Obvious vandalism proposalEdit

It was proposed to change the text of this;

Reverted edits by $2 to last version by $1

to

Reverted obvious vandalism by $2 to last version by $1

See Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Using_rollback for current discussion. Who?¿? 02:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Additional comment abilityEdit

Would it be possible to add the ability for further comment using this function?

Currently using, user script godmode-light.js . Proposed, incorrectly, at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_rollback_privileges#Need_additional_comment_ability_in_rollback

The editor of the resulting prior version ($1) is minimally important to me. See examples:

Auto: ( Reverted edits by 203.122.53.88 to last version by Dan East )
Hand: ( rv linkspam by 64.107.9.244 -- try link at List of news aggregators )

Necessary, is the ability to add a few words to the revert action (see Yoda). It should not be limited to vandalism, it is a useful ability.
here 09:42, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps some code from User:Jnothman/afd helper ? (vote+comment of AfDs?) here 10:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

New VersionEdit

This may be questioned, but I added links to the offender's user page and talk page. Though I think I'll just make it their talk page, in fact I'll change that now... Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 08:54, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

K, done. The reason I did this is so we can click the link to get to the offender's talk page and warn them about whatever vandalism or test they just did. Anyone can revert me. Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 08:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
No, page is locked, you got spoiled by admin powers :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 07:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
How about "Reverted edits by $2 (User, Talk) to last version by $1" ? --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Block linkEdit

I disagree with the recently introduced link to special/blockip. Linking to the user's talk page was a good idea because that is usually the first place to go after a rollback, and it's a useful link to any user. The special/blockip page, in contrast, is useless to all but about 800 users on Wikipedia, while only saving an admin one click (because there's a link to "block this user" off the talk page) every one-in-fifty-or-so (or is it one-in-a-hundred) times that a rollback is followed with a block without visiting the user's talk page (and it's polite to go to the user's talk page anyway to leave a message that they've been blocked). Besides which, would a better approach not be to devise some clever JavaScript to convert the "talk" link on history/contributions pages into a "talk|block" link-pair, and which admins could install in their user/monobook.js file? --RobertGtalk 17:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC) updated RobertGtalk 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Sort of agreed. I have no problem with the block link itself, but the introduction of a "SysOp" link is bad. If a user tries to click on the block link (and doesn't have admin access) they'll be told they can't perform that action and given a link to an article discussing administrative access. (I was going to copy/paste the exact message, but apparently the page auto-forwards you after a brief period to the main page). In other words, the "SysOp" link is redundant: the first time a non-admin clicks on the "block" link they'll figure out that it's not something for them to use. —Locke Coletc 17:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I also mostly agree with RobertG. It's exceedingly rare that a user would be treated as "shoot on sight" and blocked as soon as their name appears in the rollback link. The vast majority of the time, either a warning or a "You are blocked" message will be left on the talk page (where there's already a "Block User" link). Thus, the advantage of saving one click is pretty minimal. The fact that non-admins may be confused by the block link means that the downside outweighs the upside. However, I could see some use in having a software feature that would allow admins to enable such a link. Carbonite | Talk 17:30, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Format of usernameEdit

Why not use the conventional {{user}} (i.e., "$2 (talk · contribs)"—obviously substed, because transcluding potentially unprotected templates into MediaWiki: space is An Incredibly Bad Thing) instead of what we have now? Generally the username goes to the userpage, so what's wrong with making the contribs link explicit? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 06:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Too much fucking clutter. If I reverted Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington's edits, the summary would probably be truncated. —freak(talk) 22:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverts could refer to the entire MediaWiki version?Edit

{{editprotect}} "Reverted edits by $2 (talk) to last version by $1" → "Reverted edits by $2 (talk) to last revision by $1"

Please do not use version in revertpage edit summary. It refers to the entire MediaWiki version, not only regarding the diff revisions. — N96 01:54, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Just because we're using a specific version of the mediawiki software doesn't mean that the definition of the word "version" goes out the window! I think that most people realize that the "version" of the page is not referring to the MediaWiki version that Wikipedia was running at the time that the page was edited :-) —METS501 (talk) 02:33, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with METS501; I don't see a need for this change. Personally, I've never even considered that version could refer to anything related to MediaWiki. - auburnpilot talk 17:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
I can see what N96 means, in that version could refer to the version of the MediaWiki Software, but I do think that while being pretty obvious to most, there could be a few editors, like N96, who see it differently. Surely it should be clear to as many as possible? Stwalkerster talk 19:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
It seems like a harmless change, and revision is quite clear, so I did it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Cheers; revision seems harmlessly unambiguous. However 'version' is also used in things like the pink 'This is an archived version of this page' message, which we may want to change for consistency. Errr, that would be MediaWiki:Revision-info and MediaWiki:editingold. 64.126.24.12 16:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
And done. (the IP above is me). -- nae'blis 05:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

FormattingEdit

Change from Reverted edits by $2 (talk) to last version by $1 to Reverted edits by $2 (talk) to last version by $1, will be good. --JayTur1 (Contribs) 15:23, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. There is a good reason to link to the user whose changes were reverted, but very little reason to link to $1 who is usually any random editor ∴ AlexSm 06:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, I see your point. --JayTur1 (Contribs) 21:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

AESEdit

{{Editprotected}} Can an administrator add the AES arrow to this automatic edit summary? -- IRP 22:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Potentially controversial request - need consensus. --- RockMFR 01:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Sounds like a good idea to me. The rollback summary is listed at WP:AES; this seems appropriate. I am not sure why it is not already there. — Jake Wartenberg 00:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
It's not there because rollback predates AES by a long shot. I'm not convinced it belongs, though. AES says "An edit summary that links to this page via a left-pointing arrow (←) probably was left blank by the user and automatically filled in by the MediaWiki software." That's not the case with rollback, in which there's never an opportunity to fill in an edit summary. It really is a special case; if anything, there could be a link to Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Chick Bowen 03:39, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
That is not a bad idea. Do we want to do the arrow and a link to WP:ROLLBACK? — Jake Wartenberg 03:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
What about its own arrow, like ↔? That way it's clearer what it is. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 06:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, if you use User:Gracenotes/rollback.js, you do have an opportunity to fill in an edit summary. -- IRP 15:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
I like Chick Bowen's idea, although I don't think a different arrow is required, since the arrow points both ways and doesn't make much sense in that respect. With regard to Gracenotes' .js page: that's a customised user script and is immaterial to the way rollback functions by default. —Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:32, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: If it is not an automatic edit summary, then it should be removed from the list at WP:AES. If it is listed there, it needs to have the AES arrow, otherwise it doesn't make sense. -- IRP 20:09, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Either it needs to be removed from WP:AES or have an AES arrow added to it. Right now, it is confusing because it is listed at WP:AES but it has no AES arrow.

{{Editprotected}} Administrator, see the posts above. -- IRP 21:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I see, but I don't see a clear consensus for a specific form. In any case, before this is change is made I'd like to adapt the Huggle config so that the reverts are still recognized as reverts (preferably a day before the actual change is made).
Is
[[Wikipedia:RBK|←]]Reverted edits by [[Special:Contributions/$1|$1]] ([[User talk:$1|talk]]) to last version by $2
the version that can be agreed upon?
Amalthea 19:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
No, however, the code above is very close. I was proposing:
[[Wikipedia:AES|←]]Reverted edits by [[Special:Contributions/$1|$1]] ([[User talk:$1|talk]]) to last version by $2
If that code is not implemented soon, then I would recommend removing this edit summary from the list at WP:AES to reduce confusion. -- IRP 20:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
From what I see above a number of people would rather point it at WP:RBK. I tend to agree, if we have a dedicated page for the function we should link there. In any case, I don't really find it confusing that it is listed at WP:AES. It is an automatic edit summary, with a different format. The same goes for the "new section" edit summaries. --Amalthea 20:22, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with pointing to Rollback. -- lucasbfr talk 15:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I disagree with it pointing to WP:RBK. That would be just like the having arrow of "Blanked the page" point to Wikipedia:Blanking a page. -- IRP 21:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Not really, Blanking a page is an essay, whereas rollback is a guideline page. -- lucasbfr talk 06:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
How about using: [[Wikipedia:AES|←]][[WP:RBK|Reverted]] edits by [[Special:Contributions/$1|$1]] ([[User talk:$1|talk]]) to last version by $2? Having the word "reverted" link to it appears more correct. -- IRP 22:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Great idea! Stupid thought though: we might want to poke the technical village pump too, because I'm sure some tools use the edit summary to detect a rollback. I'll do it. -- lucasbfr talk 09:28, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Personally I don't see the need for any extra links or cute little arrows. The important information is whose edits were reverted and to which version, and that's already there. An arrow linking to WP:RBK might be useful to someone somewhere, possibly; an arrow to WP:AES certainly not (WP:AES talks only about edit summaries filled in by the software when someone leaves the edit summary box blank - clearly this is not what happens with rollback). Linking to both is just excessive linkage IMO but really either seems superfluous at best and confusing at worst. "If it isn't broke, fix it until it is"... wait, that's not how it goes. – Steel 13:17, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then there would be no arrow on the "new section" automatic edit summary. -- IRP 20:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
It's similar to the others in a way that rollback isn't. Though this is really tangential to the point. – Steel 22:38, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
If it's not an automatic edit summary, then why is it listed at WP:AES? -- IRP 22:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
  Done -- lucasbfr talk 08:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This should be undone. We do not need edit summaries being stuffed up with bluelinks. Majorly talk 14:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for the arrow's addition, and it should be explained that the purpose of WP:AES is to clarify that a linked summary (which often indicates an inappropriate act) was not typed by the user as a means of bragging about a misdeed (which might actually have been a well-meaning test edit). This is not an issue with rollback, as anyone with the function enabled should be familiar enough with Wikipedia practices to not perform such edits.
There really isn't a need for the rollback summary to be listed on that page, incidentally. —David Levy 14:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Dunno, I see your point on AES, but as a summary created by the software it makes sense having it listed too. That's an other discussion though, since rollback was removed from the AES page it makes no sense having the link. Actually, 1 user disagreeing and 4 agreeing looks like a consensus to me ;)) -- lucasbfr talk 09:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
The page's purpose is not to list "[summaries] created by the software"; it's to document automatic edit summaries that are otherwise likely to be mistaken for deliberate declarations of vandalism (a problematic misunderstanding before the WP:AES link was added). However, I didn't regard the inclusion of other automatic summaries as problematic until this issue arose.
To what are you referring when you mention "1 user disagreeing and 4 agreeing"? —David Levy 11:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Also note that previous discussion regarding the WP:AES link's inclusion in MediaWiki:Undo-summary (which actually can be triggered by inexperienced users, though not as readily as other automatic edit summaries can be) resulted in a link to WP:UNDO (in the same format as the current link to WP:RBK) instead. —David Levy 14:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Majorly. I see no purpose in this, except the fact that edit summaries are being stuffed with blue links. Garion96 (talk) 13:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
For the record, I don't particularly care whether the word "Reverted" serves as a link to WP:RBK. Either way is fine, in my opinion. —David Levy 14:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 March 2014Edit

Please replace the following things to shorten the length of the text that these default summaries take (allowing more room for custom summaries):

  • Save nine characters with:
  • Replace: [[Help:Reverting|Reverted]] (Reverted)
  • With: [[H:REV|Reverted]] (Reverted)
  • Save five characters with:
  • Replace: [[Special:Contributions/$2|$2]] ($2)
  • With: [[Special:Contribs/$2|$2]] ($2)
  • Save twenty characters with:
  • Replace: [[Wikipedia:Pending changes|pending]] (pending)
  • With: [[WP:PC|pending]] (pending)

For a total of 34 extra characters available for custom edit summaries. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 18:49, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

Please use Help:RV instead of H:REV. Since cross-namespace redirects currently have a shaky future, it would be a bad idea to bake this one into a bunch of edit summaries. Jackmcbarn (talk) 23:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)
  Not done: I actually changed Wikipedia:Pending changes to WP:PC, but then I undid it. Saving characters in the edit summary is a good thing, but I'm reluctant to use shortcuts, because then it locks us into using that shortcut for that particular page. Who's to say that we will still want to link WP:PC to Wikipedia:Pending changes in 100 years' time? Also, as another slight downside, it means we would have to protect the redirects involved. I'm not totally opposed to this, but the lock-in aspect makes me think that it should at least be discussed first. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 03:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Stradivarius, it already was discussed on Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 124#Difference between revisions pages comment truncation and consensus seemed to me that these shortenings should happen and Jackmcbarn even submitted a patch for other wikis that don't currently use the Special:Contribs shortcut. There was no dispute about the rest of the shortcuts. Also, this doesn't "lock us in" to anything. If any of these shortcuts are deleted at a later date, there's no reason that this interface message can't just be updated again at that time. — {{U|Technical 13}} (tec) 13:27, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
  Partly done: Well, you can't expect me to know that there has been previous discussion if it's not on this page and you haven't linked to it in your request. And it would lock us in - if we changed the shortcuts at a later date, all the edit summaries that had used them would then have broken links. Not wanting to break the links would make people not want to change the shortcut target. As an alternative, I've done what some in that discussion had suggested and removed the links to the help pages altogether. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 13:56, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
For the record, my patch wasn't accepted. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:02, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Meh. I actually kinda like the link to Help:Reverting. Help:RV works just fine. I understand the paranoia of using shortcuts in edit summaries, which are written in stone. However, there are already a large amount of shortcuts that are being used, and changing one of them would break every single page that had the link. If we changed WP:COOL to something else, a reader would click on that, expecting to see "How to stay cool when the editing gets hot" but instead getting something else. It's not like we haven't gone through this already - see WP:B. "B" could mean anything - bot, bureaucrat, boldly editing, blocks, bans, etc. To fix that, the page uses this:
''"WP:B" redirects here. You might be looking for [[Wikipedia:Bureaucrats]], [[Wikipedia:Blocking policy]], [[Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy]] or [[Wikipedia:Be bold]].''
If we do have to change a shortcut, we'll need to use this solution. But the thing is, if we want a link so new editors don't need to pester the rollbacker with "How did you revert my edit??", we need to be bold, stop asking "What if...?", and do it! K6ka (talk | contribs) 16:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, we have hatnotes, but that's not quite the same as getting through to the target page in one click. And not getting through in one click will always be confusing for newer users. Anyway, now that this is done, I'd rather only change it again if there is a consensus to do so. If you would prefer a different version, perhaps you could open a new thread about it on WP:VPT, or open an RfC here? Best — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
@Jackmcbarn: Does that mean that it would be better to stick with Special:Contributions rather than Special:Contribs? — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 09:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
No, using Special:Contribs here is fine. My request to do it was declined because it would have caused problems for other languages, because it tried to programmatically figure out the shortest name of the page. Jackmcbarn (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Return to "Revertpage" page.