User talk:XLinkBot - Wikipedia
2 people in discussion
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.
* Pppery * it has begun... 03:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- @Beetstra and Versageek: * Pppery * it has begun... 02:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)Reply
- I'd like to take a look at this when I get a chance. Beetstra and Versageek, have you been able to see what's happening here, and do you have any advice? — Newslinger talk 22:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
- Done, indeed, I managed to get the bot back to work. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:36, 8 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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)Reply
- Then I know enough. This was not XLinkBot. Dirk Beetstra T C 18:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)Reply
- 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)Reply
- 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)Reply