User talk:Shadow1/Apr2007

Your Bot, Shadowbot

Hi, your bot reverted my Edit which was constructive. So, i wanted to revert the revert but i dont want the bot to revert my revert. You see? If i revert the bots edit, will it begin a revert war with me? Thanks Yaanch^Speak! 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Never mind! Yaanch^Speak! 20:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for picking up the Werdnabot archiver!

Just wanted to say thank you - I hadn't even noticed that Werdnabot was offline. It's great to see others stepping up to take over a voluntary service in this manner! --Alvestrand 19:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'm glad I can help. Shadow1 (talk) 18:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 26th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 13	26 March 2007	About the Signpost

From the editor: Tardiness, volunteers, RSS
Patrick and Wool resign in office shakeup	WikiWorld comic: "Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo"
News and notes: Board resolutions, milestones	Features and admins
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 14:25, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary archiving

This user is banned and the bot keeps archiving the same stuff:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIlena%2FArchive_3&diff=118332007&oldid=117747888

Maybe that bot subscription should be deleted? -- Fyslee (collaborate) 20:28, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot doesn't seem to work with one URL

I recently added 64.176.63.72 (IP address of freshswing.com, which the spammer is using now) to Shadowbot's request page, which was approved. However the spammer appears to be able to use that in a link without any action from Shadowbot. Was the regex in fact added, or was the spammer's IP address used instead maybe? Thanks :-) Carl Lindberg 16:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot is reporting that the IP address exists on its blacklist, so it should be reverting. I'll watch for the additions and see if it's producing any errors. Shadow1 (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the spammer has tried the IP address since, but he seems to be able to use freshswing.com when he replaces existing URLs (as opposed to adding new ones). Is that supposed to be allowed by Shadowbot? Just checking ;-) Carl Lindberg 04:37, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

It shouldn't. I'll talk to the operator of the bot that feeds Shadowbot link information about it. Shadow1 (talk) 00:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

THE ONLY ONES

Stop deleting legitimate links from the Only Ones page. Why do you refuse to discuss anything and brand people spammers?

simple that site is spam read WP:EL Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 15:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Do not LIE. It states you should not link to discussion forums is they are not directly about the subject. The forum is deciated to the subject. That policiy puts me in the right, and you in the wrong. Simple as that. Stop vandalising.

172.201.152.213 15:44, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it does not. You were spamming the link into the article despite multiple warnings, please read WP:SPAM for more information on this. Shadow1 (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Saviours Of Rock.com

I have a problem where your bot is systematically deleting everything that links to our site!! anything with savioursofrock.com in it. I dont know what the problem is, they're just cd reviews and stuff, theres plenty of other sites linked from Wiki, and it was never a problem before. I have an acoount under Saviour Of Rock and also Wolf5150. Very shattered as it took me a while to put all those links in over like 6 months. Then all of a sudden, BANG no more. Dowt! Please help! Thank you

Wolf5150 07:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You were adding the link in a way that wikipedia defines as spam. It has therefore been blacklisted. Moreover, seen your username, it was suspected you had a conflict of interest. Also, may I ask you to read WP:SOCK, thank you. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

How is it then that other sites like the All Music Guide and many others can display their links on hundreds of Wiki pages and not others. This is very discriminative. I understand from a bot's point of view tho. Is it possible then to un-blacklist our site name then? I assure you we meant nothing devious. It is a non-profit site, and if anything it costs us more money to run than what we make LOL

Wolf5150 05:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I know you're busy. Just sayin hey, dont forget to answer me :) Wolf5150 13:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Futuristic Sex Robotz: Speedy Deletion

What do you mean when you say the page "has a long history of deletions." Does that mean edits?

Spira12 17:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it means that the page has been deleted a lot before. See the page log for examples. Shadow1 (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot3: Thank you

Thanks for running Shadowbot3 since Werndabot went down. I appreciate it. — Alan De Smet | Talk 17:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, glad I can help. Shadow1 (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

What happened to Werdnabot?

I heard Werdna was quitting, but he still kept his bot running? I didn't see a link to the FAQ on this. But the whole archiving bots are sorta one of the most important and famous things in Wikipedia. SakotGrimshine 19:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what happened. Werdna essentially said that Werdnabot was gone unless someone wanted to fix it, so I took on its archiving job under the User:Shadowbot3 account. I'm beginning to think that I'm the maintainer now, though. Shadow1 (talk) 19:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Donald Kerr

Your article, "Donald Kerr", has not been recently updated. Therefore, I suggested it be deleted from Wikipedia.I'm sorry about the above sign. I messed up. Meldshal42 21:13, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Adding 2 relative websites

Dear Shadow1

I tried to add two links to relative, and of high value of information websites, to this page [1]. The first website has contents in English which is very important for the English speaking visitors of that page. The second website has more information about the city than all the other websites together. I am not affiliated with any of the above websites, but I really want my city to offer its best resources in order to describe its beauty to full extend. Both websites appeared on the external links list for many months and I wonder why know are excluded from it. Suddenly became spam? Don’t misunderstand me, but I see to the list of websites that there are not only commercial websites, but also websites that have a very small amount of information and they are not our best of ambassadors to the Internet medium.

Thank your for your valuable time. I am at your disposal for any more information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.5.124.179 (talk • contribs).

Hi Shadow, I reverted this user removal on sight, and saw afterwards that he was removing his own message. Since I don't want to mess even more with your talk page, I put it at the bottom and leave his message alone. Sorry about that ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Batu Lintang camp

Shadowbot has not only removed a link I put in, but a whole load of text editing, images etc too that I've been working on today. I'm not that familiar with reverting so could you put it back to how it was immediately before Shadowbot got involved and I'll manually remove the imageshack link that it didn't like. Ignore the edit I made after Shadowbot - that's when I first noticed something was wrong and before I realised just how much Shadowbot had screwed up the article. Thanks. I don't know how to link to his revert so you'll have to look here [2] - he was only involved once. Jasper33 16:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Could you fix it please! I see you've posted on this page since I made my complaint - I'd be really grateful if you could clear up your bots mess. Thanks. Jasper33 09:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Lucasbfr has sorted out the mess. Jasper33 10:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

For future reference, you can find a link to Shadowbot's edit (click the "last" link next to its edit), then click "Undo" to revert its changes. Shadow1 (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Spam Blacklist

The folks at ANI directed me to you. It seems that this site needs to be added to the spam blacklist. The pertinent info can be seen at ANI. thanks. -- Pastordavid 20:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 Done Added to Shadowbot's blacklist. Shadow1 (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Pastordavid 21:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 2nd, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 14	2 April 2007	About the Signpost

Poll finds people think Wikipedia "somewhat reliable"	Wikipedia biographical errors attract more attention
Association of Members' Advocates nominated for deletion	Reference desk work leads to New York Times correction
WikiWorld comic: "Charles Lane"	News and notes: Alexa, Version 0.5, attribution poll
Wikipedia in the news	Features and admins
Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 05:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Shawn Michaels

Hi,

I made some edits to this page, and was providing very good, external links for this article, to enhance it so it is at the very best standard. Here is the link. I firmly believe it is a good link. Can you please not revert my edits again.

Many thanks

Please don't. I'm trying to make good edits only for them to be reverting. What have I done wrong apart from try and make an article better. Davnel03 09:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

You are reallly annoying me, WHAT THE HELL HAVE I DONE WRONG????????? Davnel03 09:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Please, calm down. Obsessedwithwrestling is on the blacklist because of someone (not you) spamming that link (and the case is quite severe). That means that, at this moment, that link can not be added. You can refer to the article, but do not use the external link. Wait for the moment, make a note here or on shadowbots userpage (as you did), and then add the link when shadowbot does not revert the link anymore. Hope this explains, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Blake Lewis

I want to add a myspace blog link from the blakergirls blog because it is an interview that they conducted with Blake Lewis, and I thought it had useful tidbits reguarding Blake. However, Wikipedia won't let me add it because the link is blocked by spam. Is there a way I can add it? Va girl2468 23:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Rule of Rose

Hi. I noticed that a few weeks ago you were involved in a dispute over a link to a fansite at Rule of Rose. Well it is still going on, and while it does appear that there are support votes to include the link (I gave weak support), things just aren't calming down at all. Could you maybe re-visit the discussion? Thanks. Not a dog 23:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

nevermind. I was bold and just added it myself. Not a dog 00:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please fix

Hi. Thanks for catching a poor choice of citation (one url). Could you please take a look at this edit and restore the other things you're removing? Thanks in advance. -Susanlesch 04:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done an attempt at fixing. Hope this helps, have a nice day! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you, looks good. Best wishes. -Susanlesch 07:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Please remove Save OU Sports from list of spammers

Dear Shadow1,

(This message was also sent to Dirk and Threses, also Wikpedia administrators. The issue we are dealing with is one people who have apparently reported me as a spammer want to cover up. We are airing the consequences of a major legal issue involving U.S. Universities, Title IX of the U.S. Civil Rights Law. Those who want to keep us quiet about its effects on American university sports have a very strong POV on this issue that they conceal by promoting U.S. university "revenue" sports (football and basketball) at the expense of Olympic and other sports that do not generate the kind of money these "lesser sports" do. Please read below to see what we have to say. Also, please remove www.saveousports.org from the list of spammers on your site. In preventing us from posting our links, you are depriving people of important information about Title IX and other current information they should be able to read.)

I believe that you may not be aware of the intense controversy in the United States surrounding a federal law - the Civil Rights Act, of which "Title Nine" or "Title IX" as it is often called, is a major section. Title IX has been used contrary to its original intent by university athletic directors to cut "minor" sports programs so they can use the money they save to fund their favorite "revenue" sports - sports that bring in revenue through ticket sales - sports like football and basketball.

Our issue with Ohio University is that it used Title IX as political cover to cut sports so it could have more money for its football and basketball programs.

This is not as much a point of view as it is a major trend affecting all United States universities - Olympic sports like track and field and also swimming and diving are being cut just so uniquely American sports like American football can have more money.

This unhealthy trend is contrary to the law. If you want independent confirmation that this is a major legal controversy in the US, then check out Title IX on Wikpedia and also on Google.

Wikpedia is used by high school seniors and their families during the process by which they choose a university to attend. Wikpedia's Ohio University web page was undoubtedly used by freshmen now attending Ohio University to select the school. Those same graduating high school seniors also had other university options. If the kind of information we have attempted to make available on Ohio University had been available to them, they would not have chosen that school and would now be attending a university where they could continue their athletic careers uninterrupted.

To give you some more perspective on how important this information is, unlike most European public universities where tuition is free, students at US universities must pay full tuition in addition to their living expenses. (I know as I lived in Europe for many years.) Selecting a university to attend is a MAJOR financial decision for any middle-class family since attendance is expensive. Keeping our information off this site deprives prospective students from learning information that may be decisive in their choice of a school. Indeed, in deleting our information and preventing them from knowing this you are cooperating with those people who wish to conceal this major controversy from prospective students and is a disservice to them.

The section on Ohio University Athletics dominates the page on the school. This is disproportionate to what the school has to offer. It appears that the page is managed mostly by Ohio University's Athletic Department, which, like most athletic departments at US universities, is more concerned with athletic honors than about helping student athletes graduate. Graduation success rates among the "revenue" sports at US universities are far below those of the minor sports or of the student bodies in general. The page promotes athletics, apparently at the expense of other information about the school. Shouldn't it be reduced to be proportionate to its importance to the school?

We are new to Wikpedia and will do our best to comply with its rules. We do not wish to abuse this privilege. However, in the interests of fairness, equal time, proportionality, and perspective, if we must limit our contributions to this particular page, shouldn't the athletic section be reduced to something proportionate to its own importance at Ohio University?

If you go to Ohio University's official website, http://www.ohio.edu/ you will see that Ohio University athletics is a relatively minor part of the university and does not deserve the prominence you allow it on the Wikpedia web page. Indeed, what you allow is essentially propaganda and the Athletic Department's POV on its own importance (very inflated) in the whole of the university.

If we are to be prevented from providing what we consider is very important information on Ohio University, then we ask you to reduce the size of the section on Ohio Athletics to something proportionate to its importance and stop allowing the Ohio University Athletic Department -- and its most active supporters - usually prominent business people who benefit financially from their association with university athletics (see the OU athletic web page section on Bobcat Boosters for independent confirmation - car dealers and other businesses) from using your service as a recruiting and propaganda tool for its own interests.

Thank you for taking the time to read this. Save OU Sports

I can't find any information about this alleged controversy on Google. Wikipedia is not a place "to get the word out," it's a place to represent verifiable information in an unbiased manner. Your link is not being removed as some sort of cover-up, it's being removed because it falls under our conflict of interest and neutral point-of-view policies. Have you discussed your edits at all on the relevant talk pages to determine whether other editors want the link there? Shadow1 (talk) 13:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Follow up to your response and repeated request to remove us from list of spammers

Thanks again for responding. For your reference, here are the first few links that appear when using Google first typing in "Title IX," and then "Ohio University:"

http://www.ohiou.edu/ohiotoday/fall_winter98/features/title9.htm

http://thepost.baker.ohiou.edu/articles/2007/03/29/opinion/18498.html

http://www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/lane9/news/14500.asp http://www.timedfinals.com/05042007/complaint-filed-against-ohio-university-with-office-of-civil-rights/ Those immediately above report legal action with the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Civil Rights involving Ohio University and Title IX. If this legal action is successful, it is being described as a possible "benchmark" legal action that could open up a wide range of law suits against U.S. Universities over the use of Title IX as justification for cutting sports programs for reasons that are, in reality, budget reasons.

http://www.cleveland.com/printer/printer.ssf?/base/cuyahoga/1175417229173270.xml&coll=2

http://www.wcpn.org/news/2007/01-03/0327titleIX.html Television news report on Ohio University's Title IX action

This information is all easily verified by visiting the links above. They are reports by news organizations on how the legal issue is unfolding.

Regarding the edits we proposed - we have posted our proposed edits on the Ohio University discussion page for comment and editing if interested parties choose to do so. We are trying to comply with Wikipedia policies and hope we are succeeding.

In light of our actions and our promise to do our best to conform to Wikipedia guidelines, we again request that you remove us from the spam bot list.

Thank you, --Save OU Sports 15:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports

It's great that you can cite the information, but is it necessary to use your site to source your statements? You could easily use any of the above web pages to write about the controversy, rather than use your own site, which doesn't seem to be covered by Wikipedia's reliable sources guidelines. Shadow1 (talk) 15:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. (And I saw your posting on my talk page as well :) ) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 15:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We can add lots of links to relevant information from supposedly unbiased news sources and we will probably follow your excellent advice.

However, what is good for the goose should be good for the gander. If you go to the Ohio University Wikipedia page, you will find links that Wikipedia allows that clearly point to special interest pages that promote the Athletic Department's position on this issue, a position that is in dispute not only by us but by national representatives of the sports OU cut - the Exec Director of the College Swim Coaches of America and the Women's Sports Council, for example. OU's explanation on its official site, that is linked in Wikipedia, tells only what they want people to know, not what they should know, especially high school seniors contemplating coming to OU. If the current crop of high school seniors need accurate information on colleges, they should be able to find it on Wikipedia. Those contemplating an athletic career at OU won't find the full story on OU's Title IX problems on its current page. The freshmen and women who are now there should have had this information but they are now dealing with what has turned out to be a poor decision for a school where they could pursue their hopes of developing a career in athletics, either playing or coaching once they graduate.

OU's Wikipedia page is also devoted almost 50% to promoting its sports program with links to ways OU sports supporters can contribute money to the program. From what we've been able to determine so far, that violates Wikipedia's guidelines as well. Here is one: Ohio Green & White Club - Athletic Boosters If you go to the Ohio Bobcats page on Wikipedia, one of the links they provide is: "Giving to Ohio Athletics" This takes you right to a page where you can initiate the process to donate to OU athletics.

We think that the Wikipedia administrators should investigate these apparent violations of Wikipedia guidelines about solicitation and promoting commercial interests. Using your same argument above, people can find those links on OU's website if they just go to the main OU site and then lookf for them.

If we are to be reported and held strictly to Wikipedia guidelines (something we are certainly willing to do), then we believe those reporting us who support the athletic department of Ohio University, and that same department which maintains its own page on Wikipedia ought to be held to the same compliance standards. Those links in apparent violation of Wikipedia policy should be removed by administrators.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. We're learning and will try to be good Wikipedia participants.

--Save OU Sports 16:22, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports

Please raise your issues on the Ohio State article. Perhaps showing them where you see these problems will let you all figure out an NPOV article. :) Cheers! —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 16:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to consider our info and respond. We may take your advice but we're skeptical about the willingness of those managing the Ohio State article to tackle this issue. When you get into such issues with those most interested in promoting a state or an institution, they are unwilling to allow negative material to appear. We will see what happens with the proposed addition on the Ohio University article first. If we are successful, we may try on the other article.

--Save OU Sports 17:49, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports

There's no real "managers" of articles per se; all Wikipedia editors are welcome to contribute to any article they choose. Most of them share the same views as I do and will help you to write the article the best way that it can. Again, there's no "conspiracy" on Wikipedia, we're all on the same playing field, and I highly doubt that anyone is doing anything behind the scenes to make OU look good. Shadow1 (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

We're learning. Appreciate the insights. However, I wouldn't characterize the opposition to our attempted edits as trying to make OU look good as much as attempts to prevent OU's athletic program from looking bad. Our info, which consists mostly of reprinted and linked news reports, spells out the story as it has unfolded and OU does look bad in this case, a sad chapter in the history of a wonderful 200+ year old university. If you have the time, we would appreciate your review of the addition we propose on the Ohio University discussion page (if this is something administrators do) and tell us if it contains any content that would violate Wikipedia rules.

Thanks again, --Save OU Sports 18:03, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Save OU Sports

My status as an administrator doesn't give my statements any more weight than any other user. But I disgress. What makes your site more informative than any of the more-qualified/authoritative sites on the Internet dealing with this subject? I have to admit, a lot of the content on the website, e.g. the petition and such, isn't making a very strong case for your link's inclusion. Not to mention, this is still a violation of WP:COI. I'm not saying the link is a bad one, but it might be best if you re-examine your motivation for using the link as a source. Shadow1 (talk) 15:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Imani Hakim

I was trying to fix up the links on Imani Hakim.

Some previous user had a malformed redirection link to a page that looked legit official fan site on freewebs.com

I merely fixed it up to be:

http://www.freewebs.com/imanihakimfans/

I think this ought to be OK, so I reverted the bot. If you really think it's not OK, fell free to remove the link.

Here's the revert link: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Imani_Hakim&diff=121138148&oldid=121138133

Clemwang 06:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Purevolume.com

Was trying to clean up Kenotia and was given an automated message by your robot account. No intent to spam but was just trying to clean up the links as they did not appear correctly. What is wrong with this site? BuickCenturydriver (Honk, contribs) 21:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

==Shadowbot!==

Shadowbot is programmed to remove Imageshack links, because they don't render properly in MediaWiki. And what do you mean by "request something to other monitors"? Shadow1 (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

In your phrasing, yes, it is hard to understand. Shadow1 (talk) 22:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my past behavior. I was fed up about something else and let my anger out on you. I'm truly sorry. PLEASE FORGIVE ME! Sincerely, Meldshal42 23:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

==Sorry to Say...==

Hey, Shadow1. I just discovered when I traveled to their page that SakotGrimshine has been (gulp) H-A-C-K-E-D! Pretty Sad... Right? Meldshal42 21:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure about what that's supposed to signify. Perhaps you could elaborate (on both of the sections you've posted to my talkpage)? Shadow1 (talk)

I would choose your words carefully. Some users aren't so lenient towards incivility and you may find yourself temporarily blocked. Shadow1 (talk) 22:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, once again as I put before. Please, Please, forgive me. Also, I deleted all my nasty messages. Once Again, I'm really, truly, deeply,absolutely,positively,incredibly,unbelievably SORRY... Sincerely... Meldshal42 23:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 9th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 15	9 April 2007	About the Signpost

Danny Wool regains adminship in controversial RFA	Leak last year likely to produce changes for handling next board election
Association of Members' Advocates' deletion debate yields no consensus	WikiWorld comic: "Fake shemp"
News and notes: Donation, Version 0.5, milestones	Wikipedia in the news
Features and admins	Bugs, Repairs, and Internal Operational News
The Report on Lengthy Litigation

Special note to spamlist users: Apologies for the formatting issues in previous issues. This only recently became a problem due to a change in HTML Tidy; however, I am to blame on this issue. Sorry, and all messages from this one forward should be fine (I hope!) -Ral315

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 08:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Police File Our site keeps being deleted from the page of the police by your bot at wikipedia and we have been accused of spamming because we place it back each time while this is a proper site operating for years. the police tour seem to remove our link every time even from the external links page. what is going on ? please check the site including domain registration and year of setup to verify this is not a spam site with the sole purpose of spamming. we have more then 10000 members in our mailing list

The Police File

Our site keeps being deleted from the page of the police by your bot at wikipedia and we have been accused of spamming because we place it back each time while this is a proper site operating for years. the police tour seem to remove our link every time even from the external links page. what is going on ? please check the site including domain registration and year of setup to verify this is not a spam site with the sole purpose of spamming. we have more then 10000 members in our mailing list

Whether your site is notable or not, you continually added into the article without discussion, and your edits are classified as spam by Wikipedia guidelines (WP:SPAM), which is why I added it to my bot. You're free to contribute constructively when the block/page protect expires. Shadow1 (talk) 14:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

thank you. when will the block page expire?. We are also new to the whole wikipedia thing and not sure how the protection goes in place or that we had the comment the change every time. in case we removed something accidently, then we wil be more carefull next time but were quite frustrated that our site link was removed all the time by the people from the police tour which claim to be the official site which it is not. Can you please list us back under the external links ?

Both the block and the page protection will expire in 24 hours. However, I will not insert the link into the article. If you want the link into the article, then discuss it on the article's talkpage with other editors. Shadow1 (talk) 14:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No bot problem

Got a message on my talk page about your bot reverting something...but whatever it was, I fixed it and there's no problem. I tried to link something about six times and failed because I'm an idiot (occasionally). =)

from Kelley32: I received a message from your bot about editing my links to the page I was contribtuing on. The bot kept confusing them with spam sites and they are not. They are good sites that are directly connnected to the information on the page I'm contributing to. Here is the link describing what the bot said about my links, please fix this so we can have the links on the page. Once again, there are not spam sites, there are in connection and reference to the information on the page I am contributing on. Thank you. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kelley32

It's an InvisionFree site, hardly necessary in an encyclopedia. We want credible sources, not statements made by people with no authority on the subject. Shadow1 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Likewise I have had a legitimate link regarding to the subject removed and it has reverted it back to an older version that has wasted several hours. Yikes! Anient 21:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

But is it really necessary to include that link? You might want to note that the page has been nominated for speedy deletion. Shadow1 (talk) 21:08, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Can Shadowbot fix double redirects?

As I'm sure you're aware, User:Werdnabot is currently offline, with the intention of shadowbot taking over most of its functions. When attempting to standardize the names of US elections, I noticed that Wikipedia:Double redirects linked to User:Werdnabot/Double-redirect bypass requests. Unfortunately, the notice of Werdnabot's disconnection was not posted there (so I didn't figure out until later), and a number of pages are currently in limbo. Does Shadowbot, or another bot, have a similar service? If not, it would be a great service to the community if you were to make one :). --Ybbor^TalkSurvey! 00:55, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

While I currently do not have Werdna's code for performing this task, I will investigate the possibility of writing the code and adding the task to Shadowbot3. Thanks for bringing this to my attention! Shadow1 (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I NEED Your Expert Advice

Dear Shadow1, I really need your help. Since you've been on Wikipedia a lot longer than me, I figured that you would be a good resource for advice. An unidentified user, in fact, only a Ip adress, vandalised and destroyed my page( the page is Josh Tower. All my added information was deleted except for one measly sentence. What should I do? If you can find time to assist me, please do not hesitate to do so. Not to be rude, but I really need advice on this matter. Please, if you can help me, post your advice on my talk page. If Shadow1 is too busy, other users are free to try and help if they feel like it. Thank you sincerely, Meldshal42 22:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think part of the reason a lot of the article is gone is because Shadowbot reverted a lot of your edits when you improperly linked to a website. But aside from that, the article could use some cleanup from its previous state, so a complete rewrite isn't out of the question. Shadow1 (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Thnaks a lot. Meldshal42 20:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Category:Projects by type

Thank you for your contribution to the Project article in the past. This is now linked from Category:Projects by type. However, there is currently a Call for Deletion for this category. If you would like to contribute to the discussion, you would be very welcome. In particular, if you would like to save this category, please add a Keep entry with your "signature" using "~~~~". Please do this soon if possible since the discussion period is very short. Thank you for your interest if you can contribute. Regards, Jonathan Bowen 01:10, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding edits to Bugatti Veyron

I had my edits reverted.

I believe my contribution is valid, and was included simply to provide references where it said they were needed, and to correct the quotes according to those references.

However, the references I found were to scans of a magazine and are therefore image files. I'm not sure if I did right by citing external images as references, or if I put them in the correct place ... or perhaps there's some other problem.

Please advise.

Thanks.

Davidmaxwaterman 02:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Toolserveraccount

Hello Shadow1,
please send your real-name, your prefered login-name and the public part of your ssh-key to . We plan to create your account soon then. --DaB.

Hans Hansen article

Hello,

My edit to the Hans Hansen Article got reverted by your bot. This has been an interesting journey. I was originally looking for Hansen's birth and death dates. One of the only two sources I could find on Google for this information was the German version of Wikipedia. I used this and cited the source. Then I had second thoughts about using a WP source in a WP Article, so I posted this question on the WikiEN-L Mailing List. The feedback I got was that it wasn't a good idea to do this. So I went to the only other source I had found which was ArtFacts.net and used this. Is the prohibition against using this site absolute in all cases. This case involves only dates of birth and death of the subject.

Thanks - Michael David 13:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

• I hope it isn't butting in to mention [3]. (Another source). Notinasnaid 13:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

You're not butting in at all; thanks for the input. The only problem is that in the ArtFacts source it gives the full dates of birth & death, which is what I was looking for. -- Michael David 13:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of my Talkpage

Shadow, I am not familiar with your bot too terribly well, all I know is it is used to revert spam. A user brought up a perfectly legitimate comment, but happened to link/mention a URL that I suppose ShadowBot blacklisted. As a result, this was reverted. Here's the diff. As a precautionary measure, I've blocked Shadowbot. However, you are free to unblock as soon as you're ready to, I just didn't want to see any more potential collateral damage coming out of this. Thanks so much, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 18:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the problem. I've patched Shadowbot to make sure it's not reverting a non-mainspace article, I don't know why it picked up the edit in the first place. Shadow1 (talk) 18:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting to this so fast. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:01, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 16th, 2007.

The Wikipedia Signpost Weekly Delivery

Volume 3, Issue 16	16 April 2007	About the Signpost

Encyclopædia Britannica promoted to featured article	Wikipedia continues to get mixed reactions in education
WikiWorld comic: "Hodag"	News and notes: Wikipedia television mention makes news, milestones
Features and admins	The Report on Lengthy Litigation

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 06:35, 17 April 2007 (UTC)tytyy56567775

deletion of 'Mortal Status' category under main page Jack Bauer

The bot automatically deleted my small subarticle because of a link to another website, facebook.com. I understand the bot is an automatic processer, however I do implore you to manually read the article and decide for yourself whether or not the link is necessary. Personnally, I think the link is the very essence of the article, as it shows the page where the religion of Bauerism was created. Please do contact me with your answer, which ever way you see it. Thank you.

"Bauerism" in itself is non-notable, and the fact that it seems to be only a minor Internet phenomenon at most makes it even less notable. The section 's removal seems valid, in my opinion. Shadow1 (talk) 19:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the article was removed not because it was 'non-notable' but only because it contained a link to facebook.com. Also Bauerism is not a 'minor Internet phenomenon', but if you read the article you would see that it is in fact a fully fledged authentic religion, and should be treated as such. Please do not slur Bauerism as you have done above, and treat it as you would any other religion, as such slurs could be seen as perticularly offensive by many. The issue for the moment is whether the link can be shown as such on the website, and then I can address any of your other issues in turn.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blobby124 (talk • contribs).

A search on Google for bauerism returns, in order: a blog, the official site twice (Not sure if it's official because it's down), two Netscape polls, two Urban Dictionary links, a forum, Myspace, and another blog. None of those sites, from what I've seen, can be remotely considered to be reliable sources. I'm not seeing the notability here. And for the record, I did not "slur" Bauerism. Shadow1 (talk) 20:00, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Granted the religion of Bauerism is hardly mainstream, however it should not be treated as 'non-notable' because it is as genuine as it is obscure. I do not know what more 'reliable sources' you could possibly want since I have already given you the link to the page where the page of Bauerism was first created. The only other novelty obscure religion I am aware of is that of Diego Maradona, equally genuine and equally authentic and yet equally obscure. If you type in Diego Maradona in any search engine you would probably have to scroll through hundreds of pages before you come to a site referencing any such religion, however, if you allow me to link this back to Bauerism, this makes it no less genuine or relevant for Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blobby124 (talk • contribs).

You can't possibly expect me to believe that there's people in the world that worship a fictional character on a television show. Believe me, I'm an avid 24 fan, but I would advise you to read over Wikipedia's notability criteria to determine whether Bauerism is notable or not. The key is "notable," not "genuine." I could start a religion that worships eggplant parmesan if I felt like it, but that doesn't mean it's important. Shadow1 (talk) 20:34, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Im biting my tongue now. Or lip. Or whatever it is that you bite while you type. With all due respect but you are in no position to tell anyone what religion you deem relevant or important. Believe it or not, people do follow the religion of Bauerism and its codes. However the case is not whether you believe it or not at all, the point is that this is a genuine religion and deserves more respect then you are giving it. I am a Bauerist myself and am nothing but offended that you would judge my religion and deem it unimportant, I would expect that on such a large site as wikipedia such issues would be treated with an ounce of sensitivity. I hope we can come to a speedy resoloution to this because I feel very strongly about this issue and will take this issue to higher powers if necessary.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Blobby124 (talk • contribs).

Please read the notability criteria. Bauerism lacks any reliable sources, which are necessary to write a Wikipedia article. Without them, there is no verifiability. Note that reliable sources must be independent of the religion itself; for example, news coverage by CNN, CBS, New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the LA Times, etc. Until you find them, there's no way that this 'Bauerism' can be on Wikipedia. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)