MediaWiki talk:Revertpage

message: 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)
thread_title: ''Obvious vandalism'' proposal

message: 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)
replies: text: Perhaps some code from User:Jnothman/afd helper ?  (vote+comment of AfDs?) ∴ here…♠ 10:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional comment ability

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: No, page is locked, you got spoiled by admin powers :) --Cool CatTalk|@ 07:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

text: How about "Reverted edits by $2 (User, Talk) to last version by $1" ? --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Version 

message: 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?  --RobertG ♬ talk 17:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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 Cole • t • c 17:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Block link 

message: Why not use the conventional  (i.e., ""—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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Format of username 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: It seems like a harmless change, and revision is quite clear, so I did it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: And done. (the IP above is me). -- nae'blis 05:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts could refer to the entire MediaWiki version? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: OK, I see your point. --JayTur1  (Contribs) 21:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting 

message: In a recent software change, I added PLURAL support for this message (and the related MediaWiki:Revertpage-nouser). That is not reflected here on enwiki yet because the message is customized, so it would probably be nice if an admin could change "edits" in these two messages to "". Jon Harald Søby (talk) 08:53, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Izno (talk) 16:18, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Izno: Thanks! Could you do the same for MediaWiki:Revertpage-nouser too? Jon Harald Søby (talk) 11:30, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  PLURAL support