User talk:AntiSpamBot/Jun2007

Why did this happen?

You probably don't want to have your bot revert Smackbot. Any idea why that even happened? 75.35.115.68 02:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a edit to something about the proboards link in there, and proboards is on the naughty list. Interesting. JoeSmack ^Talk 15:31, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.angelfire.com/indie/coraschumacher/bio.html

http://www.angelfire.com/indie/coraschumacher/bio.html is not spam when used as a reference to the former profession of Ralf Schumacher's wife. Just making that clear. Guroadrunner 14:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it from the article, it clearly doesn't meet reliable source guidelines. This is one of the reason angelfire links get reverted by shadowbot. JoeSmack ^Talk 15:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A decent number of F1 fans know Cora is a former model, most likely knowing this due to the nudie pictures flap during their marriage that got Ralf steamed. I've thrown up a bunch of ref links in return. If not, I'll just through the info up without attribution. Most people don't attribute things anyway, and I think it's dumb to fight for something very minor like this any further. -- Guroadrunner 03:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits Steam egine; Uniflow engine by John of Paris 2nd June

Please stop reverting, this is not spam. Just go and have look.--John of Paris 15:40, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just understood why the bot kicked in. I forgot to fill in the link. But can't the bot simply point out a mistake rather than reverting and ranting on about spam. A bit draconian, isn't it?!!--John of Paris 17:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Bug?

Shadowbot reverted this edit. I think the reason was that WP:AWB automatically removed an extra space following a "bad" link. I have re-reverted, but I think you should consider changing the algorithm so that Shadowbot does not revert edits which do not add links, only edit near them. --Zvika 06:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're currently transitioning to another linkfinding program which supplies Shadowbot with edits to revert, and the algorithm for parsing the diffs is a bit young at the moment. I'm working on fixing it up (Ditto for the message below this). Shadow1 (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another bug

[1]. MaxSem 13:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

dear bot

dear bot, you are not human. please stop interfering in things you are unable to understand. you lack judgement, have no brain, and operate according to rules that are overly simplistic. tell your programmers that you need some major programing surgery. you violated first law of robotics and deserve to be dismantled! thank you

Relax, it's nothing more than a computer program. You can't possibly tell me that you don't make mistakes yourself. Shadow1 (talk) 11:26, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Non-spam link reverted as spam

I attempted to post a valid link to Donald Hamilton to support the news that he died with a source. Your bot reverted the link as spam. Please examine your bots settings to rectify this error. In the meantime I have reverted the bot's work on this page. 23skidoo 20:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that link is a very reliable source. Please review the relevant guidelines. JoeSmack ^Talk 21:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently Shadowbot wasn't operating with the list of users to ignore, ie administrators. The problem should be fixed now, thanks for bringing this to my attention. Shadow1 (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. I read the reference before I created the link, which is more than what the robot does. The relevant site contains a large number of what appear to be quality articles that are not vandalised like wikipedia is. The link I added contained a matching rule \bnndb\.com, which is on the bots list of links to remove and was deemed not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. I was asked to read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 12:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC) PS: The owner of the bot was on study leave.Gregorydavid 05:44, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be fixed now, I removed the site from the bot's blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 11:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Regarding JoeSmack's comment I get the feeling he didn't check the site very carefully as it is clearly an official/Hamilton-sanctioned site. Not everything can come from CNN.com; it's 2007. 23skidoo 03:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot of sites on Shadowbot's blacklist that were originally placed there because they didn't meet RS or EL, something I'm not too pleased with. However, at the same time there's also about 1,900 rules on the blacklist, so it's a bit hard to clean it out. Shadow1 (talk) 13:24, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing artfacts.net link

The bot removed a link section because of a link to artfacts.net, which is a site that lists exhibitions by artists. The site also has news and interviews and I don't see why it's being removed, it's not a blog or anything. Here's the diff --AW 16:13, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reporting this. I've removed the site from the bot's blacklist, it shouldn't bother you again. Shadow1 (talk) 19:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, thanks for fixing it --AW 21:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reorganisation within ambling reverted

I made this edit to the article on ambling. I did not add any content, but rather reorganise the sections under "Types of Gaits" by alphabetical order, since that is more in the style of an encyclopedia than seemingly random order. If there is something wrong with a link in there then I suspect this link was already out of order before my edit. I suggest that the reversal be undone and the offending link be changed. Although I do not know what the offending link was. 194.144.27.252 01:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Regarding edits to Watch House Cruising Club

Please review your bot's edit here. Your bot hasn't managed to remove the offending link, and I didn't insert it. Am I missing something? Thanks Rjwilmsi 07:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

New Criterion blacklisted

New Criterion blacklisted. Please correct.[2]Ultramarine 18:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. Collateral damage. I have removed the rule that was causing the problem and reverted the edit. --Dirk Beetstra ^T C 18:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AEK Letchworth FC

Please revert back, if necessary without the offending spam link, the article for AEK Letchworth FC at: [[3]]. Bearian 16:58, 12 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Province of Cape Breton

It was a legitimate edit, the link was to the movement's Facebook page. --142.176.13.19 02:04, 13 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Regarding edits to Cube film series

Regarding edits to Cube film series I was sent the below message. I not see why http://cubexboard.proboards74.com cannot be added. --- Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Level 81! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule proboards\d{1,3}\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 04:37, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

---

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Level 81 (talk • contribs)

Hi Level 81! Well, if you read the external link guidelines under links normally to be avoided, you'll see discussion forums right in there. The *.proboards.com domain is always discussion forums, so shadowbot tends to revert those link contributions. Hope I've helped! Cheers! JoeSmack ^Talk 15:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why are all angelfire sites removed? some of them are really worth mentioning in the references section.

Generally because they do not meet the reliable sources or external links criteria. Shadow1 (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Bot is out of order

Hey Dude: the one with the Bot thats running around amok. Pull over and step outta the car. You reverted valid information and didn't leave a message on the talk page why. Thats wanton negligence, buddy. [4]Richiar 15:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That edit was reverted because it included a link to example.com. This was explained in ShadowBot's edit comment when it reverted. --Versageek 15:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

example.org

Hey! example.org should be encouraged per RFC 2606, not banned! How else am I supposed to put in a code example that is a real link but not a fake link? Shadowbot nuked perfectly good contributions to the XHTML Basic page at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:71.135.174.255&redirect=no . --BryceN 21:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Asher Links

Thanks for your messages. I'm not trying to post spam links to the Jane Asher wiki-project. I just edited the links section and I tryed to add 2 links (posted at discussion page too), but then I noticed they where wrong, and I wanted to change them, but I couldn't. Then I added them again, and worked, but then dissapeared from the wiki page. That's all, sorry for the inconvenients that caused you, it wasn't my intention, really. I apologize. But please, give a chance to both links, they are good!

Vio80.32.117.89 15:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit included both a link to piczo.com and groups.yahoo.com. Both these links do not comply with our guideline on external links (and may also violate the policy on what wikipedia is not). That is why they are on the revert list of shadowbot. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^T C 15:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Theatre Under The Stars (Houston)

I noticed you reverted this article for some reason. I've tagged this with a COI2 tag and reported a possible conflict of interest at the notice board here: Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard. Bearian 23:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Caller ID Spoofing Informational Link Is Considered Spam

I've tried adding a link to a comprehensive & authoritative site in the external links on the Caller ID Spoofing page, but for some reason it's being picked up as spam. There are lots of attempts by people to add their spoofing service's link to the page, however this is not a spoofing service site. The URL I've been trying to add is CallerIDSpoofing.info. Can you please take a look?— Calleridexpert (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Shadow bot wiping references,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pucci_Dellanno&diff=139727694&oldid=139727600 Wiping some references, a bit annoying, an editor put a {helpme} on his page because of it.Blacksmith2^talk 09:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC) again http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pucci_Dellanno&diff=139862650&oldid=139862638[reply]

The Temptations

Bot reverted this edit, due to a link to proboards.com, link in question was acceptable, may want to check the revert criteria for this domain. 4.229.249.190 02:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edit was reverted

Dear Shadowbot: Hi, how are you? Thanks for writing to me on my talk page, I appreciate it. This was your letter and I quote: ...Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Entre-Nos! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule \bnetwork54\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 23:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC).... And this is my answer: Wow, after I had formatted the whole story that took me about three hours, re-arranged the information in the Wiki-Format, it was useless. I'm going to take a vacation, really. I try to write things in good faith, I try to help, and I'm deleted. It's so disappointing. It's a shame that for an external link I didn't know about, my whole article is completely deleted. Is there a place where it's saved? Please answer, although I think, I'm wasting my time. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 00:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shadowbot. This was your last letter in my talk, and I quote: ...Please stop adding inappropriate links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming and will be removed. Thanks. Shadowbot 01:05, 24 June 2007 (UTC)...

Ok, don't worry Shadowbot, I already removed the innappropriate link myself. Thank you for mentioning it, as you did before. I rewrote it and Wiki formatted it again, I think there's no reason now to delete or revert now. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 01:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Please act in Good Faith

Dear Shadowbot: As I stated in my last letter, answering yours, I removed the link you told me that was a spam. I rewrote the article again with my resources, I did it on the [[[Wiki Format]]], in which the original isn't written. I corrected information, cleaned it up, added important information, and you deleted it again for no reason. If you tell me what other links are spam, if they really are, I would be glad to eliminate them, it hasn't ever been my purpose to do that, but you've been eliminating an article that was being improved, and furthermore, in the Wiki format. The first time you told me, I understood, but this time, I don't. I'm going to wite it again and post the article without the spam link you mentioned, and that I deleted in the second version. Now, I'm about to do the third one, just to show you I'm acting in good faith, and that my intention is to improve articles, and add the Wiki-format for them. Best regards:--Entre-Nos 01:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• User:Entre-Nos is new to Wikipedia and I have taken the liberty to explain to him/her how the "Bot" system works. Tony the Marine 07:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]