot ignores it). Moreover, the bot is programmed extremely soft etc., and edits still can be undone (the bot will not re-revert on that).
 * Now, I've not done it for facebook, but a check of 30 reverts on MySpace (another important case) some time ago yielded one single edit which I personally would not have reverted (though I found that the MySpace was not really adding there), the other 29 suffered a plethora of problems under WP:EL, and simply should not have been linked.
 * You could discuss facebook references on the talkpage of the Reliable Sources guideline, and the external links on the talkpage of External links guideline. Note that those are two different things which need an own discussion, points which are valid for reliable sources are not necessarily true for external links and vice versa.  In both cases, keep also the policies and guidelines these guidelines are based on in mind (WP:V,WP:NOT, etc.).  Please let me know where you choose to discuss, I'd like to a) follow the discussion, and b) will respond to the points.  Thanks!  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And regarding this edit, that is not how we write an encyclopedia here, that way of linking is inappropriate, and are not 'references', but plain external links. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:53, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Not sure it's easy to do better than this..
But this edit took some useful references away at the same time it killed the YouTube links, at a tough time, the editor was adding sources trying to save his article from a BLPPROD. No damage done in the long run, but thought I might point out the issue. Have a great week! --joe deckertalk to me 02:45, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, that is the old problem. Such editors are explained what to do in those cases (remove the 'offending links', leave the rest).  Indeed, it is virtually impossible to do better than that (ask the editor to reconsider), and trust that recent changes patrollers and other people looking at the page pick up.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Washington Diplomats
The external link I replaced was dead. Your edit also removed several famous players that I had added. Please don't be using a bot for vandalism if it's not vandalism. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.238.214 (talk • contribs)

Well, first of all, it was not about the link you repaired why you were reverted - blogs are hardly ever good external links, and especially when they are, as in your case, not the official blog of the subject of the page. So there was certainly merit in reverting, and notifying you about the change. I see you took the appropriate action afterwards, thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:43, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Inoki
Hello. This is my first Wikipedia contribution, so I hope you will be gentle. As a precaution to avert the possibility of my edit reverting again by either the XLink bot or an admin, I'd like to state, for the record, that the youtube video (citation #13) that I linked to contains documented proof from round 5 and up to the final decision, proving that the former value that I modified (changed "Draw" to "Win") was, in fact, not factual. Since many sites appear erroneous on the subject, I believe that linking to the official fight video on youtube in this case is more than appropriate; especially since several other websites report the outcome of the match as a Draw. Yet clearly, the first-hand account witnessed in the media clip proves otherwise. Please note that the video at the site is clearly not in violation of Wikipedia's guidelines or policies. (Also, please note that, although the commentary of the video is not in English, the final decision and announcement is given, in the video in English by the English-speaking referee, starting at 10:30.) Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crisplogic (talk • contribs) 17:23, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Sure, but the movie seems to be an official broadcast, while from the uploader it is not clear it is observing the copyrights. I have reverted, please find another source for the information.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:02, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Another example of aggressive reversion
This action reverted two edits. One was a genuine linking issue, the other was perfectly legitimate and should not have been reverted. The linking issue was actually the latest edit, and in this case there doesn't seem to be any good reason for reverting the other edit (even taking into account the similar discussion above). Regards, Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 19:15, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I've now read the FAQ. I'm still not quite happy with the situation. Is it difficult for XLinkBot to actually inspect each edit and then do the right thing? I'm suggesting that it do this only when it has been determined that the latest edit is introducing a bad link... I agree that trying to dig too deep into the history may result in an inconsistent state. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Well .. with the multiple edits, it is a bit of 'best of bad situations' .. Either leave rubbish, or leave rubbish. Reverting all, and asking the editor to undo the good part (as the bot consistently does) seems to me the best solution, better than 'I have reverted your addition, please check if no rubbish is left' .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:06, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

YouTube revert
This one was fantastic. By the way, spot check over the last four days has come up with 4 false positives for YouTube only.Cptnono (talk) 21:52, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * What do you mean with '4 false positives for YouTube only' - 4 links which should not have been reverted, or 4 which were good. And on how many reverts was this?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:08, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Bloger links for information
hello there is problem to insert link with information from wikipedia to blogger ?

thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Beber007 (talk • contribs) 05:49, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, blogs hardly ever are suitable as external links (only the official blog maintained by the subject of the article on Wikipedia). For more info, see the external links guideline.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:09, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Updating a Reference
There is a dead link in the References on the page that I am trying to edit (Orville Nix). I have the new working link but I cannot see how to update it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDklubras (talk • contribs) 15:02, 2 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I saw that you did it properly in the second time - Note, I am not sure if the three references you added in the end are all suitable references, see the reliable sources guideline (imdb is a freely editable site like Wikipedia, which almost by definition makes this not a reliable source). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:09, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

WILD HORSES/MUSTANGS are not feral and you are posting false information here.
All your information regarding horses is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shariwelsh (talk • contribs) 02:57, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

You added:

SOURCE: Reno Gazette Journal

http:// www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=148411985171640

(link broken so it does not display, for reason, see below)

So .. that link goes to an article published by the Reno Gazette Journal. Which means, that the info is copyrighted by the Reno Gazette Journal. Wholesale copying of that information is a plain violation of copyright (that's one), as is knowingly (and clearly you know that it is a copyright violation, as your username here is very similar to the name of the person who posted it on Facebook) linking to copyright violations. I did not encounter linking to copyright violations on facebook before, but I thank you for given me yet another reason why facebook should be automatically reverted. Please read the policies and guidelines linked in the warnings and remarks that were left on your talkpage. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:20, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Trying to add a picture
Hello, I'm merely trying to add a picture to the Murdoch Mackay Collegiate site to include a picture of the school. I have one to offer but the site wouldn't take it from my computer so I added it to a photobucket site. It seems adding or editting anything here is extremely complex (for what reason I don't know). Anyway, I havea picture, I think it deserves to be on my old highschool's page since it celebrates 50 years soon. How do I add it? Can you explain in SIMPLE ENGLISH?

Thanks. My user name is maxrelax. I don't have a clue by what is meant by "the four tildes"... that's just more geek speak to me. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxrelax (talk • contribs) 06:38, 7 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi! Thanks for the questions.  Linking to photobucket does not show a picture on Wikipedia.  Pictures have to be specifically uploaded.  You have to click here: Special:Upload, and follow the instructions there.
 * four tildes: type ~ on a talkpage, and press save and see what happens.
 * I hope this explains, happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:22, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

what went wrong?
I thought that i cited everything correctly. and i am pretty sure that my sources fall within the guidelines. unsure why my background edit was reverted. can you help me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Music54 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, you cited everything correctly, but "Follow this link to watch the official "Tighten Up" music video. " is not in line with our policies and guidelines .. I've reverted the rest of the XLinkBot-revert. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:35, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Um....
Well, this was not a particularly good edit, reverting some links from their correct values back to 404's... Herostratus (talk) 12:30, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, that is quite a mess .. most of that is just an 'external link' section .. that list could certainly have some cleanup .. I expect that a lot of that 'further reading' is not giving much extra info on such a big, big page. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:18, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Error on User:XLinkBot/Reversion reasons
Blog sites are covered under point 11, not point 12 (wikis). 129.100.220.9 (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Oops, thanks. Maybe it moved, I have changed it.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Bitey bot
Hi, I believe that was very unfair. Three edits were reverted: the first was mostly good but with two errors: the figure 40 was used which should have been 41; and no reference was given. The second edit merely corrected the 40 to 41. The third edit added a reference, which I had already ; and titled an existing external link (which I see no problem with) but it also added a flickr link, which apparently fails WP:EL. I say "apparently", because flickr is not mentioned on WP:EL, which is the guideline linked from. Because of the last, the bot undid all of this user's good work.

Please consider removing only the offending material - i.e. the flickr link - and don't WP:BITE because of some teeny failure of a newbie to be fully aware of unwritten rules. -- Red rose64 (talk) 09:39, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I think that the remark left by the bot is not bitey at all, and I believe that the bot is, in a very friendly way, pointing the editor to the (possible) problems, to evaluate them, and what to do as a solution. Regarding reverting only an offending edit or all edits - both have their problems, and this one is, by far, the best.  Also removing the offending link only is impossible, as it would amount to vandalism by the bot very regularly.
 * Flickr is not specifically named, but the rules often to apply are WP:ELNEVER and parts of WP:ELNO, which is true for Flickr as much as for YouTube and many other sites based on user contributed content. Here there is likely no such problem, and the editor is asked to undo the bots edit on that account, though I must say .. this looks like an image which is suitable for upload to the wikipedia server to enhance the article itself.  I hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:59, 11 April 2011 (UTC)