User talk:AntiSpamBot/Sep2007

Did not even add a spam link....

The bot reverted this edit, and it appears to be for no reason..I was removing space between words and citations...annd that is it...THROUGH FIRE JUSTICE IS SERVED! 02:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Marlin Camp Carbine

The bot reverted this http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Marlin_Camp_Carbine&oldid=154616560

Which or what in these is spam?--91.153.18.6 16:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Patagonia (clothing)

You reverted an edit to the Patagonia (clothing) article - see [1] - on the grounds that included a link to urbandictionary.com. That seemed like a useful edit and certainly not spam. It would be nice to have that edit restored. Rwxrwxrwx 18:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

You're trying to cite a statement to a single entry made on a website not particularly known for its accuracy. Explain to me why the link should stay? Shadow1 (talk) 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment

I added a citation to In the Year 2525, and it deleted it. It was about the song being written in 30 minutes. Why is this? Smartyshoe —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smartyshoe (talk • contribs) 12:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

You were trying to cite a statement with a page on groups.msn.com. That site does not comply with our reliable sources guideline. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Polish language link revert

When I restored an external link on The Death Gate Cycle and added a Polish language template in accordance with the external links guidelines, this bot reverted the link citing that same policy. Did I use an incorrect template? -- Immora 08:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Reading the automated message again, I'm guessing that it was removed because the link is on the republika.pl domain. If so, was it correctly removed or should the link be restored? -- Immora 08:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The edit got reverted because of the link, it does not mean that the rest of the edit is not OK. So I would add the interwiki link again. If I recall correctly, republica.pl is a forum site, which is the reason it is on AntiSpamBot's autorevert list (per our external link guideline, our reliable sources guideline and our 'what wikipedia is not' policy (i.e. "not a linkfarm")). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining! I figured the content generally found on that domain must have been the reason, but I was linking to an actual informative (fan-made) website as there are no official websites. I will attempt a revert and see if it autoreverts again. -- Immora 18:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone clarify the current status of republika.pl? It has been re-introduced as a link in the Józef Piłsudski article, and an editor defends the link's presence at Talk:Józef Piłsudski. A Google search on "malware republika.pl" brings up a number of mentions. Novickas 11:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Links to VisitNorway.

Yesterday I tried to add links to various destinations in Visitnorway. Visitnorway.com is the english version of Visitnorway.no which is the norwegian Goverments official site for visitors to Norway. The links were removed by AntiSpamBot. These links are not spam. The links gives the visitors the best possible information about destinations in Norway. The pages are not owned by any any comercial companies or privat persons. I feel that these links should be added to the articles.

– — … ° ≈ ≠ ≤ ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § Stvi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stvik (talk • contribs) 08:12, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Wikipedia is a encyclopedia though, not the yellow pages. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:31, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Error report

Unsure why this edit happened: [2] --Paul Erik 05:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm .. problem with the diff, where our linkwatcher is apparently making a mistake. The edited text contains 'alivenotdead.com' (twice). Apparently it got reported and hence shadowbot reverted. We'll be working on that. Thanks for reporting this! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Utonagan

I don't think this is what you inteneded. I suspect the missing "]" is what caused the problem. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:36, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

The bot reverts to the last version before the active editor, which already contained the mistake. I don't think we can do anything about this, except if the bot would actually try to cut the 'bad' link out of the page before saving (but also that is very difficult to do automatically when the link is there with a mistake). A strange case of 'collateral damage', I am afraid. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Republika.pl

This domain comes and goes on the blacklists/whitelists; right now the Spambot only blocks one subpage (see [3]; the relevant regexp is "republika\.pl\/stranasmer"). The issue has recently resurfaced. It's a little confusing that the lists are also discussed at metawikimedia.

The domain has had a troubled history, including worms, malware, viruses, spam blacklisting - see the external sites [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. I would prefer that the entire domain be blacklisted, unless WP can display a message like "Warning! Don't click ANYWHERE ELSE on this site!".

Yes, as a free hosting service, it's very popular. But there seems to be a movement towards defining reliable sources as those that exercise more oversight than a free hosting service does. Novickas 15:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

republika.pl is a Polish popular webhost (like Geocities), related to a major Polish portal (Onet.pl). Individual subpages, if spammed, may be blacklisted, but the domain should not be - it contains many more useful sites than any malware or other junk. However if we are concerned about usefulness of pages on such large hosts, we could have a discussion about blacklisting all major generic webhosts of that kind.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  16:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that I find that Spambot targets brand-new editors, and allows other editors to insert these sites after a warning (User talk:Shadow1), I see that there are WP policy issues involved that are much broader than the specific sites/operations of the bot as discussed here. Novickas 17:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Tears for Fears

The AntiSpamBot instantly reverted an edit I had made linking to a quote made in a Myspace blog (diff). The blog and quote in question are the official public source and statement on the matter, and should not be marked as spam simply because they happen to reside on Myspace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.231.199 (talk) 11:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are hardly ever a reliable source, everyone can create a blog and put data on there, please review our external links guideline and our reliable sources guideline. If the information is really true that is stated there, there also is a better source available (the homepage of the band, music magazine sites?). Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

That tells me you did not look at the actual Myspace blog page in question. As I said, it is the definitive reliable source and the official public blog of a band member, no different to the homepage of the band. The Myspace page itself, which includes the blog in question, has been linked to without contention in the article's "External Links" section, and your own External Links guidelines permit "a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject" - which the page in question is. Why should it count "unreliable" and be rather slanderously labeled "spam" simply because of the site it is hosted on? By that logic a second-party source on another site would carry more weight than a first-party statement on a blog. Please review the material in question before blindly categorising it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.231.199 (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Read the reliable source and external links guidelines. Myspace is clearly on Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided. JoeSmack ^Talk 12:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Sputnikmusic

I understand the importance of AntiSpamBot, but I'm writing to ask for a reconsideration about blacklisting Sputnikmusic as a reviews site. We have been in contact with various moderators/administrators, finally coming to an agreement that reviews written by our staff writers would be permissible for linking on Wikipedia. Our staff is comprised of solid writers, and further, we have no qualms or objections about not linking non-staff reviews on Wikipedia. Additionally, I understand that the Sputnikmusic article on Wikipedia is subject to incessant, constant vandalism. This is not our administration's/moderators' doing; it's merely problem users wreaking havoc. We apologize for that inconvenience. Anyway, in summation, please re-consider Sputnikmusic from being blacklisted on Wikipedia once again - while the second sentence may arguably be hearsay, we have been told that reviews written by Sputnikmusic staff writers would be allowed to be linked on Wikipedia.

One example of AntiSpamBot's judgment:

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, 148.61.219.76! 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 sputnikmusic\.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! AntiSpamBot 03:31, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

As noted, the link is to a staff writer's review, and did not maliciously damage the aforementioned page in any way. While we regrettably cannot control our problem users from vandalizing Wikipedia, please be assured that not all of our users - especially our staff writers - behave in this fashion.

Thanks for your attention and consideration!

Signed,

On behalf of Sputnikmusic SputnikmusicReviews 19:09, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

As you may notice, the editor was an anonymous user, and seen the change of signature here, I suspect that you are involved in the website. Please review our conflict of interest guideline. The addition was to a page which already contained quite a number of reviews (see what wikipedia is not (although the albums wikiproject have recently instated a maximum of 10, I, and another editor do agree that that number is probably too high, but it was set for 10 to first have discussion on a more appropriate number). I hope you can understand that it is not the target of wikipedia to contain a complete list of reviews. Seen these two points, it would have been better to discuss the links on the talkpage. The function of AntiSpamBot is hence met here, warning 'new' editors that their link-additions may not be in line with policies or guidelines (AntiSpamBot will not revert on established (or whitelisted) registered users).

For more information I would suggest you to also contact the album wikiproject. Hope this explains. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk Beetstra^{T C} on public computers) 10:47, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

In reading and following your links, please observe that Sputnikmusic is located on the list of reputable, professional review sites, so it concerns us that there is a contradiction all of a sudden. While we are doing our part to try to fix our page, which is subject to vandalism from problem users from a separate section of our site, it would be nice to know why this happened when our site is on the aforementioned list. To us, this invalidates the conflict of interest argument as well as the "What Wikipedia is Not" argument. Cheers. -SputnikmusicReviews 19:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

UPDATE: Our edit was reverted yet again by AntiSpamBot and/or User:Keb25; the latter has voted that the Sputnikmusic page be deleted. Please note that in the edit that we have made an effort to meet Wikipedia guidelines, have written the article from a neutral point-of-view, and we are actually a legitimate, reputable website, which Keb25 has ignored despite User:Anylayman's and our efforts to prove otherwise. I doubt that this is a power trip on his part, but there is nothing obscene or objectionable with the edit - the page has been improved and will continue to improve with some cooperation and patience. Please and thank you. -SputnikmusicReviews 06:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is still on the revertlist. Please note that we are not talking about the sites content, we are talking here about who and how it was added. When it gets spammed (as in, link-additions only by single purpose accounts) then it goes onto the revert list. That a site is reputable then does not matter, we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. You do have a conflict of interest, discuss on talkpages and let uninvolved, established editors make the edit (especially when they appear slightly controversial .. and there is another editor who does not agree with the edit). Also, it is not your page, we dont own them.

OK, I had a second look. You are refering to User:Anylayman above. When looking at this editors contributions (Special:Contributions/Anylayman), then that is an account exactly why these links should be on AntiSpamBots autorevert list. This accounts' main edits seem to be the addition of the links to your site to the wikipedia, indiscriminate if the link really adds to the page (see e.g. here where the editor adds a link where there are already 15 others, so I think what wikipedia is not is certainly violated here). We do not need to add the links to your site just because your site has the information available, it should add to the information on the page. Sputnikmusic.com is therefore (at least for the moment) well on its place on the blacklist. I hope this explains. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks for your thoroughness. Our only concern remains that, in reading and following your links, please observe that Sputnikmusic is located on the list of permissible reputable, professional review sites, so it seems awfully contradictory that the site can be blacklisted AND professional at the same time. That's our (for now) only point of confusion because you guys have been helpful thus far. A second concern would be why the site's main page is being reversed by AntiSpamBot - writing from a neutral point-of-view is not difficult, and there is no blatant advertising or obscene/objectionable material on the page. We are doing our best to get the page to meet Wikipedia's standards, but the reversals are maddening despite the easy fix to revert them. It, for lack of a better word at the moment, sucks to have one of the primary editors call the site "non-notable" despite the endorsement from Metacritic and the other information that is provided in the edits that this account has been trying to make. There are numerous pages on Wikipedia that have links to staff reviews, but for them to be removed contradicts the site's placement on the list of permissible sites. If something can be done, awesome. If not, that's a shame, but life goes on. Thanks to Dirk and Anylayman for your patience and help. -SputnikmusicReviews 14:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess you could capture this on the same level as has been happening with some links to 'archives' (musea, universities, libraries, etc.). These sites are strictly non-commercial in some cases, still they have resulted in lengthy discussions on the talkpage of the Spam WikiProject (probably most are in the archives). Also, some of these links have been removed after an account performed link-additions only. Unfortunately sputnikmusic.com has suffered the same faith (for the moment). Again, that the site is blacklisted on AntiSpamBot is related to how accounts in the past have been editing/adding this link, and should be seen separate from the quality of the site (which is, as proven by its listing on e.g. WP:ALBUMS#Review sites, OK, and the links are used as reviews on many articles (see the more than 400 links here: Special:LinkSearch/*.sputnikmusic.com)). That can be seen as contradictory, but per WP:NOT#LINK, WP:NPOV, WP:EL and WP:SPAM, the mass addition of links to one site is not within the scope of wikipedia, even for good, on-topic sites, and reversions of this is within the function of AntiSpamBot to revert.

In the working of User:AntiSpamBot, established and whitelisted users are ignored by this bot, and they can add these links, so the reviews can still be added by these accounts (though its operators are alerted). Also, AntiSpamBot ignores edits where it is reverted again (though also here an alert is given to its opererators), so if a genuine edit is reverted by the editor again, it is likely that it is then ignored by the editors (or maybe they process the edit afterwards).

Your second concern is indeed a bit difficult. AntiSpamBot can not evaluate where the link gets added. In this case you (as a 'new' editor) were reverted because you added "The staff is featured with [http://www.sputnikmusic.com/staffpicks.php staff picks] on the main page." So in a way these reverts are 'collateral damage', though I do believe that in this case the link should not be used in this way (this way of linking is not according to our manual of style, and the link is certainly not necessary here, there is a link to the domain in either the external links section, or in an infobox), and you are advised (per most of the cited policies and guidelines) not to add the links yourself, and not to edit these articles yourself (see our conflict of interest guideline). I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed two external links

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pure_Pure_Mimi_to_Shippo_no_Monogatari&action=history

I undid it's revision, though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.135.176.213 (talk) 16:30, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, you are linking to imageshack, which is on the autorevert list as it fails our external links guideline. Secondly, the links created are under the names of the character, which is misleading, it does not provide more information, the link is not even directly related to the subject of the page. Maybe you could upload the images and use them to illustrate the page? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The Libertines

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

AntiSpamBot removed an entire section on the page for the rock band The Libertines. The section concerned was entitled thelibertines.org, and made reference to a network54 forum used by the band from 2002 to 2005. While I understand that links to network54 forums may automatically considered to be spam, I would ask you to reconsider this case for the following reasons:

thelibertines.org network54 forum played an integral part in The Libertines history - as cited on numerous occasions in biographies on the band (Bound Together by Anthony Thornton, Kids in the Riot by Pete Welsh being the most obvious).

Libertines singer Pete Doherty regularily used pseudonyms on the forum to give fans private information about the band. He also personally announced the band's split on the forum in 2004, before any official announcement had been given. He also confided in fans on the forum about his now well publicised problems with drugs. Indeed, many music publications, such as NME, took entire news stories from quotes left by Pete on thelibertines.org forum. Doherty would also frequently publish unreleased poetry and lyrics on the site, as well as advertising numerous 'guerilla gigs' by him and his band. In 2007, a BBC television programme called 'The Seven Ages Of Rock' focussed on The Libertines use of the internet (directly referencing thelibertines.org). See here for more info: http://www.bbc.co.uk/music/sevenages/events/indie/the-libertines-guerrilla-gigs/ BBC Radio 1 also aired a documentary where fans and the band spoke at length about the site in 2004.

thelibertines.org is also famous because of it's involvement in the 'Babyshambles Sessions' (where Doherty gave away three albums worth of brand new material on the internet for free). The emergence and popularity of the 'Babyshambles Sessions' on thelibertines.org led to the British record industry repositioning it's stance on allowing/encouraging artists to give away music for free on the internet. Whereas before giving away so much ne wmaterial would have been seen as commercial suicide, it in fact made The Libertines more popular, and as a result other British rock bands would give away music to their fans.

The forum's continued influence can be seen in Doherty's songs (in 'Gang of Gin' he sings "I showed no decorum, spilled my heart out on the forum"), and also in the wider media (NME is currently offering a competition to win a signed Doherty guitar with the question being 'what was Pete Doherty's username on thelibertines.org forum?').

Here are a selection of national newspaper/magazine articles that mention the site:

http://arts.independent.co.uk/books/reviews/article352245.ece

http://arts.guardian.co.uk/fridayreview/story/0,,1271605,00.html

http://www.nme.com/reviews/the-libertines/7537

I hope you understand that the entry for thelibertines.org does have a real relevance to the band's history. Perhaps the best thing about the wiki entry is that it has a lot of information that many people may have missed seeing as so much of what Doherty wrote on the forum went unnoticed by pretty much everyone but the fans of the band - quite a brilliant thing, really. If you really want I can remove all links to the forum and Doherty's posts, and just keep the text. However, I think this would take something away from the entry and would prefer not to. It's really beneficial to be able to include links to Doherty's posts to give the section credibility.

In conclusion, I believe that thelibertines.org was, for a short while, something of a cross between an internet version of the punk fanzine Sniffin' Glue and Myspace (if you look at the effect that site had on the Arctic Monkeys career, it's is not too dissimilar. In fact, the person who created that band's myspace page was also posting their songs on thelibertines.org forum a good six months before creating their myspace page).

In terms of any 'self-promotion' accusations, 'thelibertines.org' is a totally free forum - no one makes any money out of it and no-one pays for bandwidth. It's free to sign up to, there is no member list and, in terms of forums, it is archaic. It never get's updated either. The only reason it has survived and stayed popular since The Libertines split up in 2004 is because of the legacy created from 2002 and the continued citations in biographies, television and radio programmes (which in itself seems to confirm the forums relevance).

89.243.205.100 20:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I reverted AntiSpamBot. The 'problem' is here that you were editing as an IP or a new user, which get reverted when adding 'spammy' links. When you would have re-reverted AntiSpamBot it should have left you alone (if not .. then this is indeed the right medium for a remark). Hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Teddy Bear edit

I understand that you removed the link I added to the article becuase it becuase it was a link to a commerical site. But I added the link becuase it was showing the teddy bear used as a mascot for the 1980 Olympic Games and as such relevant for the Teddy Bear Wikipedia page. I had no interest whatever in promoting the sale of the teddy bear offered in this website. 212.179.253.197 08:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)