en User talk:AntiSpamBot May2007

Regarding edits to Filioque clause

Your bot deleted my edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Filioque_clause&diff=124282620&oldid=124149940 because I included a link to http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.filioque.html I then replaced it with http://web.archive.org/web/20051031131511/www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.filioque.html , but I expect that you will fix your bot so that it does not mark sites from http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.html as spam. http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.html is the definitive link list on Lutheran Theology on the web, in a number of languages. It also contains many serious and well-written articles on many subjects.--Epiphyllumlover 05:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Definitive"? According to whom? Seems like another personal website to me. You might want to check out Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines for more information. Shadow1 (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard others refer to it in this way. It is respected by Lutherans in a number of Lutheran denominations. Basically, few Lutheran sites have as many scholarly articles, links to online books, resources in various languages etc. as this site. Does it count as a personal site if the person who runs it is a scholar? The site is run by a pastor for many people in various Lutheran synods and of opposing viewpoints in some matters, but the link I linked to is an online publishing of a scholarly article from the Journal Logia, which is highly respected in Lutheran circles. The article I linked to has 50 footnotes, if you doubt its seriousness. Thanks for providing the link. I checked it out, and it states, "Wikipedia welcomes material written by scientists, scholars, and researchers, particularly material published by peer-reviewed journals." Since you own the bot, I request that you undo the revert. Both of the articles I linked to are scholarly articles complete with footnotes & all the rest.--Epiphyllumlover 05:17, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've whitelisted the link on Shadowbot and reverted the removal. In the future, you can refer to undo to revert the bot yourself. Shadow1 (talk) 13:52, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for whitelisting it for me! Thanks for running Shadowbot, too. It is good work you are doing by stopping vandals quicker and easer than ever before.--Epiphyllumlover 18:22, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've run into trouble with Shadowbot again, with the same site, but this time on a different article. The edit is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franz_August_Otto_Pieper&diff=125439026&oldid=125437755 . I already reverted it, but if you could whitelist http://www.angelfire.com/ny4/djw/lutherantheology.pieperwitness.html , I'd appreciate it. If you did not whitelist it, is it true the bot would come back and remove the links if someone else made a non-minor change in the page? The page I linked to is an English translation of a section of Christian Dogmatics by Franz Pieper, Volume I. This work is an American Lutheran classic written by the subject of the article.--Epiphyllumlover 07:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid Alexa.org Link Removals

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=FileFront&diff=124931709&oldid=124931685

Shadowbot removed a link to Alexa.org showing the traffic rankings of the site, which isn't spam. RevenDS 15:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Infoshop.org&diff=126227282&oldid=126227253 Shawobot removed a reference to Alexa.org as spam. It is not spam. I reverted the change, but i'm sure your bot is doing this all over the place, i've seen a few complaints. This needs to be fixed! Ethyr 20:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bot errors on Ilyushin Il-86

Your bot has several times reverted the addition of footnote refs as spam. The links being added are not spam, they are legitimate database references. this diff is an example. Please stop! Akradecki 03:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Leo Humphries

It seems your bot removed a maintainance tag. Would there be any way around this behaviour? I'm guessing it was just trying to delete a newgrounds link (which was actually fairly relevant to the article). It also seems to revert a large number of edits just to remove the one link, when only one reversion would be nessecary... is this the expected behaviour? Seems a little bit like overkill...

The page in question is tagged for speedy deletion, so it may be gone by the time you read this message

--Darksun 07:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the bot's default behavior is to revert all edits made to the page by the user it reverts, essentially a non-admin rollback. It's fairly useful in cleaning up after disruptive spammers. I'll try to add some functionality to Shadowbot version 2 to make sure it doesn't do this sort of thing in the future. Shadow1 (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits to Wind power

I'm trying to add this inline citation,^[1] but Shadowbot has reverted me twice now. Is there really a problem or is it being a bit over-zealous? -- Johnfos 05:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Johnfos! 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 \bibtimes\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 11:17, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Bettie Page (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 05:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now that's funny. Battle of the bots. Aboutmovies 07:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding edits to Handley Page Marathon

Copyedit form my talk page: "Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Bzuk! 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 \bmembers\.aol\.com\/.+, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was intended to promote a site you own, are affiliated with, or will make money from inclusion in Wikipedia, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 13:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)" I have no idea what you are talking about as the site that was added in the external links was a private site even though it originated on aol.com. Is it just because it is a ".com" site that your "bot" reacts to? Please write back. Bzuk 14;09, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

Regarding edits to the Gospel of Luke

In this diff, Shadowbot reverted an edit because of this link to members.aol.com. I trust a human arbiter would judge the link useful and appropriate, though the page author has an unfortunate choice of ISP. The content is an HTML version of a scholarly paper, and is unique on the web. (Do you have a whitelist somewhere?) Whosasking 17:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Edits to 7th Armored Division (United States)

The bot reverted 2 links to the official division websites (one happens to be an AOL page). As these are proably the most relevant links for the page, they should be added back in. Have you considered only reverting new users like VoABot does? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The concept is already implemented for some rules, and I have been giving the thought of using it globally serious thought. Shadow1 (talk) 16:48, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot seems to reject the AOL link for the official page. Can you fix this somehow? One of the pages was got through. [1] -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 22:42, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bot has continued to revert valid links on this page. Please stop it from doing so. i am going to push your stop button until this is fixed. DES ^(talk) 07:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. Thiu is really too much. DES ^(talk) 07:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mein Kampf links

I didn't really change the link so much as I redirected it. You see it previously just went to the first page of the Angelfire edition but I changed it to the contents page of the website. Why is one page acceptible and the other page on the same website not?--Dudeman5685 19:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply (T.I. spam)

I just updated his page (acting section) and the link I just added was a source. Georgia Peachez 06:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked this bot for 24 hours so that the repeated reversion of valid links on 7th Armored Division (United States) can be fixed. DES ^(talk) 07:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I didn't realize that the bot was still reverting the links, as I explicitly told it to whitelist the site. I'm going to find out why the bot ignored the whitelist. Shadow1 (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, it turns out that the bot would evaluate whether the rule is on the blacklist BEFORE the whitelist, which caused the bot to revert even though I told it not to. I've fixed the problem and unblocked the bot. If it bothers the article again, let me know. Shadow1 (talk) 20:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A. B.

Do not allow a. b. to add to the spam blacklist the blacklist is a bad idea because it is public and libelous. He goes to far he is worse than a porn spammer in the first instance. Eagle is bad enough he just does what he is told. Without thinking —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.237.197 (talk) 04:57, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would recommend choosing your words carefully. A. B. does not have access to the Shadowbot blacklist, but if he were on IRC, I would probably give it to him. As for Eagle, he's more than capable of adding sound and well thought-out links to the blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PokeDefender

I am the administrator of a Pokemon site called Pokemon Defender. We have some analyses for battle that I am trying to make available by posting links here on Wikipedia. However, every time I try to post a link to my analyses the bot reverts it. We are forums based, so I am linking to posts that have the analyses in them. My forums are hosted by a free service and therefore have a domain name that consists of http:://<my user name>.proboards<server number>.com/index.cgi. Help please. The base site is at http://elite4protector.proboards51.com/index.cgi . Is there a way of whitelisting my entire forums so that I can link to my analyses as I get more?

Please refer to Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines, as it isn't a good idea for you to insert links to your own website into Wikipedia articles. Proboards is reverted by Shadowbot because it hosts forum sites where users can post anything they like without any sort of authority on the subject. Shadow1 (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Talk

It was an accident, I was trying to cite the source but had trouble finding real sources. Let it be known that I had no idea about the facebook policy and it won't happen again. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.134.168.151 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2007 (UTC). [reply]

Shadowbot Edit to Pickering Town F.C.

Shawdowbot reverted all recent edits to the article Pickering Town F.C., when the edits in question were all legitimate and much improving edits to the article. I will revert back to the improved version with the recent edits, however I thought I'd point this out, as I couldn't see a reason for the bot revert, it may be a bug that needs looking at. Thanks Eastlygod 18:00, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking more closely, I've seem that the most recent edits included adding a link to a proboards club forum, which reading above, is against Wikipedia T&C's. I have reverted back to the improved article, removing the forum link, so hopefully problem solved. However, I did notice that the bot reverted all edits by the user in question, and not just the edit where the forum link was added (which was the most recent edit). This may still need to be looked at. Any feedback would be appreciated.

Thanks, Eastlygod 18:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shadowbot reverts all edits made to a page by a user as a method of cleaning up the article. Sometimes spammers like to insert links to a page across multiple edits, so that when the bot comes around it only reverts the last edit, keeping their links in place. Shadowbot reverts all edits to ensure that the user hasn't done this. This does occasionally cause collateral damage if the bot was in error, but most of the time you can simply undo the bot and no harm will be done. Shadow1 (talk) 18:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OMG!!!!! i am so sorry, I had no Idea!!!!!! :(

aerotransport.org

Please whitelist this site. It is a useful, non-spam resource for factual information for WP:AIR articles. Shadowbot has repeatedly removed inline refs that refer to this site...despite the fact that WP:EL specifically states that links uses as cites shouldn't be removed. I've asked you about this once before and you completely ignored my request. Please respond. Akradecki 15:17, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Shadow1 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Akradecki 05:28, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Market fundamentalism

Market fundamentalism: Thanks for you message. I have re-checked all the links, they are all good links to online readable articles relevant to the article; there is no spam on them. I undid the reversion. 200.153.161.91 21:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antirecords

I just reverted your edit on Anti-record: you eliminated a link to an article on the subject as though it were spam, which it isn't. The site linked to is hosted by a popular free webspace provider; your bot erroneously considers all their sites spammers, which is absurd and should be corrected. Grilledegg 21:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The site's status as a free webhost is precisely the reason I blacklisted it in the first place. Anyone can open a Freewebs account; my younger brother has a Freewebs site that claims he's the President of Spain, yet it doesn't even come close to fufilling Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. The same applies for most other Freewebs sites, they usually have no assertion of authority. Shadow1 (talk) 23:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nanjing Massacre

For keep Neautralness please do not deleate the Tongshu affair without discussion 'cause I paste News source. If you want to deleate pls prove that there was no such affair. It's sin to hide Truth right?

--202.239.229.7 03:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi pls make clear the reason why you deleate the Tongshu affair Wikipedia should not be a one side propaganda tool,right!?

Hi pls make clear Tongshu article offending which one? Dont you think Vandalism against wikipedia
1Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for personal promotion or the promotion of products, services, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes.
2Contribute cited text, not bare links. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a link farm.
3The References section is for references.
4Don't make a new article for your own product or Web site.
5Adding a link to the top of an unordered list.
6Adding a link that's snazzier than any of the others.
7Adding the same link to many articles.
8If your product is truly relevant to an article, others will agree -- try the talk page.

You are adding a link to example.com (it is a part of the link you insert), and shadowbot reverts that. Are you sure your links are correct (please check before you save). Cheers, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tongshu is a famous affair and quite many deffernt source indicate the affair if you need more link,I can show you more. And wikipedia should not be a one side propaganda tool. We shold not hide "incovenient truth".

ADD ON-MORE so do you still insist "its spam!?" ofcourse there is no Tongshu Massacre at Chinese Textbook

Hi I'm sure the existence of this affair& Sorry because these materials /extarnal Links are written by Japanese & translated by google translation system.

Janet Gordon-Lennox, Countess of March and Kinrara

On 29 April 2007, you (or your bot) reverted my edits on the grounds that I had included links to two Angelfire sites. I wrote on your talk page that same day that those sites are by two genealogists Paul Theroff and Hein Bruins (please do a Google search on them if you do not believe me), and they reference information on the Countess's family. In my edit, I added more children born to the Countess, and information about her charitable work.

I have received no response to my query on 29 April 2007, nor has the edit been reverted. When I checked the spam blacklist[2], I found that only one site on angelfire.com has been blacklisted (namely \.angelfire\.com\/poetry\/seidel).

If I remove the angelfire links, because your bot does not like this, I will be queried on the source of my information although I have provided it for those wishing to see the actual information online for themselves. Wikipedia's external links are presumably for that purpose, and for those seeking further information. I believe that my decision to include those links -- for verification and further study - serves those purposes.

Please respond here or on my own talk page.

Sincerely wikibiohistory 04:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The trouble is Angelfire, sources on that domain are hardly ever reliable (see WP:RS). Are you sure the information is not available from a better site? Also, when you re-revert shadowbot, the bot should leave you alone (although people who monitor shadowbot will get a warning of the performed edit and probably check the validity). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edit to Tex Benedict (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 21:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

question

how does bot know what suicide is? Wikifried 10:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you mean, are you referring to these edits: diff and diff? These are not performed by Shadowbot, shadowbot only added this, a warning that you added a link to example.com. Hope this helps, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused. Why is wikifried vandalizing himself? ST47Talk 12:15, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SPARQL query example

i am trying to add the example from the german SPARQL page (of course translated) ... can somebody help me with the bot (he removes it !? ;) thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.149.59.85 (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

sorry... forgot the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SPARQL&diff=130843343&oldid=130841608

please help

the bot just reverted my addition to this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janet_Biehl. I tried to add an external link to an interview with her (http://www.negations.net/?p=51), but it removed it. The link was definitely relevant. Can you please fix the problem? Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwwm (talk • contribs)

The link was spammed to wikipedia (see Special:Contributions/208.120.140.221). Please understand that wikipedia is not a linkfarm, and that it is better to contribute contents, where the link can be used as a reference (see intro of WP:EL). Thanks, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make sense: the link is to an interview with this woman (in which she presents and explains her views). That is not spam. The link should not be eliminated. Can you allow the link or tell me who can allow the link? Who should I speak to about this? The link is not spam.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwwm (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia defines massive addition of links as spam, even if they might have been appropriate. Have you considered discussing the subject on the talkpage, to see whether the link is deemed appropriate by more people? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

pro tools

The bot seems to remove the link to the Pro Tools Users group website. I understand that wikipedia is not a link farm or directory of links - however this isn't spam, it's a useful non-commercial resource for users of Pro Tools software. I strongly feel that it is a resource that should be mentioned and linked to in the context of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisbolitho (talk • contribs)

Spam can be commercial or non-commercial - it doesn't make a difference. I understand that you feel strongly about its addition, but external link guidelines clearly suggest avoiding user groups as ELs. If the desire to include it still burns within yas, you might try the talk page of the article and ask for consensus there, or if you wish the guideline's talk page is also a good place to ask about links. Cheers. JoeSmack ^Talk 05:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Chrisbolitho. You are very persistent. This is like the 3rd violation of the final warning. For reference see:

Please stop adding that protoolsusers.org external link. (Requestion 19:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Perhaps this should be wrapped up...

Having fixed a seemingly random Bot deletion from Socialist Party USA, I came here to see lots of complaints about your bot removing content that later has to be reverted.

Perhaps these decisions should not be left to a bot, but done in person? I'm sure this was well intentioned, but the outcome seems to simply create work for others.

Perhaps Shadowbot needs to hang up his, well, whatever it is he has?

Just a though. T L Miles 13:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having this talk page on my watchlist since it began running, i've noticed a majority of 'complaints' are simply people who don't necessarily know what they are doing is against policy, guideline or generally conforming to wikimarkup. Nothing to blame shadowbot over; i think it does a whole lot of good and its owner is willing to talk things out with them on the talk page to boot. JoeSmack ^Talk 13:42, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. User_talk:AntiVandalBot is about as active when AVB is running all day, similar sentiments. JoeSmack ^Talk 13:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This blot has definitely deleted legitimate external links in my case. My links were not spam.

How can i "revert" the blot?

Thanks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwwm (talk • contribs)

You might want to review WP:SPAM, it says there, that mass addition of links is considered spam, even if the link may be appropriate, and that all these additions may be reverted. More about that subject is found in WP:EL and WP:NOT (WP:RS?). We are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. If you want to contribute to the wikipedia, add contents and consider using the information you want to add as a reference (see also the introduction of WP:EL, an often overseen part of that document). It may be a coincidence, but you were adding the link seconds after a anonymous editor added the links to a massive number of articles (see Special:Contributions/208.120.140.221), which is spamming (wikipedia definition), and which is exactly why shadowbot reverts such editors.

Also remember, it are still humans that decide that the help of the bots is needed to stop these link-additions. Hope this explains, have a nice day. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That policy does not make sense. Yes, I added many links, but they were all relevant and useful. People should be encouraged to do that, not penalized. And, yes, i first added the links anonymously and then did so as a member because I erroneously thought that joining might help.

How can I change this? Your bot has deleted many relevant and useful links.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.140.221 (talk • contribs)

The policies and guidelines are agreed upon by many users. But you can always discuss thing on the relevant talkpages. Hope this helps, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Undead

Hi, any reason why my changes to Hollywood Undead were reverted back? I was attempting to add additional information in lieu of the entry having been designated for "Deletion Review"

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

--UCLA2002 20:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

National Republican PArty

The links that I tried to add were to Google books edition of copies of their proceeding which were published in 1832. I beleive they are within the limits of normal linking.--Dudeman5685 00:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: picture insertion in Auckland City article

hello Shadowbot,

In regards to what i did to the article entitled "Auckland City" when i scrolled down i noticed a picture stretched along the horizontal length of the page which was covering up a part of a table or box on the right so i removed it to clean the page up and when i did that and hit preview i saw another image which did the same thing so i removed both and added a picture called Sky_tower.jpg when i got your message. It is a picture i took myself on my phone's camera and i have described it as such in the summary. Can it stay on the page or does it have to be removed because i uploaded the file from my computer and embedded it directly. Sorry im sorta new to all this.

PS: the picture entitled 360-auckland.jpg is the one that is covering the box to the right, article link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auckland_City

Cheers,

Gary

Rgp2130 12:48, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ European wind companies grow in U.S.

[1] European wind companies grow in U.S.

[1]

User talk:AntiSpamBot/May2007