User talk:Shadow1/Feb2007
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Ones bot doth have a most trivial and minor issue, good sir
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shawn_Vulliez&diff=102613771&oldid=100272404 i removed spam and your bot adds the spam back please just shut if off, it sucks, you also suck, go and get aids, i am not funny —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.113.226.46 (talk) 06:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC).
- Hmm, this 213 dude is somewhat peeved at the bot for some reason. I think I already told him to be a bit politer in future someplace. And 213, I agree that you're not funny ;-) <innocent look>
- Despite the rudeness of 213, and in the case of this particular article,... Well, newgrounds does in fact seem -at first blush- to be the correct source, however strange it may seem.
- Of course the article is about an author of several internet memes. Perhaps the memes themselves are non-notable, in which case it may all need to go to Articles For Deletion, but I'll leave that to others to decide. --Kim Bruning 16:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC) But hey, it's the author of the ultimate showdown!
-
- Shadow, your bot, for whatever its faults, has a better track record for good judgment than many of us humans -- thanks for all the work you put into it. I felt bad about the tenor of the remarks 213.113.226.46 left above and I left a note on his talk page. --A. B. (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- And what A. B. said. :-) --Kim Bruning 22:43, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Even so, in this case, newgrounds does appear to be the correct source, or at any rate, the bot is in fact preventing me from removing obvious spam in this case. Is there anything possible to remedy that? --Kim Bruning 01:51, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shadowbot Request
FYI, I just requested that shawdowbot blacklist a link. Thanks! alphachimp 18:16, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] "Shadowbot reverted me! Fix it!"
More specifically, it deleted a link I added here [1] on the contreversial topic of the enrollment at the University of Colorado (Boulder campus) in 2005. [2] Steve8675309 14:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
I used a link to a different cite with similar info. By the way, most people define "spam" as unsolicited emails or advertisements. Why does your bot call a link to a cached page "spam"? Steve8675309 14:39, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bot
Now I realized he was a bot. What wrong in google chache?.. anyway I've just reverted. Thank you.--Giovanni Giove 14:56, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Red Caboose Links
I am trying my hardest to do a good job here and post some links for CB the Red Caboose from Starlight Express but I can't do that becase this bot keeps on removing them and doesn't tell me which one is the spam! Could someone help me out here? This is driving me insane! The Quidam 19:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- The easiest way to find out what links are bad is to add them one by one. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 19:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well I now find out it's because it's from Angelfire. Guess I can't add any links then. The Quidam 19:51, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] i5 revert article
i5 (girl group) is the article again. The Angelfire site IS the official site since they have long disbanded (6 years now.) I'll remove it but thats quite a glitch...--Thegingerone 20:01, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shadowbot reverted a valid citation.
In this edit to NASCRAG Shadowbot erroneously reverted my change (a reversion in and of itself). The link to Flickr is to an image that acts as a citation for the NASCRAG article. Whatever blacklist Shadowbot is using is apparently too aggressive. Furthermore, Shadowbot wrote me a note about it. I appreciate the heads up, but I found the statement, "note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia" to be offensive. A robot doing regex matches shouldn't be making what looks like an official statement as to a link's validity. There is a real chance of that statement scaring off a newbie from contributing an actually valid link. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- After some talk on User talk:Eagle 101, I'm guessing that Shadowbot's block is flickr-wide. Upon consideration that the overwhelming number of flickr links are probably bad links, I withdraw my claim that Shadowbot's filter is overly aggressive. My apologies. The reversion in question was still wrong, but I'm willing to accept a small level of false-positive given the situation. I do believe the message it logs to users should be tweaked to be more cautious in its claims. However unlikely, the occasional flickr link is valid. Such a certain sounding statement that a link "should not be included" is discouraging. As an editor for several years I found it frustrating for a bot to be so certain; it seems likely to scare off new editors. — Alan De Smet | Talk 06:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for letting me know about your concerns. I'm planning on revising its warnings soon, and I'll take your comment into consideration. Shadow1 (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reversions on Lovecraft articles
Because of the large numbers of reversions here, I'll point you to my watchlist--check out the bot edits between 15:43 and 15:45. These seem to all be reverting edits which took out links to Dagonbytes, a defunct website, and moved them to another site with a valid link. Needless to say, this is not particularly helpful. (I didn't make any of the reverted edits--but I did appreciate them.) Nareek 15:58, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just a note, Special:Watchlist is different for each user. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- It's a mixed bag, really--on some of the articles, such as Dagon, you've removed a link that really isn't necessary, and that's a good thing. On others, like The Dunwich Horror, the edit that you reverted replaced an invalid link. From my point of view, even a redundant link is better than a broken one. Nareek 16:10, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- Just so you know, only YOU can see your watchlist, it's private... ST47Talk 19:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
As the person who originally updated the Lovecraft articeles in question (as mentioned above), I must say I was very surprised to find the new links automatically removed and labeled as SPAM. As the Dagonbytes site went offline quite some time ago, I thought that new external links to working pages would have been helpful and can certainly say that no attempt at spamming was being made. Just a genuine attempt to provide readable copies of the old links. The stories linked to are public domain as well - unlike, for example, the "Rats In The Walls" text in WikiSource, which is one of the half-dozen or so Lovecraft stories still held under copytight. Matneee 18:58, 28 January 2007 (GMT)
- This account only has 3 edits, all to this page. Just take a note of that Shadow. —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 19:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Barnstar!
 |
The da Vinci Barnstar | |
| Congrats on building such a good bot in User:Shadowbot. Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 19:15, 28 January 2007 (UTC) |
This edit was made only 4 minutes after the below:
- [141149] <Shadow42> I've given up on the idea that I'll eventually get a positive new message
- You already got one from A. B. (talk) on 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC). See User talk:Shadow1/Archive 2#The da Vinci Barnstar for details. If you didn't already have one, I would have given you one shortly after I became aware of your fine work on 8 January 2007. -- Jeff G. 02:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- Well he needs a second one for his fine work! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 02:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- You already got one from A. B. (talk) on 13:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC). See User talk:Shadow1/Archive 2#The da Vinci Barnstar for details. If you didn't already have one, I would have given you one shortly after I became aware of your fine work on 8 January 2007. -- Jeff G. 02:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Auto Revert Request
Hi, I'd like to be allowed to use your Auto-Revert tool. I'm approved for VandalProof, and I've received the Anti-Vandal Barnstar, so I can be trusted. A good number of the tools I use, including VandalProof, keep messing up, so I'd like to try yours out. Cheers, -- The Hybrid 21:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I'm not spamming
- Shadowbot is accusing me of spamming Wikipedia, and I don't appreciate it. What I am doing is preserving useful external links that in my, admittedly human, judgment are perfectly suited under the guideline at Wikipedia:External links. I advise you to instruct Shadowbot to be more receptive to the judgment of Wikipedia's actual editors and to avoid making personal attacks. (re: [3]) --Dystopos 00:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] You don't seem to trust your own bot - or are you
Can't understand all the reversing and re-reversing going on at Arvella_Gray Please explain StefanWirz 18:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
- he reverted ONCE because the bot didn't revert far enough. Please read WP:EL and WP:SPAM and have a nice day :D ST47Talk 19:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shadowbot screwups
When I try to add Sangokushi Internet link, it falsely perform automatic reversion. Unfortunately, I can't add the same information without tripping shadowbot. Apparantly shadowbot is tripped even when linked material is not an image. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jacob Poon (talk • contribs) 02:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Shadowbot issued an erroneous warning. Two suggestions.
Shadowbot issued me this "stop spamming" warning. I have two suggestions: 1. Shadowbot should add a new section when it issues a warning; otherwise it might accidentally be construed as part of any conversations above. 2. Shadowbot apears to have issued the warning to me incorrectly. My best guess is that I got smacked for this edit. Shadowbot reverted it for "(flickr\.com)". If you look at the edit, I did not add any such link. The link already existed; I added some more detail. Warning people who simply touch a line that happens to contain a link to a site on Shadowbot's blacklist seems like a serious error. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Suggestion for Shadowbot: reason for a given site's blacklist.
Another suggestion for Shadowbot: Add another field to blacklist, say "reason." It could say helpful things like "This site is a shock site." "This site was being frequently spammed when the entry was added," "Google's cache is unreliable, making links into it unsuitable for long term reference," "Images from Imageshack cannot be realistically validated. They could have been uploaded by anyone. Images that are relevant to the article can probably be uploaded under fair use. Images used as a reference should be replaced with images from a more reliable source.". Then the resulting blacklist could have a section for each regex. (A "date added" might be a nice touch as well). This would make it a lot more clear why Shadowbot is doing what it's doing. I'm willing to take you at your word that "tomvenuto.com" (to pick one at random) should be blacklisted, but I'd prefer more transparency. Finally, when making an edit Shadowbot could link directly to that subsection, which would be more informative than a simple "flickr\.com". This would make it more clear to people why their edits are being reverted; not everyone speaks fluent regex. — Alan De Smet | Talk 05:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Qualify statements encouraging uploading of images
It may be a good idea to qualify statements encouraging new users to upload images. In at least one case, this message led to the user avoiding linking to an offsite copyrighted image, and instead uploading the copyrighted image. It would be helpful to add just a quick blurb such as "If the link was to an image and the the image is available under an acceptable license, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article." I realize Special:Upload mentions this already, but given that when the bot inserts the above text, it's pretty clear that the user is new, it may be better to not give an unqualified "upload the image please". --Interiot 07:18, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for January 29th, 2007.
 |
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 5 | 29 January 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 18:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reverted a relevant external link
You (or one of your 'bots?) reverted my recent addition of an external link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blendo as being inapropriate. The link was for the Combat Robot Hall of Fame -- a list of honor into which noteworthy combat robots may be installed by an open vote of the combat robot community. It is not a commercial site -- it does not host any advertising -- it is not a 'fan list'. I believe that it is appropriate for honors of this nature to be included in 'biographical' entries. Might you please reconsider? 167.131.0.152 23:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
[edit] New links
Have a look at the following links (here). They should be added to the bot. See the meta blacklist proposal, that probably won't get added due to the fact that it was not spammed by multiple IP ranges. (here). Cheers! —— Eagle 101 (Need help?) 17:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ShadowBot may be malfunctioning
See here. I have blocked it for now. Cheers TigerShark 15:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
- No probs. Thanks for the note. Cheers TigerShark 17:54, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ok, I'll remove the link
Thanks for clearing that up for me,(before I get into deeper trouble with Wikipedia), Shadow1. If not already removed, I will immediately remove the link without hesitation. Thanks again. Like I said, this was only to help Wikipedia, but since it's not in accordance with all of it's policies, I will remove it to keep things from getting worse. --Wikipedier 20:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Wikipedier
uhhm your program took out the link to my page on the Esplande Mansion page. the link to my website is http://www.angelfire.com/droid/adhish/esplandemansion.htm Adhishb 02:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
-- Heligoland 01:06, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Naïve art
Hi
The bot ate my link to a relevant outside website that is in no way shape or form spam. Would you be so kind as to restore the edit. Thanks.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Na%C3%AFve_art&diff=103889798&oldid=103888583 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yelloone (talk • contribs) 19:06, 28 January 2007
- So you linked to "James F. Justin Museum of Art Online collection including the work of several self taught artists", a badly-linked part of the JAMES F. JUSTIN MUSEUM. These web pages describe real places that someone can visit, just like all the other web pages linked in Naïve art#Museums.2FGalleries describe, right? Exactly where? -- Jeff G. 22:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
- So now you claim to be "JJ" and that the JAMES F. JUSTIN MUSEUM is "my Museum collection" in User_talk:Merope#Links_related_to_the_JAMES_F._JUSTIN_MUSEUM. Is it fair to assume that James F. Justin was ..., related to you? ... If so, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:No original research. Also, I think Shadowbot might have something against links to members.aol.com. — Jeff G. 02:56, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
So let me get this straight - if Cornelius Ryan's daughter were to come in here and link up his collection of WWII oral histories that she placed with a university that would not be appropriate (assuming its online in their collection listings I do not know, just discussed it with her once upon a time)? Do you have any idea how idiotic that is? The only difference is that my collection is larger than his. That the site is named after a relative isnt really relevant is it? I imagine the Cornelius collection has his name on it too. Yet its still history. I mean seriously, get the Rules Lawyer Geek Glasses off and pay attention to the point of the site here. There is a difference between someone writing something directly to Wiki and someone linking in years of research on years old websites that have hundreds of thousands of hits and widespread notability in and of themselves. Heck the website has enough press out there that I could do an article on just on IT and it would meet the terms of the site. So lighten up. (speaking of the history part of the site here, the art links are not directly related). And in any case, the information on these sites IS verifiable - the source of every story is cited - being the man telling the story (or in the cases of documents/photos the person supplying the historical document or the agency from which it was obtained). Thats the nature of Oral History, after all. If you do not like that, then delete every link on the site because that is all that any of them are. As for the art site, its a link to a collection of art work of the type the article is about. Artwork isnt verified, it just IS. And while not every page linked from that link collection is notable, some definitely are.
As for it not liking members.aol.com if it does that needs to be changed. Im not sure if you have heard of aol, but its kinda popular and has alot of material on its users pages.
And let me add, I found today that my site is used as a source by some other editor for Admiral Pride's biography. I also found it used today by the University of Massachussetts and the University of Berkeley and also cited in an article in the Infantry Bugler Magazine. Thats in addition to it being cited by the National Archives, New York Times, National Park Service and a variety of other colleges etc that I have noticed before. Now give me a break and get me off the spam list. Its ridiculous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yelloone (talk • contribs) 00:08, 2 February 2007
- Yelloone, YOU are not on the spam list, members.aol.com is. I'm sure Shadowbot wouldn't have a problem with jamesfjustinmuseum.com, jamesfjustin.com, or jamesfjustin.museum, none of which exist at present. And PLEASE indent properly and sign your comments. — Jeff G. 00:19, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- Not to nag, but please keep discussion of this issue to my talk page. Do not branch it off into an email thread, it breaks the transparency of talk page discussions. Shadow1 (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Charles F. Haanel
I think we collided in our edits on this article just now. I made it less spammy after I noticed the added external link. Vees 15:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Links
Hey, i just posted an image and (the bot) is blocking me. It is getting annoying, its not like I'm trying to spam or anything. I am trying to post good links, but your BOT deletes them. I am NOT a spammer, fyi, just trying to add a picture, because the place didn't have a picture. Thanks!--F=IV3 03:40, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Your bot blocked eestibythebay.com because it matched ebay.com! You need to match word boundaries (\b in Perl). Good luck. 213.35.235.224 15:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Problem with revert
I added a source using the link: http://www.oursportscentral.com/services/releases/?id=3423259 Your bot reverted me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=American_Basketball_Association_%282000-%29&diff=105903891&oldid=105903849 OurSportsCentral.com is by no means spam. It is a reliable source to several articles, and I think the Wikipolicy on that site needs to be revisited. I will restore that link until it sticks because it is reliable and relevant. Tom Danson 22:35, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
I understand. All of my JavaScript anti-vandal tools are constantly messing up, greatly hindering my ability to fight vandals. Sometimes it reads a level 1 warning as a blatant vandal, read no warnings when they have received 5 final ones, freezes my computer when I hit rollback, won't show me the Popup, won't revert, ect. When I noticed that yours wasn't a JavaScript tool I had to check it out. As soon as yours is finished I'll be back ;). Cheers, -- The Hybrid 22:56, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 5th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 6 | 5 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shadowbot revert problem
I posted this link http://members.tripod.com/selousscouts/rhodesian_armoured_corps_.htm in this article and he reverted it. This link is defenetly not spam and adds useful information. Yosy 13:25, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Regarding your bot's removal of the oursportscentral.com link.
I put this link in the Texas Tycoons page, because it was a relevant link to a relevant news story. However, your bot deleted that link. I told you before OurSportsCentral is NOT spam. It is a useful source of finding relevant news. Could you please try to get it removed from the "spam links" list as soon as you can? Thank you, Tom Danson 08:00, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Just a 'thank you' for your help desk answer (Deleting an image). Thanks again! Snowonster 01:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bot
I've blocked your bot. See here forv the reason Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 07:02, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
- I've done an unblock of the bot, should be fixed as of now. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Contributions to Bagel
Check my recent edits to Bagel. I understand that you want to stop spammers who link to petitiononline\.com, however, if you will check my edit you will find that it conforms to the general wikipedia guidelines of external links. I link to the petition to merely cite an example of the viewpoint I mention in the paragraph I created. I would like to see this link added back in...I'm not quite sure how you will do this but if it means removing that site from your block list, I think you should do it--we should err on the side of caution, not shutting out legitimate information. Cazort 19:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Adminship
Wow, I didn't know you were running for adminship. I wish you good luck in your RfA!--Wikipedier 00:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
The results of your RfA should be closed tommorrow. With an 80%, you're in a good standing for adminship!--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 19:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
For blocking the IP VandalAlanD 00:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Congratulations
It's my pleasure to let you know that you are now an admin. Use the new tools as wisely as you can to keep the project improving. Spend some time on the administrators reading list and review the policies often. Have fun with the new tools, and don't hesitate to ask questions. Again, congrats - Taxman Talk 21:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations! I'm sure you'll use the tools well.--Wikipedier (talk • contribs) 21:31, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Congratulations on your promotion! ST47Talk 23:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
- Nice one, all the best! The Rambling Man 10:55, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- Congrats on the adminship!;)--Hu12 10:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 12th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 7 | 12 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:34, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hello concerning my usurpation request for the user Shadow, will it be denied because of a similarity to your name? Just asking, since you put a note there. Thanks 220.255.20.214 07:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
- There's a chance, yes. If I had to guess, I would say yes, because of my administrator status and the bot; it would probably cause too much confusion. Shadow1 (talk) 19:48, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Page Protection
Thansk for Keeping Eye on my page.Nice of you
Khalidkhoso 21:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Abusive sockpuppets
Thanks for blocking User:Rolandshat. However, you missed User:Rolandshit and User:Phoreplay! These are but the latest of a long series of anally-obsessive sockpuppets who have defaced scores of Wikipedia pages in their vendetta against me. I had already added their attack blog to User:Lupin/badwords; I wasn't aware of Shadowbot, or I would have requested earlier that you add it. RolandR 14:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I was unaware of these accounts. The only reason I saw the Rolandshat account was because the blogspot site showed up in the Links Added feed on #wikipedia-en-spam. Shadow1 (talk) 14:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Perlwikipedia
Greetings from another bot writer. :) I also use Perl for my bot (Mathbot), and I was very happy to learn of the Perlwikipedia project. I downloaded it and gave it a try.
I have a few comments, mostly documentation related. I'll put them in a list to be easier to read.
- I think the "Wiki" tab at google code should be renamed to "Documentation", and the "Downloads" and "Source" tabs could be merged.
- In the UsingPerlwikipedia documentation one should replace grab_text with get_text, as the grab_text function is not defined.
- The "edit" function does not check for edit conflicts and just overwrites things. That's fine most of the time, but the documentation should mention this I think.
- The routine for fetching the articles in a category can put a heavy load on the server for huge categories (see Category:Unassessed biography articles for an example, it has several hundred thousand entries I think). Perhaps that routine could be modified to sleep for say 0.5 seconds between fetching the "next 200 pages" in large categories.
Anyway, these are my first impressions. Wonder what you think. You can reply on this talk page, I will keep it on my watchlist. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Perlwikipedia is a bit... out of date, let's say. Most of my new code changes have been merged with the Shadowbot code and are waiting for final testing before I merge them with Perlwikipedia. As for the Google Code page, well, there's nothing I can do about that. I'm also aware that the docs are out of date. Horribly out of date. I'm hoping to get back into development with it soon, and documentation will be part of it, as well as standardizing most of the code. Shadow1 (talk) 22:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. I'll keep an eye on the Perlwikipedia project. Of the above, I am most concerned with your category script using too many resources. I hope that's something you may consider thinking about. Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Revert
This page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artillery was reverted when a link was inserted to http://members.tripod.com/~nigelef/index.htm. The linked site contains a large amount of good quality information based on many years of research and experinece, it is highly relevant to the artillery wiki. The given reason for revision was spam. possibly because the referenced page has adverts inserted by the free website hosting service. Nfe 02:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Willy
While, you're blocking, User:Willy on Belts Clappingsimon talk 14:37, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Vandal is Back
Our favorite Scott Steiner vandal is back as Guy234, thought you should know so you can indef. block this ban evader. Bmg916 Speak to Me 16:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ShadowBot Error
This error which caused ShadowBot to spam Guy Laroche here "1T5 5H1T" as seen here please fix it. Cocoaguy ここがいい contribstalk 03:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Shadowbot and Myspace
Hey there, Shadowbot reverted a myspace reference that I used here. I understand why the bot did that, but in this case, it's a shame that I had to change the link to a third-party news item instead of the official announcement. Simply reverting all myspace links might be a bit heavy-handed, even if 99% of them aren't valuable. Just a heads-up :-)Loafing 09:45, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
- Shadowbot isn't reverting all Myspace links, just links to Myspace blogs. If I were to have it completely revert Myspace, it would get blocked in about 30 seconds. You might also want to note that blog.myspace.com is listed on Wikimedia's Spam blacklist and probably shouldn't be included anyway. Shadowbot is just enforcing the ones that get through. Shadow1 (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Bot errors
Hi, I've had trouble with your bot now twice. See: User talk:Sadi Carnot and Talk:Averageness. Thanks if you can fix the bot on this issue. --Sadi Carnot 05:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- If the images are already in Commons, then why are you trying to link to them on Flickr? Shadow1 (talk) 13:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- If you read the averageness article, which is based on image morphing, you will note that Francis Galton was the first to blend images together. Many have since made similar images, thus finding that the most averaged image, i.e. the one with the most composite photos, is the most attractive. Now the images that are in the Wikipedia attractiveness article were made by photographer Pierre Tourigny and donated to Wikipedia. On his Flickr page he describes how he made the composite images, i.e. what particular image software he used and so forth. Hence, to properly explain how the images were made I have to site his verbal statement of this, which is on Flickr. I’m not familiar with whatever other Flikr linking issues you’ve had in the past, but this particular issue has been discussed on Talk:Averageness. My point is that yes bots that clean up random spam is good; but bots that over-clean, such that they are repetitively reverting real editor efforts, are not as good. I also note that others are complaining about your bot on your talk page. Thus, maybe you can improve your bot in this area in the future. Thank you. --Sadi Carnot 21:34, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
- I understand completely. I'm going to include flickr in the cleanup I'm doing to Shadowbot's spam blacklist. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Shadow1 (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- I wanted to second the fact that linking to flickr photo pages www.flickr.com/photos/*/##### or discussion groups should be allowed and is allowed by Flickr policy.Mbgriffi 20:14, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please fix revert
I added an external link to a page with a lot of helpful information on the Broadway Theatre to its page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Broadway_Theatre. Your bot removed it immediately because apparently it's on some blacklist, which I don't think it should be on. This is the link I was adding: http://www.nytix.com/Links/Broadway/Theaters/broadway.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LincolnNeb (talk • contribs) 17:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC).
It's valuable because, not only does it include historical info not in the article, but it has subway directions and a photograph of the actual theater (particularly useful for out-of-towners who aren't familiar with the theater district).
It seems to me that a page with detailed historical and design info beyond what's in the entry, a photograph, a seating chart, and, yes, some brief subway directions would be relevant to an entry on this theater. As a theater fan, I know that significant and well-organized info on Broadway theaters can be tough to find, online or otherwise, and this seems like a solid external link to me.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by LincolnNeb (talk • contribs).
- The link looks useful and legal to me. Shadowbot oversteps again. The suitability of the link can be discussed at Talk:The Broadway Theatre. --Dystopos 23:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
-
- The site is mainly promotional. As to the information and the picture. A picture can be uploaded to wikipedia, and the information can be incorporated. Thank you. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:46, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Signpost updated for February 19th, 2007.
|
|
|---|
|
|
||
| Volume 3, Issue 8 | 19 February 2007 | About the Signpost |
|
|
||
|
|
|
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
|
|
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:34, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion of The noob
You might want to semiprotect (with a capital N) since new users will likely attempt to resurrect the article on that page (being Wikipedia is case-sensative in regards to page titles. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, odometer) 10:13, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a deletion review of The Noob. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MikkoMan 10:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
