User talk:XLinkBot

Administrators: if this bot is malfunctioning, try changing its settings. It can also be shut off there in a server-friendly way.

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.

FAQs: Why is my external link addition reverted? Why did the bot revert all my edits, and not only the one where I added an external link?

Error on Jonathan Richman?

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)

@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)

Malfunction

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)

@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)

To clear things up

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)

@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)

A kitten for you!

oop

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

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

Removals at List of world records in athletics

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)

@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)

@Dirk Beetsra 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)