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.
Thank you. Although, what I was looking for here is feedback as to whether the bot's action was as intended, as it undid my undo. As I understand it, an editor should be able to revert the bot's undo without it re-undoing. It also states on my Talk page "feel free to undo the bot's revert". As I wrote in the edit summary when I undid its undo: "Other sources sufficiently corroborate the viral meme nature, so brief one-off use of Know Your Meme should be fine here." Per WP:KNOWYOURMEME it is generally unreliable, and its use discouraged, but it is not a deprecated source, and WP:RSP, per WP:RSPISNOT, isn't a policy or guideline. There were also no edits in between the revisions. I added +3,540 chars, the bot undid with −3,540, then I re-added with +3,540. But then the bot re-undid with −3,540, and that seems strange. It is an automated process, the bot is not a human editor, and my last edit was already tagged "reverting anti-vandal bot". Shouldn't the bot then leave it alone, and have humans take a look at it? --62.166.252.159 (talk) 07:22, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@62.166.252.159 yes, it is, knowyourmeme is on override. People kept insisting that for ‘their use’ it was fine and hence were consistently reverting XLinkBot on this link. Its not fine, find other sources (in your case you had that already). Primary and nonRS sources can be fine in some cases, but if there are better sources they are superfluous. Dirk BeetstraTC04:46, 2 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Noticed you recently helped edit my wiki page--it's considered for deletion if you want to comment
Regarding my edit on the V. P. Nandakumar page(1307757231)
Hello Editor, I noticed you reverted an edit I made on the V. P. Nandakumar page, citing "unconstructive vandalism." I'm writing to clarify that my intention was to add missing information. I had made extensive research on the subject, had quoted supporting websites and against each quoted facts. I believe this change would be beneficial to the article because as the article was having very limited information. If you have a moment, could you please explain what specifically about my edit appeared to be vandalism so I can understand your perspective and we can hopefully find a resolution?
@Harivalath No, that was not this bot, and not even another bot or user. Your edit that was recently reverted had a clear indication about what was wrong with the edit (not "unconstructive vandalism"). Dirk BeetstraTC06:07, 27 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
