Loading AI tools
| This is the talkpage of XLinkBot (formerly SquelchBot), a bot designed to revert spamming, or other edits that introduce external links which do not comply with our external links guideline, or with the policy 'What wikipedia is not' (not a repository of links section).
Please leave new comments here by clicking this link If your additions were reverted by XLinkBot, please take time to review our external links & spam guidelines, and take note that Wikipedia is not a repository of links, a directory, nor a place to promote your own work. If you feel your addition was within those policies and guidelines and are Reliable and Verifiable, and do not violate Copyright, you may undo the changes made by XLinkBot. Questions are welcome, however this talk page is for civil discussion and is not a complaints department. |
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
FAQs:
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 21 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
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)
 | This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= 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)
Done, indeed, I managed to get the bot back to work. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Then I know enough. This was not XLinkBot. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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 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)
Re: . 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)
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)
Wikiwand in your browser!
Seamless Wikipedia browsing. On steroids.
Every time you click a link to Wikipedia, Wiktionary or Wikiquote in your browser's search results, it will show the modern Wikiwand interface.
Wikiwand extension is a five stars, simple, with minimum permission required to keep your browsing private, safe and transparent.
