User talk:XLinkBot/Archive 11

Hi, I was creating this football player: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channing_Stribling and I put his Twitter page in: https://twitter.com/C_Strib8 and the bot is telling me it's "inappropriate", When all the other football players, on their articles they have their twitter accounts! So why won't it allow me to put his in? I'm just asking want a answer, cause that's confusing too be completely honest with you.

Which links would I have to add that seem appropriate to articles? One of the pages I recently edited, Nelli Zhiganshina, was based on the Figure Skating Wikia where she retired at the age of 28 and it also said she was retired. I just don't want to mess things up for Wikipedia; I only want to help by adding more content for readers to learn about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.49.100.163 (talk) 02:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thank you for your question. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Fandom, facebook, wikia etc. all are not reliable sources. The pressure on those reliable sources is even higher if, like you, you are editing biographies of living people. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XLinkBot, I know that it's Reddit and it tends to be unlegitimate, but the answer really is legitimate. Want proof? This tweet by Robert's Twitter, with a picture of Robert himself, links to the very same Reddit page. https://twitter.com/Rodriguez/status/438053371170152449

Also, while you're at it, can you please remove the Junito and Carmenita names from the Machete and Machete Kills pages, as they're locked? Julio and Killjoy, though they have the same actors, are not the same characters as Carmen and Juni. I don't want people to be misled again. That's what Wikipedia is for, isn't it? Not misleading people.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat this to so many people; Machete is an alternate universe (confirmed by Robert himself), not a Spy Kids spinoff.

58.84.201.53 (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the former I still suggest to find more authoritative sources than reddit and twitter. For the latter you can raise edit requests on the talkpage of those pages. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 03:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a picture of himself on the very same tweet. Right here. It couldn't be faked. It's him! Holding up a sign and everything! What more do you want? https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhRHOF3CYAA1BDp?format=jpg

And yes, I believe I shall. In fact, I already did! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Machete_Kills#Just_%22Killjoy%22_and_%22Julio%22

58.84.201.53 (talk) 06:15, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, discuss it on the talkpage, it got independently removed as well. I still think that an independent reliable source would be better, but I am unfit to judge.

For the second part, I added a {{edit semi-protected}} to get attention to the request. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:51, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me. Kritish Mohapatra (talk) 14:32, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to add social media links to Secondaryboardhighschool s Wikipedia page.can you tell me what can I do? Kritish Mohapatra (talk) 14:39, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add a website of Secondaryboardhighschool s Wikipedia page.please please Kritish Mohapatra (talk) 15:15, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kritish Mohapatra, no, see WP:ELMINOFFICIAL Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:42, 30 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi XLinkBot, i am referring to the page of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kajang, the External links section is obviously a form of cybersquatting. If you research on the correct government portal is http://www.mpkj.gov.my/en/ as oppose to https://www.facebook.com/Kajang-%E5%8A%A0%E5%BD%B1-596798373675212/. and the official Facebook of the is Government council is https://www.facebook.com/mpkajang which can be found on the official government portal. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nizainali (talk • contribs) 01:51, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nizainali, thank you for your remark, I have reverted the bot but removed the facebook, which is not needed next to the official site. I will watchlist the page. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:29, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i wanna add youtube infobox into Twice Wikipedia page, but when i'm done & clicked to link Twice's youtube channel, it shows error 404 so i need your help by adding youtube infobox tks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Downy2d (talk • contribs)

@Downy2d: the youtube is not a primary part of their notability, there is no need for a youtube box on that page. We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inceptionv3 has his name originated from the meme "We need to go deeper" from film Inception of Christopher Nolan. In the original paper of this neural network architecture cite the exact same link (https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/we-need-to-go-deeper) this bot is deleting. I ask to make an exception of this link in that exact page in order to cite with precision the origin of the achitecture's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hamddan4 (talk • contribs) 16:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hamddan4: you can follow the instructions left by the bot. It does make a rather bad source though. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:15, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to Yes Sir, I Can Boogie, why isn't The Scottish Sun allowed as a reference? I didn't think Wikipedia was based in Liverpool? With regards to the article The Sun (United Kingdom):

"In February 2020, it had an average daily circulation of 1.2 million.[5] The Sun has been involved in many controversies in its history, including its coverage of the 1989 Hillsborough football stadium disaster. Regional editions of the newspaper for Scotland (The Scottish Sun), Northern Ireland (The Sun), and the Republic of Ireland (The Irish Sun) are published in Glasgow, Belfast, and Dublin, respectively. There is currently no separate Welsh edition of The Sun; readers in Wales get the same edition as readers in England".

...therefore if sources from News UK are not deemed worthy of inclusion, then somebody looking over the links must have a problem with Rupert Murdoch, News Corp or The Sun itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.172.230 (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:THESUN, which also includes this website. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XLinkBot and Materialscientist, You guys are overstepping and undermining us the Azande people right now by removing what we strongly believe are relevant to us. Please let's know if you know about us the Azande than we know about ourselves. Once again, below are genuine link to what we believe are relevant to our history not what was written by a Whiteman E.E. Evans Pritchard and other white people who doesn't even have knowledge of who are truly Azande

https://epauf.wordpress.com/2020/09/18/azande-post/

Please re-add back what we added and if you can't please stop reverting our article as you're just a contributor as we're. Thanks,

Azande Intellectuals— Preceding unsigned comment added by Azandeintellec (talk • contribs)

@Azandeintellec: You will have to find better sources than a wordpress blog. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:11, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be able to re add National Touch Football League it’s a semi professional league in Upstate New York https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Demons24 Demons24 (talk) 11:03, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demons24, yes, I am, but I am following WP:ELLIST (and hence, I've cleaned out the rest of the links). Now the question is what to do with the redlinks per WP:LSC. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I just wanted red links is all Demons24 (talk) 11:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you reverted one of my recent edits. I think I have fixed it now. Can you take a look and let me know if that works? If not, what should I fix? Was the problem all the references cited, or some of them? Thank you!! tsoukali 18:22, 29 November 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsoukali (talk • contribs)

@Tsoukali: You used (at least) one rather unreliable source for the article (discogs, see the entry for discogs on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources), which is why the bot reverted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:25, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: Thank you for your response. Hmmm, I'm a little surprised, as discogs was already used as a reference in the original article (see reference no.8 here), hence I thought it was ok to cite another entry from that website. Anyway, I think I fixed it along with some other issues (mainly on the Bio section). If my edits are still on the wrong, I'm happy to stand corrected and welcome further guidance.User:Tsoukali 07:15, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National_Hand_Touch_Football_League: I hope this is acceptable for an article it’s a Hand Touch version of the football game we play in Upstate New York? Demons24 (talk) 17:08, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Demons24, that version, no. The one in Draft-namespace is better, please wait for the review (though you can improve it in the meantime). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Demons24 (talk) 10:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Demons24/sandbox2 Is this safe to post on it now just wondering I have been working hard on it Demons24 (talk) 10:57, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok for Discogs link but, why you have removed the other changes that i've added? They are full of precise and correct sources, like "gay icon" part and Versace part and the Maledetta Primavera part...--Melfi1980 (talk) 09:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Melfi1980, please see User:XLinkBot/FAQ#REVERTALL. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'd like to apologize for making that edit that's on me. When he announced his support for impeaching Trump again for inciting the violent riot that stormed the capitol, I felt like I needed to edit that. I'm sorry. - E.M. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.255.162 (talk) 08:30, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@65.96.255.162: I reverted the bot, thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:05, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize. I thought that it was important to list the switch on most US Cassettes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.193.170.187 (talk) 15:30, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@68.93.170.187: yes, that is important, but referenced to a reliable source, not discogs. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:08, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I can understand the removal of some of the links I have added, and namely the one to my own page, as well as those to my brothers. But I have added significant information about my father's career - the musicians he has played with - and would like them to be published - this information can be verified on the external links. Thank you, S.A. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SADAMO (talk • contribs) 19:52, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SADAMO, the edit was already reverted, the reason was that you added a personal blog, and they are rather discouraged though with some exception (as is this one). Bigger problem however is your conflict of interest, you are directly related to the subject you are editing, and therefore should edit with care on that subject and preferably stay on the talkpage. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there. Thank you for your message. The version I think should be reverted to is the one where I mentioned several names of other musicians my father has played with, such as Maria Joao Pires. Can you help? I'm afraid I'm too much of a rookie here.. SADAMO (talk) 12:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

SADAMO, the edit was already reverted, the information should be there. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I've just undone a revert by the bot at Jon Hendricks and replaced the problematic Discogs link with an AllMusic ref, along with some minor copyediting. It occurs to me that, since the IP added a total of 3,000 bytes over two edits, its edits should really not have been reverted by XLinkBot because, when taken as a whole, they were over the size_limit of 2000. I think it's unfair that the IP wouldn't have been targetted if it hadn't broken up its edit into two pieces. Yes, I'm aware that the user has a conflict of interest as they're primarily referencing they're own work (see their contribs), but I don't have a problem with it in this case; it's a reliable source, having worked on jazz articles I have no problem believing the publisher's assertion that there are no other references of this type, and the additions aren't gratuitous. I'm attempting to contact the editor off-wiki to discuss their editing further. Graham87 07:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graham87, that is going to be more difficult to render by the bot, it uses the edit size of the diffs as reported by the MediaWiki software. It is overall going to be a thin line, spammers who add a promotional text over 2000 will also be ignored.

I will put this on the wishlist, but I have to see how hard this is to program. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:58, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of athletes (gymnasts, figure skaters), where there performances are available to be viewed on YouTube and their wiki pages include listings of their programs and their results, I think linking to a playlist of their performances is appropriate per the wiki guidelines and appropriate for an encyclopedia.05:24, 28 February 2021 (UTC)68.197.205.64 (talk)

@68.197.205.64: and I doubt that. I guess the place to ask would be the external links noticeboard. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to User:XLinkBot/Settings has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

93.144.183.38 (talk) 15:15, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Removing accurate facts about what was being added in some pages

 Not done - this is not a request to edit the page. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

DFD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jagtap mj (talk • contribs) 11:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jagtap mj: I have combined this post with your previous. Still, neither have a 'request' in them, can you please explain what you want? Also, please be careful with your current edits, I think that I understand where you want to go, but what you are doing is not the way. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:07, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I accidentally added a Youtube link to this page in references https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alberto_Rigoni#External_links for the Italian bassist Alberto Rigoni - I got a message from XLinkBot saying it didn't like my link and reverted the article page. I was currently in the process of fixing it up and now I notice the bot has completely reverted the whole page back to where it once was. Can you please get it back to where it was before without the Youtube link included? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.18.0.184 (talk) 11:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Normally I would suggest that you revert the bot, but reconsidering the addition of the youtube links (as the bot also suggested on your talkpage). However, here your edits were reverted and the revisions deleted - they are copyvio. Please don't. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What's the deal with this edit? The only sources listed are the Los Angleles Times and something called SFGate, which I don't know what that is but it's not on the bad list (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources) it it kind of looks legit maybe.

Your edit summary says "( [\bblog(?:cu|fa|harbor|mybrain|post|savy|spot|townhall)?\.(com|in)\b]))" but that doesn't seem to mean anything. Nothing anything like that is in the source material you rolled back, nor do either of the links devolve to that. This seems really opaque, what am I missing? Herostratus (talk) 20:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, I don't see that yet either. It is a string of edits, and you sometimes see that one of the intermediate edits breaks the page, upon which the next edit repairs and tends to add a whole set of external links (but I do not see that here either). I will try to have a look in the logs later, hoping the logs did not get wiped yet (I now notice there is a second edit which got reverted). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks. FWIW it wasn't a good edit anyway (BLP violation, also may not fit the article) so in this particular case the rollback was fine -- but for other reasons. Herostratus (talk) 10:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to add an external link from Discogs, based on what I added in this article. It was accepted there, so naturally, I felt this would be accepted as well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_Seat_(talk_show)--2600:6C50:27F:889A:158:6C8D:36A8:4328 (talk) 21:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but you did not add a reference to discogs to Hot Seat. And even if the bot took exception to that, discogs is not a suitable source for material in Wikipedia, see WP:RS & WP:RSP. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 01:53, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, having looked at the guidelines and read your feedback I realise now that the use of the links on the cited guitar works was not acceptable. I'm quite new to wikipedia and need a bit of guidance and appreciate your help. Nevertheless, the works originally cited are all registered in the library of the Contemporary Music Centre, Dublin, where the composer Greg Caffrey's work is archived ^[1]. Two of the works have also featured in international competitions, including one first prize ^[2] and most of the works are documented on the Craig Ogden Album First Construction in Nylon.

I'm wondering if, given all the above, the edits might be restored to the page, obviously without the external links to videos. Apologies again for the repeated same error of linking to external videos. I'd be grateful for any advice you can offer more generally as I take these first tentative Wiki steps.

Musicologiver (talk) 20:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Musicologiver, I think you have feedback on your talkpage that you should read and consider. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:28, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

In this reversion is it really correct that this site is on the bot's blacklist? Australian Academy of Science

It had this edit summary: (BOT--Reverting link addition(s) by 49.177.64.138 to revision 932696114 (www.science.org.au/fellowship/fellows/featured-fellows/featured-fellow-michael-alpers [\bscience\.org\b])), but what is [ \bscience\.org\b ]? What does it signify, (so I can avoid the offence in future)? It's not a part of the link that was included in my edit.

If it was reverted for a different reason, could someone in the know please comment? Thanks. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 15:33, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional: Had another look at policy, could it be WP:ELBLP? It's true, it's not Prof Alpers' "official site", but would think a reputable Science Society's page listing its Fellows (just like the Royal Society) would in no way endanger any WP:BLP precautions. This: " 2012 | Michael Alpers | Centre for International Health, Curtin University|" is in List of fellows of the Australian Academy of Science#Fellows with link to the same site. 49.177.64.138 (talk) 15:59, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It is a rule for science.org, I am not sure whether science.org.au is a completely different site. If it is we need to exclude that.

Note that WP:EL suggests against the use of cite templates in external links sections. I’m not sure whether this material is really needed. User:Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dirk Beetstra / XLinkBot admins. Yes, it is a different site; it's for the Australian Academy of Science, but WP may want that site excluded too, possibly? (Or not? I don't know what the rationale is for the different exclusion rules, exactly.) 49.177.64.138 (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I realised much later that I had meant to put the links under a "Further reading" section, rather than 'External links' section. I do think the material is definitely useful, and I intend to integrate the sources as inline cites within an expanded article. Hope that's okay, and thanks for your response, (and patience). 49.177.64.138 (talk) 02:57, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why can we not have his twitter-account linked? 81.191.116.205 (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it depends, see WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. By far most of the time the twitter is superfluous, but here it might be suitable. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 26 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In this revert, positive contributions were caught up in the bots wholesale reversion. Could the bot be tuned better to revert only the part of an edit that introduces an undesirable link? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 01:09, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sdkb, that is addressed in the FAQ, no, we can’t because in case of consecutive spam edits or repaired edits by newbies reverts will either leave spam, broken pages or both. The best is for a good faith editor to revert the bot but remove the ‘offending’ part. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:20, 29 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to improve Baseball robot and this robot reverted BOTH of my changes, even though the first one didn't edit any links. Terrible. 172.92.177.175 (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the FAQ linked above and the message left on your talkpage. I have removed all external links, as they were duplicates of 'the references' in the article. I do note that all references are rather primary, there are no references that show why a baseball robot is worth having an article on. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:03, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

Fake pages are being made in the name of Ravi Sarma. We added his official pages so that people are not misguided.

Kindly, approve us to add the links — Preceding unsigned comment added by Monujboraik2001 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Monujboraik2001, I see you resolved the issue (please, do read our policies and guidelines). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:06, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Additionally, I suggest modifying the bot's user page to change "IP's and new users can still edit" to "IP editors and new users can still edit". Generally, IP's is short for IP addresses, and it's not the numerical labels that edit. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 11:58, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and in English it's "IPs" instead of "IP's". (Although - obviously - that's no longer relevant if my suggestion is implemented.) --143.176.30.65 (talk) 11:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done unactionable/invalid immediate edit request. — xaosflux ^Talk 13:39, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Xaosflux. I guess the confusion is my fault, for doing the edit request under other text. I've split my fully-protected edit request from the other text. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done 143, if the bot operators would like to update their page they are welcome to - this does not require administrator intervention to process. Ping to operators: @Versageek and Beetstra: — xaosflux ^Talk 13:52, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Xaosflux, as an IP editor, when I use "View source" (where it normally says "Edit") at User:XLinkBot, there's a big block of text that explains why the page is protected, and:

"If you have noticed an error or have a suggestion for a simple, non-controversial change, you can submit an edit request, by clicking the button below and following instructions. An administrator may then make the change on your behalf. Please check the talk page first in case the issue is already being discussed."

Accompanied by a button "Submit an edit request" that creates a section with {{edit fully-protected}}. There's no policy or guideline that prevents editors who have sufficient user rights and are not "bot operators" to update the page. In my opinion, your last response above was unnecessarily curt. Either way, I won't touch the "answered=yes" again. Hopefully someone else will give a substantive response to my edit request. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is to edit a base userpage, in this special case it is managed by 2 specific people who have been pinged and can update it as they see fit - I've already summoned them, please be patient. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll wait for User:Versageek or User:Beetstra to get back to me. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 07:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest you modify code to assess edits from IP editors as if they were from (not-newly) registered users once the IP editors have passed certain thresholds. I've made 860+ edits over a period of roughly 16 months, and yet it feels as if XLinkBot looks at my edits as if it's the day I first started editing from this IP address. Another method, although probably more complex, might be for XLinkBot to keep track of how many reversals actually lasted in the span of a week. XLinkBot has reverted six of my edits, but no reversal lasted. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 11:53, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have bluntly reverted back in a blatantly unreliable source. I am sorry, that is not the way forward. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:50, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you willing to reply to my actual suggestion? --143.176.30.65 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding to that, no, I will not do that. By far the majority of IPs is fluxional, and if there are concerns with an IP adding excessive links then why would that automatically stop after 25, 50 or 500 edits. What we do sometimes do is whitelist specific IPs that have shown sufficient stability and understanding of why they get the warnings, and where the warnings are substantially false positives. I am starting to consider that for you. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:38, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As for the reliability of Discogs. I was unaware of its blatant unreliableness. I have just self-reverted these edits of mine. I'm pretty sure my other reversals of XLinkBot were justified. I fixed a Twitter address, added external media on YouTube that's on the official Searchlight Pictures channel, added an external link to a YouTube channel (with 119K subscribers) of a subject that had no other external links, and improved an external link to YouTube. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 20:02, 5 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone through the warnings and the reverts or follow up actions. I do see a couple of genuine twitter and youtube additions, but I have removed yet another youtube (per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL) and we have this discussion about discogs (the bot clearly notes that discogs is reverted because of reliability issues) just this week. 6 reverts of which 3 false positive in 16+ months is not too much, but I do start considering to whitelist your IP while you are using it. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:17, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't add that one, I attempted to improve it, which I think I did. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 07:25, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of that, and it is already some time ago. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:39, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unhappy with how you are characterizing my overall run-ins with XLinkBot. I've not made (emphasis mine) "a couple of genuine" edits, when it comes to my run-ins with XLinkBot. I'm aware that, like me, you're not a native speaker of English, so perhaps you meant something other than "genuine", but, first of all, all my edits are genuine. Secondly, I made one mistake assessing the reliability of Discogs, and that's it. Not Discogs + "yet another". And it also doesn't make it two things "just this week", because what happened 'just this week' is you assessing my edits; my ARK Music Factory edit was 7 May 2021. The 3/6 false positive is also an unfair summary, given that, first of all, it's 4/6 (ARK improvement), and, secondly, the remaining 2/6 are both Discogs, and I genuinely thought that XLinkBot misjudged my edits as disruptive, given the 2/6 following the 4/6, and the 4/6 were perfectly fine improvements. Don't get me wrong, I think that XLinkBot is very useful, and does a great job overall. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 07:43, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have great difficulty with how you wrote "I am aware of that" combined with your "a couple of genuine [additions] but I have removed yet another". You essentially say I made a couple of genuine edits but you had to remove yet another one, even though you are aware of that I only improved the YouTube link. --143.176.30.65 (talk) 07:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I added a known youtube channel/alias to the Alpharad page and it got taken down, even tho it is technically info that should be on his wikipedia Quinnafred14 (talk) 06:36, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Quinnafred14, I have reverted the bot, but am in dubio. Normally we list only one official website, not a whole linkfarm of them. The other edit the bot reverted I have also removed. That was only primary sourced, so does not show encyclopedic relevance. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:41, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I spent a fair amount of time trying to add useful links for this site. The Association of Personal Historians (for which the link still exists) is no longer a reliable Wikipedia site. When APH folded, someone bought the site, and they have NOTHING to do with personal historians but are using the old APH copy, including things like dues $150. However, there are several local chapters of APH that did not fold, and if people are looking for a personal historian that is the only place online that they can find them. I am not new to writing/editing for Wikipedia. I've written a couple of pages and helped others write them too. If bots are going to delete what I add, I may stop writing entries altogether. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatMcNees (talk • contribs)

@PatMcNees: first, you have a clear and obvious conflict of interest. Second, I don't agree with the linkfarm you put there and the prose you put there. I suggest you post to the talkpage explaining what is wrong and let other editors perform the edits. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:04, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to User:XLinkBot/Settings has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I am the artist Sarah Fimm and this is my page. Why are my edits not being accepted by the bot? All citations and data are verifiable. Please help me get control of editing this page. Sarahfimm (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Sarahfimm: can you please review our conflictof interest guideline, as well as thoroughly read the warning left on your talkpage. Wikipedia is not the place to promote yourself. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a native english speaker so i am irritated with the text on the talk page of my IP. Can the person please take a look what the bot has done?! --84.155.147.9 (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The bot removed the YouTube you added since these links very often fail inclusion standards. Since the prose does not talk about the old route 231, also I do not see why this video is so needed here. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:35, 19 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Watch the complete video and compare the places with google maps air views. --84.155.147.9 (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did, did you read the article that we currently have. I mean, I see where you are coming from, but the article at the moment does not give any reason for that link to be there. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Good day I hope you're doing ok Please help review this article Delta State University Of Science And Technology Ozoro Idoghor Melody (talk) 04:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Idoghor Melody: you are asking that to an automated account. I will have a look, but I think you have more chance of a good review from a member from a suitable WikiProject (see Wikipedia:WikiProjects). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:00, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Idoghor Melody (talk) 19:45, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

why are my edit is removed from the description 2401:4900:3142:DCCB:B9E3:7171:6637:9894 (talk) 22:12, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but this edit to the bot’s talkpage is your first ever edit, I don’t know what you are referring to. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:01, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dear XLinkBot, Thank you for the help. Honestly, I was trying to add in transcripts from a more official source. However, I don't think the right one was inserted. I will try to find the original. I thought citing the game wouldn't work because not every admin would have played the game it might be inverted. Though I have been having an issue with my edits. I know that they have to be cited and I am doing them in good faith. --PricklyCactus2 (talk) 16:18, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@PricklyCactus2: fandom is unreliable (it is a wiki, just like Wikipedia) and because it is a wiki it is only useful as an external link in very limited cases too. I hope you can find a better source. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirk Beetstra: I understand. I thank you for your time. :D. But I do have a question, if the information is from the game, can it be used as a reliable source? Cause the terminals are in there, however, I was trying to find a transcript so people could easily read them. --PricklyCactus2 (talk) 18:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we put Facebook for XLinkBot list (but isn't reliable at all, see WP:RSPFB). --2001:4452:48D:E600:44C0:6D32:7E23:BA1D (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:4452:48D:E600:44C0:6D32:7E23:BA1D: it is already on the revertlist. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:55, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should we cite FB before it was removed/reverted? --2001:4452:48D:E600:44C0:6D32:7E23:BA1D (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@2001:4452:48D:E600:44C0:6D32:7E23:BA1D: I really don't understand your question here. Facebook is normally an unreliable source, but there are cases where it is suitable as a reference (what a subject said about themselves, assuming you can verify that the person is who they say they are). So generally, no, we should not cite FB. As an external link it is generally excluded, but there it may be the main web presence of a subject, in which case it is, per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, the official website of the subject. Then you include it. All in all, very often it is not suitable for inclusion, but there are exceptions. But I'd like a bit more context to your question, because I don't really get it. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:38, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk Beetstra, there's a bunch of stuff from this user that I don't get, including on ANI. Drmies (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep removing the statement regarding Machete's canonicity to the Spy Kids movies? It's a Reddit AMA, where celebrities answer questions and such. Heard of these before? Rodriguez literally posted on Twitter that he was on Reddit, with a photo of himself, and it links to the very same Reddit page. It is legitimate https://twitter.com/Rodriguez/status/438053371170152449

58.84.149.165 (talk) 15:46, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You are making the internet a poorer place. I hope you will come to realize this.

If you can't take the time to review what your bot has flagged, why bother?! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.253.204.254 (talk • contribs)

I have reverted your edit blindly as well, yet another youtube video in an already immense list of links (with several other youtubes). This is exactly what this bot is supposed to revert, the addition of useless stuff. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer and Videographer Nicholas Gibbs Bishop's Alumni 21'shows most of the Campus Attractions on his Youtube Channel [1].  

Please allow me to add this edit to the Bishop's University Page, I am a promoter for the university and I would like this added, thanks - Nicholas Gibbs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngibbs015 (talk • contribs)

@Ngibbs015: Please provide reliable sources to approve your claim. See WP:RS & WP:CITE. ~ Itsskv08 (Talk) 04:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This Bot is ridiculous. It is banning facebook. Facebook is about 10 billion times better than wikipedia so you might as well ban wikipedia from wikipedia. Dumbasses! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.170.14.3 (talk) 03:56, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is already banned for a part, so we’ve got that solved. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like, if it was not up to Wikipedia's standards of quality, removing it is fine, but I've seen this website cited on other articles before and it seems to be reliable about topics such as this— Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.176.13.102 (talk • contribs)

Please see WP:RS/WP:RSP, knowyourmeme is not a reliable source. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:21, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My AngleFire link was in good faith. It's a historic recap of when the 11:Alive version of the show debuted, and I also provided video footage of the show that the AngleFire article was talking about. The information provided prior was inacuurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.249.36.13 (talk • contribs)

Angelfire, as well as the lostmediawiki.com, are not reliable sources. Please find reliable sources before re-adding the information. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:28, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I added some links because the content inf is incorrect so I add correct information and give you evidence by the links. AFinder14 (talk) 20:57, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I give you some links because the content information is incorrect so I add correct information with evidence. But you denied why?? It's not right. In Wikipedia we don't use any wrong information. Please publish my information about the content. AFinder14 (talk) 21:00, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! On User:XLinkBot, you might want to change "started it's wiki-life" to "started its wiki-life". Keep up the good work! GoingBatty (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@GoingBatty: you already noticed I fixed this, thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:00, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It's an error link, can't go to the facebook page https://www.facebook.com/DAP.HowardLee Howard Lee 李存孝, Correction is correct : https://www.facebook.com/HowardLee.my— Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.179.74.249 (talk • contribs)

@183.179.74.249: you already did the correct thing in reverting the bot, in line with what the bot suggested on your talkpage. I have however removed all the social networking links, we list only one official website with limited exceptions (WP:ELMINOFFICIAL). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:02, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to me. So this is the only source I can find that Shopkins are discontinued. I can’t find any other source. 72.193.250.228 (talk)

@72.193.250.228: Please see WP:RSREDDIT - reddit is not a reliable source. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:30, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

hello I want to know that what was wrong in the link? Prithvirajuk (talk) 18:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Prithvirajuk: here you are adding a second social networking site (we link only one: WP:ELMINOFFICIAL), the other one was in principle fine, even if we generally discourage social networking. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just want to know the reason why my citation link for Soul Cartel was reverted on the article Devil in the arts and popular culture. I have read the manga and that was the only link with proper details about the manga that could be used for citation other than adding different manga site links where the reader will have to go through whole manga chapters. if you still think that the link is inappropriate do let me know so that i can change/remove it. Wajahat elahi (talk) 10:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Wajahat elahi: see WP:FANDOM, it is not a reliable source and should not be used as such. Please find a better source for the material. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:17, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: Thanks for letting me know. i'll just reuse the already mentioned citation link of the manga website. Wajahat elahi (talk) 17:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why the bot did this revert and then warned the user. The link is to Science (journal) and reliable sources don't get more prestigeous than that. The user was merely fixing a deadlink in a reference, but was warned as if they had inserted an EL. Even if it had been an EL, I don't see what the problem was. SpinningSpark 15:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to User:XLinkBot has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

182.50.66.185 (talk) 01:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No question asked. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I was having a bit of trouble with the citation tags to include the source as to why Wilf got fired from ELO - it was a dispute over money. 220.245.23.160 (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@220.245.23.160: I have reverted the bot. The discogs was not your addition (just got parsed like that due to the previous pageversion being broken). Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:18, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me Sir/Madam, XLinkBot reverted The Epoch Times (Proof -> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Victoria_Police&diff=1051085557&oldid=1051084106), seriously? How can this bot managed to mark a source from a newspaper company as a spam? I think there is something in the algorithm that needs to be fixed here...
Regards, 118.136.39.47 (talk) 05:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@118.136.39.47: see Wikipedia:EPOCHTIMES on WP:RSP. It is a deprecated source, deemed unreliable in the discussions on WP:RSN and hence marked as such. We often choose to add such pages to the RevertList to alert 'new users' and IP editors that care is needed with these sources. XLinkBot is not just for reverting spam, it is '... primarily intended to deal with domains which may have a legit use on-wiki, but are frequently misused by new and anonymous users (or have a history of being misused).' --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

like my comments on the ROPE, you will revert any ref from a source, even when it quotes news and has facts and looks fine, not garbage. Dave Rave (talk) 05:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it will. There will always be exceptions, but those tend to be few on sources where the general opinion on wikipedia is that it needs to be deprecated (especially since it is only reverting 'new' editors and IPs). And editors can always, as per suggestion of the bot, revert those cases. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can see through the dialog that youtube is likely to be not great for information, and likely to be copyright, but a link to a displayed copyrighted work as presented by the copyright owner on a page about the article with the video detailing the article, surely that could stay ? Dave Rave (talk) 05:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave Rave: yes, sure. The last analysis (granted, long time ago) showed me on an analysis of 10-20 reverts that there were a couple of proper copyvios being reverted, some general garbage and some cases of linkfarming. Seen that we do find regular copyvio I prefer to err on the save side, and run the risk to have more good links to be reverted. As above, there is always the possibility to revert the bot after the additional scrutiny, even by the OP itself. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

just a case of a new thing to learn, so just checking before going off. Dave Rave (talk) 08:52, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave Rave: feel free to revert, there are unavoidably false positives. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:35, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This reversion with the edit summary "BOT--Reverting link addition(s) by 97.115.51.56 to revision 1053007333 ( [\bblogspot\.(com|in)\b])" appears to be an error as the removed link isn't a blogspot link at all. ElKevbo (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: hmmm, another one where both the detection and the safety mechanism detect the same mistake (there is one higher up). I hope I find time to go through the logs soon, otherwise I will have to shut it down 'till I do. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ElKevbo: change in MediaWiki API functioning caused a bug in the bots. Resolved now. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the follow up. Much appreciated! ElKevbo (talk) 20:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Please kindly prevent your bot from making any additional reversions to the Sol Press page. It is removing useful information. --2600:8800:7000:33:1A31:BFFF:FEDE:24AD (talk) 04:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, please only make edits when you have proper reliable sources to back up your edits. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:52, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You want to pretend, you go ahead. But be ready for a fight! 2600:8800:7000:33:1A31:BFFF:FEDE:24AD (talk) 05:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"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."

No, how about you leave my constructive changes to the article and revert only the link? You are a bad bot wasting human time. 172.92.177.175 (talk) 01:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't want unreliable information in Wikipedia. Discogs is an unreliable source, so the sentence you cite is not even applicable to you. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it should only revert improper links, and leave the correct links lol Ndwikifixing (talk) 20:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And then have unreliable, or even spammy, material stay behind? No, thank you. You did now what the bot suggested, but now the material is unsourced. I doubt that it belongs there. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:11, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave this to others to judge the merit of it but for the time being I think counterpunch.org and counterpunch.com needs to be removed from the RevertList. I have already removed it from the list of Deprecated Sources as there are significant concerns regarding the validity of the previous RfC, which appears to have attracted at least 6-7 sockpuppets, found after its close. It has led to this discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Rerun Counterpunch RFC?, seeking a new RfC and started by the closer themselves. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tayi Arajakate: though all inconclusive and still rather onesided I have disabled the rule. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted my action there, reteading the thread. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:32, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am making the edit because the url is no longer available and I am placing the new url. You are reverting it to a url (that is also a blog) that is not available and therefore making the content proceed to something invalid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.105.23.75 (talk) 05:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the bot suggested on your talkpage - just revert the bot (but please consider whether the link should be there in the first place). Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey bot, this edit appears to be made in error. A citation using of International Consortium of Investigative website was removed somehow mistaking it to be an external Youtube link. I have reverted the edit.  Ohsin  19:48, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohsin: yes, that is a strange edit. I am not sure how a youtube link addition was detected there (that is m:User:LiWa3), and how then the safety mechanisms in XLinkBot re-detected it. I really need to dig into the logs. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:20, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ohsin: change in MediaWiki API functioning caused a bug in the bots. Now resolved. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing it. Ohsin  12:35, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet better. Look at this: the bot removes correct YouTube link and enforces broken, no more working YouTube link instead. Changing YouTube for anything else oculd be a fight with spam, but changing YouTube with Youtube... That is absurd... 46.242.10.186 (talk) 19:24, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is your bot 100.00% hack-proof? Ka . Read: One Hundred Point Zero Zero Percent Absolutely Airtight Under Oath of Death . Because in the past 1.5 years we have seen a revival of Digital Book Burning Hackers that are going around , using dummy accounts and hacking bots to get them to make seemingly innocuous errors that have LITERALLY FATAL consequences for members of international and transnational oversight groups . Kallas01 (talk) 09:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why donkt you have a seat over there .

Hi . I·m an Information Security (InfoSec) specialist that works for the Vatican . My pronouns are She/Her . I was trained by the CIA and i·m currently working in tandem with CSIS .

We·ve been noticing some troubling trends lately with seemingly-innocuous data (that , **SUSPICIOUSLY OFTEN** includes details that were left in intentionally for Classified Joint Intelligence Operations) getting edited out carelessly by atomized and/or radicalized users or automated bots .

I was assigned to repair the article on SEALAB . Your bot is automatedly undoing my repairs .

Please correct this issue . "K" Kallas01 (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kallas01: That is a rather strong accusation. The only thing I see you doing is adding two links to websites outside of Wikipedia (see here) where one is utterly unnecessary (and should not be an external link), and the other one is debatable by nature (youtube, see WP:ELPEREN). Note: "We've" suggests that this is a shared account, and "I was assigned to repair the article" suggests a strong conflict of interest, if not undisclosed payed editing. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:22, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Understood , we see that you have removed our response to this occurrence rather than deal with it in a forthright manner . Your name has been added to our list of Hostiles and/or Noncompliants . The authorities have been alerted and we shall proceed around your obstruction . Have a nice day . Kallas01 (talk) 12:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=1095488276&oldid=1094062581 Kaname U (talk) 17:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaname U: no, it is note a malfunction, you actually added the link because the template was broken in the original. I’ve fixed the template, the link is better in that template for maintenance reasons. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:38, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

The bot removed a whole piece of information I previously added (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1094405479). I didn't know that the website I mentioned as a reference was considered as spam, sorry about that. But isn't it a problem that the bot seems to remove all the information, and not just the link? In doubt, I added the info again without the link. 37.172.88.223 (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@37.172.88.223 no, that is standard, it is explained in the FAQ linked at the top of this page. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that this bot reverted a change I made a few years ago, so the bot may or may not still have this bug. I had changed it to make the links work because the next word after the links was accidentally part of the links. Here is the bad edit. — Chai T. Rex (talk) 17:38, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Chai T. Rex noted, but technically you added new youtube links and that is hence impossible to detect. Question is whether these two youtubes should be there in the first place. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

oop

Rowanco8 (talk) 22:15, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Rowanco8 Thanks! Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the 23rd of July you reverted a link addition. When reviewing the page, the only thing I found wrong with the link is that it is restricted geographically. I think this sort of situation had been better resolved by adding a Template:Better source needed rather than removing it outright, at least a better explanation would be in order. BFG (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BFG well, I am convinced that that whole column ‘V’ has to go, there are many videos on channels that are taken down, many videos that do not seem to have been uploaded by the copyright owner, and it simply not what we generally put in ‘lists’. (Yes, I did notice that there are also those that were uploaded by what is likely the copyright owner).
Note as well that these are external links, they are not references. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 04:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirk Beetstra I agree with you, that the videos are not references, they are simply valuable visual additions to the list. I disagree that they have to go. While I find it preferable to only link licensed videos, it is not our responsibility to verify the legality of content on YouTube, I see no issues with linking it, other than a simple recognition that it may be ephemeral. For that reason alone I avoided replacing the link with one of several videos that I found with no region-restrictions, but which were clearly not from a licensed source.

My primary concern however was to understand why this video was taken down @XLinkBot did not indicate in any way why this was done. I find it difficult to argue the validity of a revert when all I have to go on is a hunch of what may have been wrong. BFG (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BFG yes, it is. Read our policies regarding copyright. And such links in tables have always been questionable and therefore our guidelines (which have consensus) suggest against it as well. And as I also said, quite some are dead links anyway.
It is taken down, as XLinkBot says in the message, because Youtube links often have copyright concerns, and youtube is discouraged under a handful of other reasons as well. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dirk Beetstra I can find no such policy. I've read Wikipedia:FAQ/Copyright and Wikipedia:Copyrights please provide the relevant information. In any case @XLinkBot says no such thing in the message. It simply gives the following non informative message.

BOT--Reverting link addition(s) by 2600:1702:2FC0:3CB0:A54F:9464:E73A:2E4D to revision 1098882800 (www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIlpFhU3P-M&t=342s [\byoutube\.com])

I find it extremely speculative to suggest that NBC Sports does not have the proper permissions to post a video, the only reason I could see was that it is region restricted. Once again, my question is not about the links in general, but about this particular link being taken down. BFG (talk) 09:13, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dirk, is this you? I don't know what happened in in this edit--well, I know what, but I don't know why: I'm surprised to find the bot reverting my edit as well, creating a bit of havoc in the history. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:33, 31 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's wrong with [[2]]. It has lots of useful information and cites its sources, while the wikipedia page is blank (well, now it is, now that you deleted it!). Also, why delete the whole page rather than just the one link? I don't see why you would want to have less useful information rather than more..... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gm2001 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I nocticed that you undid my referencial edit to the link i provided in hinduism in west bengal althiugh it did have a map and a full proof.Furthermore some of the references that others put in never ever talks about hindu population in west bengal unlike my references that do.I would beleive that it would be wonderful if you understand this and do not undo revision that has good citation of real facts and put reivisions done by others that literally gives no proof of hindus in west bengal like this page (see https://www.indiaonlinepages.com/population/west-bengal-population.html).(talk) 22:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@2607:FEA8:A75B:3170:7C1C:841B:4B98:446A you used a reddit post as a reference because you cannot find it in better sources? Then the bot did the right thing, reddit is absolutely not reliable. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

hi

just editing Changers of the World (talk) 02:04, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I've recently added a few cartoon enteries that were related to WWII in List of World War II short films. It includes IA link and Youtube links to the respective cartoons. However your bot automatically reverted the page for being " inappropriate for an encyclopedia". I assume it's because of the Youtube Links. Is it ok to revert your bots edit without the youtube links? (talk), 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

I am not sure how to sing my name. I am relatively new here. Can there be a simpler explanation of how to "sign" your name? Thanks! Spiritandfire44 (talk) 16:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you read WP:SIGN on how to sign your name. In essence you type 4 tildes which are ~ and they are transformed into your username with date stamp. Regarding the bot, yes it doesn't like Youtube links, so it is normally ok to revert the bot without the Youtube links. PhilKnight (talk) 18:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the bot will revert an entire edit that added unreferenced sources, even if most of the edit was otherwise correct. Ex. here. This collateral damage may need addressing, _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:37, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus Please see the FAQ. There is also collateral damage with undoing single edits out of a series, even resulting in broken pages or spammy material staying behind. Remember that the bot mostly reverts editors that do not have a lot of experience, not regulars. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:08, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I've been trying to create a new Wikipedia page. I've used references but it has been removed for the second time. I'm not understanding what I'm not doing correctly. Not sure how I can see who the editor was but could you please explain what the reason is for deleting the page Taryll Jackson? Kind regards, JXNLegacy (talk) 12:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive 1184#Page being removed twice by same user if anyone else is confused. XLinkBot is a bot so can't help you. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Wikipedia:Teahouse § Reviewers are not looking for consensus

 – — Newslinger talk 22:25, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

* Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra and Versageek: * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to take a look at this when I get a chance. Beetstra and Versageek, have you been able to see what's happening here, and do you have any advice? — Newslinger talk 22:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I just created a wiki page on my own account, but its about a scientist and I would like to move it to it's own URL. it is not promotional. he is a revered and dead scientist who has made a huge impact in climate change research building the first atmospheric model at princeton university. Also there are reputable links included in the article. what do I do to move it to a new url? User:Bfinston and thank you Bfinston (talk) 13:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request to User:XLinkBot has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please undo https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:XLinkBot&diff=prev&oldid=1170413193, the bot has started running again. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:34, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, indeed, I managed to get the bot back to work. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

During WikiConfrence North America, an editor spoke about the deleterious effect that having all of a day's editing reverting had on a group of editors they were affiliated with. It's not clear to me that the benefits you claim are made by this decision outweigh the BITEing impact it has. Is there any data to support this design decision? Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:59, 6 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only reverting to this would have left the rest of the crap added by this spammer (and the first, then unreverted, edit was a broken edit in itself). Was easier to find than an editor who had 'all of a day's editing revert[ed]', the latter being nearly impossible with the bot settings. I am curious to see the edit you are talking about. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was done in a large setting and so I was not able to follow-up with the comment. In fact it took me reaching out to a number of people to even figure out that this was likely XLinkBot that was being discussed. The specific mention was attempts around use of GoodReads links if that is of any help. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will first pile on (you got the worst of me, I was curious if I could find any of the edits of the type that you mention - something where someone utterly new was editing for a long time (but not long enough) and have all reverted.

• This would have left the rest of the crap added by this spammer.
• This is another one which would not have been reverted on this edit, but only on a later one.
• This one (damaged the picture) but would not have been reverted.
• Or this.
• This one is nice, reverting one edit would have left the copyvio (though that is not for XLinkBot to decide, it was nice that it did an attempt to remove all instead of leaving it; IMHO the XLinkBot and edit of JalenBarks should not have been revdelled).
• another copyvio that is not reverted.
• broke the references in the first edit (which they did not manage to repair in subsequent ones).

(and I am not listing everything there where I think first edits are bad quality; Note this is a good chunk out of about a month worth of reverting, I'm giving up further)

But with that list, there are indeed edits where a full revert would be excessive, but I've encountered just a couple (this is one)

XLinkBot has not reverted goodreads edits in years, and I cannot find it on the revertlist (or blacklist). So no, I do not think that it was XLinkBot at all. With WikiConference the last 3 days, they were either talking about something else, or something from long long ago. So this basically was some vague discussion of someone who was lightly disgruntled because 'look what those bad Wikipedians (or one of their bots) did to me!' Thanks for the exercise, I'll remember that the choice of reverting all edits is actually a good thing, Wikipedia would be worse if we did not. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was not something that happened at the WikiConfrence. It was instead part of a complaint to members of the Board of the WMF about ways Wikipedia is unfriendly to newcomers, especially new comers from groups under represented on English Wikipedia. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:36, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Then I know enough. This was not XLinkBot. Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re: [3]. This bot is badly programmed. It should not be reverting links that are within a {{copyvio-revdel}} template, as this is achieving the exact opposite of what it is approved for. It was lucky that someone else spotted this after a copyvio was restored to the article in question by the bot. 80.42.207.226 (talk) 10:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear XLinkBot,

After a long and in fact positive correspondence with 1AmNobody24, and despite promises, the entry on me remains drastically mutilated of ALL my 'Works', I am still trying to "talk" to a WIKI editor. People who go to WIKIPEDIA have been getting back to me disappointed. I offered 1AmNobdy24 - and indeed he accepted and received - a full list of 'Works', with no comments, ALL PUBLISHED works, that need no references, they are references. I did not not get any assistance, and my WIKI entry looks miserable.

I do kindly expect a WIKI-worthy response, and I was elected "Top Scholar" by ScholarGPS recently, otherwise five time recipient of awards... But in the WIKI entry, I am a scholar with NO Works and no other information. It looks strange.

Thanks,

Seta B. Dadoyan Seta dadoyan (talk) 18:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Versageek and @Beetstra-- I'm clearing up some syntax errors, and have run across this bot's userpage/talk page due to the HTML5-incompatible misnesting error that is occurring. I've fixed this issue here on the bot's talk page (diff), but the bot's userpage has full protection and I have only EC access. Would one of you be willing to make the same adjustment over there to clear the misnested issue, and replace the use of the obsolete center tag?

<div class="usermessage"><span style="color:blue"><center>Administrators:</span> if this bot is malfunctioning, try [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:XLinkBot/Settings&action=edit changing its settings]. It can also be shut off there in a server-friendly way.</center></div>

<div class="usermessage" style="text-align: center;"><span style="color:blue">Administrators:</span> if this bot is malfunctioning, try [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:XLinkBot/Settings&action=edit changing its settings]. It can also be shut off there in a server-friendly way.</div>

If you have any questions, I'm happy to chat. Thanks, Zinnober9 (talk) 06:14, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Zinnober9  Done! Thanks (it also reminded me to put that on the other bots) Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:53, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! Zinnober9 (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

source for ararat operation it was kurdish victory :Jwaideh, Wadie (June 19, 2006) (in English). The Kurdish National Movement: Its Origins and Development. Syracuse University Press. ISBN 081563093X.

Nuri, İhsan (1992). Ihsan Nuri Pasha, La Révolte de L'Agridagh.. Published in Geneva in 1985. In Turkish: Mount Ararat Rebellion, Med Basımevi, Istanbul.. https://books.google.com/books?id=8NmzmAEACAAJ. 
Karaca, Emin (September 15, 2003) (in Turkish). Ağrı Eteklerinde İsyan Bir Kürt Ayaklanmasının Anatomisi. ISBN 9789758658374. 
Olson, Robert (July 1, 1989). The Emergence of Kurdish Nationalism and the Sheikh Said Rebellion, 1880–1925. ISBN 0292720858. 185.84.70.133 (talk) 11:53, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My recent edit got reverted, where I just made a reference to the official site of a publisher (links: tobooks.shop-pro.jp/?pid=180844487), which is in accordance with WP:EL. I took the chance to look over the regular expression revert list and figured that \b[_\-0-9a-z]+\.shop\b is to blame for reverting any link that contains the word ".shop". I think what was probably intended, was to remove any domain name *ending* with .shop, which is not the case here. Anyways, please remove that expression (or fix XLinkBot)! 2003:E6:C72D:D900:86BC:220E:30BB:B52D (talk) 23:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]