| Revision as of 05:40, 12 April 2009 editXeno (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Bureaucrats, Administrators103,385 editsm →Users: oops, you said everyone← Previous edit | Revision as of 06:46, 12 April 2009 edit undoDream Focus (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers39,004 edits →Users: I assure you, a super villain I am not. I am an agent of justice, nothing moreNext edit → | ||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
| *::Why not? Do people not have the right to be contacted, and told, hey, you said Keep, but we decided to delete everything anyway(but don't worry, the history is preserved), and redirect it to some other article which has no more than a single sentence about the topic. Unless there is a policy somewhere showing what the tools are to be and not to be used for, then it shouldn't matter. And none of the others were asked what they intended to do with them, some of them surely up to no good. My intentions are good, my philosophies sound, and my virtue noble. Give me the tools to reshape the world, and I shall make it a far better place. ]''' 05:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | *::Why not? Do people not have the right to be contacted, and told, hey, you said Keep, but we decided to delete everything anyway(but don't worry, the history is preserved), and redirect it to some other article which has no more than a single sentence about the topic. Unless there is a policy somewhere showing what the tools are to be and not to be used for, then it shouldn't matter. And none of the others were asked what they intended to do with them, some of them surely up to no good. My intentions are good, my philosophies sound, and my virtue noble. Give me the tools to reshape the world, and I shall make it a far better place. ]''' 05:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *:::People might object to being contacted just by participating in an AFD discussion. You might want to raise this suggestion at ] before using automated tools to carry it out. In any case, I wouldn't want to overturn Rodhullandemu's decision unless he signaled that his concerns have been allayed. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 05:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | *:::People might object to being contacted just by participating in an AFD discussion. You might want to raise this suggestion at ] before using automated tools to carry it out. In any case, I wouldn't want to overturn Rodhullandemu's decision unless he signaled that his concerns have been allayed. –<font face="Verdana">] (])</font> 05:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| *::::I can't imagine anyone not wishing to be told their decision was being overruled in secret. If they cared enough to make the effort to participate in an AFD, then they surely care about the results. Anyway, Rodhullandemu didn't say no, only expressed some minor concerns, which I believe I explained away. It felt more like a "not quite sure about this fellow after but a glance", more than a "I'm pretty sure he is the devil himself, and will bring about our utter destruction! These tools must be forever denied him, less he destroy us all." But I'll go and contact him on his talk page, and ask him about it. ]''' 06:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC) | |||
| *{{AWBUser|Amore Mio}} 15:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | *{{AWBUser|Amore Mio}} 15:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
| :{{done}} ]] 15:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | :{{done}} ]] 15:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC) | ||
Revision as of 06:46, 12 April 2009
AutoWikiBrowser 6.3.1.1- Home
Introduction and rules - User manual
How to use AWB - Discussion
Discuss AWB, report errors, and request features - User tasks
Request or help with AWB-able tasks - Technical
Technical documentation
- Changelog
- Developer discussion
- Modules
- Regular expression
- Sandbox
- Template redirects
- Typos
- Usage stats
- Userbox
 Archives |
|---|
Requests for registration
Please read the quick guide on the main page before requesting permission. In applying for AWB access, you indicate that you will abide by that agreement. Also, this page is for requesting AWB Access for this wiki (English Misplaced Pages) only. Other projects have their own check pages and you should ask local sysops to add you there. Thank you.
Names
Please add your name to the bottom of the list using *{{AWBUser|your username}} ~~~~~ (write it exactly as it is, don't add underscores instead of spaces or change case of first letter). (That's 5 tildes). If the list contains entries that are over 48 hours old, please mention this (nicely) at WP:AN, and an admin should be by shortly to process the requests. Note that users with under 500 mainspace edits are RARELY approved. Also, you only need to give a reason for wanting AWB access if you have fewer than 500 mainspace edits! If approved, your name will be added to the CheckPage.
Example of code format: * {{AWBUser|Username}} ~~~~~
(5 tildes post the date stamp)
Users
- Dream Focus (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email) 22:16, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Not done Your edits to articles are 484, below the normal 500 for which we would grant use of AWB. However, a block within the last two weeks worries me that you don't yet fully understand our policies, and accordingly, I think some water needs to pass under the bridge before this can be considered. You are, however, welcome to seek a second opinion. Rodhullandemu 22:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. I thought it was the Total edits, which I have 1942, but its only article edits. Alright. I was blocked for 12 hours, for making a mistake, which I had already apologized for before the block. Just some miscommunications, people not explaining what bothered them right away, regretfully. My other block was for reverting an article more than three times, because I thought it was allowed if someone was vandalizing the article by removing the Rescue tag, which others agreed. That block was 24 hours. Anyway, I'll apply again once I have 500 edits. Dream Focus 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like a second opinion now. :) I now have 500 edits to Articles. Also, since the block was for something minor, and it was just a misunderstanding, and I did apologize for my mistake before the block, they just not seeing where, I don't think that should be held against me. And whether it happened weeks ago, or a lifetime ago, it wouldn't make any difference. It isn't like I bother giving it any thought on a daily basis, now that it is said and gone. Dream Focus 04:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps, to alleviate our concerns, you could elaborate on what you task(s) you plan on completing with AWB? –xeno (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Whenever there is a vote to Keep for an article, if anyone tries to then merge it without first gaining consensus, as often happens, I wish to automatically contact everyone who participated in the AFD discussion, regardless of their vote, and inform them of the discussion. Some really sneaky people wait weeks before going back to an article the majority wanted to keep, and eliminating it, replacing it with a redirect elsewhere, and not even 1% of the information actually merged anywhere. Shameless really. So, in that case, I wish to gather up all those who participated before hand, so that a proper consensus can be formed. Dream Focus 17:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps, to alleviate our concerns, you could elaborate on what you task(s) you plan on completing with AWB? –xeno (talk) 19:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- I'd like a second opinion now. :) I now have 500 edits to Articles. Also, since the block was for something minor, and it was just a misunderstanding, and I did apologize for my mistake before the block, they just not seeing where, I don't think that should be held against me. And whether it happened weeks ago, or a lifetime ago, it wouldn't make any difference. It isn't like I bother giving it any thought on a daily basis, now that it is said and gone. Dream Focus 04:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oh, sorry. I thought it was the Total edits, which I have 1942, but its only article edits. Alright. I was blocked for 12 hours, for making a mistake, which I had already apologized for before the block. Just some miscommunications, people not explaining what bothered them right away, regretfully. My other block was for reverting an article more than three times, because I thought it was allowed if someone was vandalizing the article by removing the Rescue tag, which others agreed. That block was 24 hours. Anyway, I'll apply again once I have 500 edits. Dream Focus 01:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
- Can I get some more feed back here? Since I meet all requirements now, having over 500 edits, is there any reason to deny me? Do your personal opinions of the person and their policies influence your decisions at all? Its not some deletionists agenda to keep some me from saving articles with the tool is it? Because when most people say Keep, not merge, they want the article kept, not secretly eliminated a few weeks later without anyone realizing it, and replaced with a simple redirect. Dream Focus 05:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not at all (deletionist's agenda), but I don't think this could really be considered an appropriate use for AWB. –xeno (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why not? Do people not have the right to be contacted, and told, hey, you said Keep, but we decided to delete everything anyway(but don't worry, the history is preserved), and redirect it to some other article which has no more than a single sentence about the topic. Unless there is a policy somewhere showing what the tools are to be and not to be used for, then it shouldn't matter. And none of the others were asked what they intended to do with them, some of them surely up to no good. My intentions are good, my philosophies sound, and my virtue noble. Give me the tools to reshape the world, and I shall make it a far better place. Dream Focus 05:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- People might object to being contacted just by participating in an AFD discussion. You might want to raise this suggestion at WP:VPP before using automated tools to carry it out. In any case, I wouldn't want to overturn Rodhullandemu's decision unless he signaled that his concerns have been allayed. –xeno (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can't imagine anyone not wishing to be told their decision was being overruled in secret. If they cared enough to make the effort to participate in an AFD, then they surely care about the results. Anyway, Rodhullandemu didn't say no, only expressed some minor concerns, which I believe I explained away. It felt more like a "not quite sure about this fellow after but a glance", more than a "I'm pretty sure he is the devil himself, and will bring about our utter destruction! These tools must be forever denied him, less he destroy us all." But I'll go and contact him on his talk page, and ask him about it. Dream Focus 06:46, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- People might object to being contacted just by participating in an AFD discussion. You might want to raise this suggestion at WP:VPP before using automated tools to carry it out. In any case, I wouldn't want to overturn Rodhullandemu's decision unless he signaled that his concerns have been allayed. –xeno (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Why not? Do people not have the right to be contacted, and told, hey, you said Keep, but we decided to delete everything anyway(but don't worry, the history is preserved), and redirect it to some other article which has no more than a single sentence about the topic. Unless there is a policy somewhere showing what the tools are to be and not to be used for, then it shouldn't matter. And none of the others were asked what they intended to do with them, some of them surely up to no good. My intentions are good, my philosophies sound, and my virtue noble. Give me the tools to reshape the world, and I shall make it a far better place. Dream Focus 05:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Not at all (deletionist's agenda), but I don't think this could really be considered an appropriate use for AWB. –xeno (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Amore Mio (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email) 15:34, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Done - Kyle1278 (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)
- South Bay (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)
- TravisAF (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email) 04:21, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
- Gnowor (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email) 02:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
- Naraht (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email) 04:33, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Bots
- Please only list approved/trial approved bots here and add a link to your bot approval in the form ].
Discussion
 | Use this section only for discussing the check page itself. Please direct all other comments and questions to the main discussion page. |
- Previous discussions are here
Edit counter tool
Links to a tool that doesn't work. Suggest the link is to Special:Preferences instead. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- It may be slow, but I don't have a problem with it; the problem with Special:Preferences is that each user can see only their own info, which wouldn't be any use to us. --Rodhullandemu 21:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was going to post the same, then realised, he meant on Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage/Guide (i think), so have updated that. —Reedy 21:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- FWIW, I usually just click the "contribs" and then if there's an "older 500" bluelinked I know they have at least 500 mainsapce edits =) –xeno (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks - done now. I was referring to Misplaced Pages:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage#Guide which suggested users check their own edit count before requesting AWB. Not sure why it's appeared here (it was meant to appear on the template talk page but there's a few redirects and templating going on!! AndrewRT(Talk) 21:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)