Wikipedia talk:How to revert a page to an earlier version

message: Don't be hasty to revert. You can always revert later.
* But we don't want blatant POV to remain for any length of time!
** Who is "we"? Some articles have had POV for years anyway. If you're not hasty, the benefit: Second thoughts may be more valuable than the first.
* This is difficult. They are too hasty sometime. But then some edits are just bad, and we don't need them in public view. Maybe we should have a sandbox mode- allow a page to be edited, but the edits would not show up until some time passed or someone used the Publish button.
** Why not have a voluntary one-hour wait on reversions of edits that are being debated; wait for a response on the talk page before you revert.
*** But people often don't do that and are unwilling to discuss. This means a bad page (inaccurate, misleading) is visible longer. Most initial reversions are just antivandalism.
*** Simpler idea. Why not just have a 2-3 minute "cool off" period following a revert? Also, this idea has no chance of being implemented.
*** Why not just use the talk page?
****The talk page isn't as "tactile", and it helps to be able to see context better, with actual article text.
***** Yes, but you can always copy article content or add a subpage.
* Repeated reversion is pointless. But this guideline might confuse new users, if they even know about it.
* The reverts aren't the problem, it's the lack of discussion. All reverts should be justified and all reverters should be ready to discuss.
* (Newbie Opinion) If it's clear that an edit war is underway, why not just acknowledge the dispute within the article until it is resolved (e.g. with a discreet talk-page link at the appropriate place noting that the statement is currently under dispute)?  Then someone can fix it later once the war has cooled off and discussion has taken place.  Meanwhile, newcomers to the article won't be misled by bad edits/POV. --68.85.27.88 04:01, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hastiness in reverting 

message: Does the 3-revert limit apply based on a 24-hour period, a UTC day, or some other meaning of day? Current practice has been to use a 24-hour period (see User talk:Wik#Arbitration committee ruling). This also makes the most sense, since otherwise people could get in up to 6 reverts in an hour or so and claim not to have violated this rule/guideline. --Michael Snow 21:52, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: this page is still listed on Wikipedia:Requests for comment... anyway - I agree with Ben if that helps. Erich 04:52, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: What is a day?

message: When a banned user comes back with vengeance, on multiple IPs, it seems clear that people should ignore the 3-rv rule (and simultaneously work to block an aggressive vandal).  There may be only ten interested parties online, and a vandal can easily blank a page thirty or fifty times in a day.  Some people rv'ing vogelisms today apparently (iir[#irc]c) stopped after three per page, perhaps an unfortunate side effect of this guideline.  I added two relevant sentences to section 4.  +sj+ 19:45, 2004 May 10 (UTC)
:There is no reason for a vandal to be able to blank a page 50 times in a day. Just protect the page! I see no need for an exception to the 3 revert rule here. Angela. 07:20, May 11, 2004 (UTC)
: Like Angela, I'd say protecting pages and/or temp-blocking IPs should be simple enough, with current policy, so I don't see that an exception for banned users is necessary. It might also generate some strife in the case of suspected reincarnations (whether mistaken identity or otherwise). Martin 18:06, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  coping with banned users 

message: I've been going through recent changes (live) a little lately, and frequently have to revert vandalism. I find that there are too many steps involved:
#Check the diff.
#Go to the old version.
#Click "edit".
#Add summary and save.
If there were an "edit this version (for reversion purposes only!)" button in the diff-viewing page, it'd help:
#Check the diff.
#Click "edit".
#Add summary and save.
I propose that. (In fact, if there were a "revert to this version with summary ____" form on the diff page, it'd be even fewer steps:
#Check the diff.
#Add summary and revert.
— but I'm not proposaing that. I think it would be too easily abused and take up too much room on the page.)
What think you all? —msh210 14:11, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sysops can do that (using the rollback feature), but if we gave that ability to every user, it would make causing vandalism just as easy as reverting it.  Also, could you imagine the edit wars ;) -Frazzydee|✍ 00:33, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverting process &mdash; too many steps? 

message: I see that many users reverting newbie tests use the edit summary "rv vandalism". Is this the proper summary or should something "kinder", such as "rv testing" or just "rv" be used? After all, newbie tests are specifically listed under what Vandalism is not. With that said, RC-patrollers are making very valuable contributions! Sjakkalle 08:43, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think "rv vandalism" should be discouraged in the case of simple newbie tests: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. (It doesn't hurt to err on the charitable side at first if it is vandalism, since you can be sterner in the future; it does hurt to drive people away who were just testing by calling them vandals.) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:38, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

text: I see Reverted edits by User to the last edit of Author and the user will have a hyperlink to their contirbution.  It seems easy enough but I havn't figured that out (somone reply with the text to do that with).  It also dosn't give a POV link Mindspillage said. Supercoop 16:38, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit summaries when reverting tests 

message: Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide says that there's a rollback link on the article history page for admins. Well, I'm an admin, and I can't find one. There's one on the diff page, and on the user contributions page, but not on the history page. Having one at the history page would speed up revertions. — JIP | Talk 16:35, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rollback link on history page? 

message: I've noticed one issue surrounding page reverts that I find annoying.
Several times, I've reverted obvious vandalism—but with an unexpected result. This has happened when I was reverting to a version that was credited to me. The article reverts to the last edit made by someone else other than me.
I can somewhat understand why this is, assuming it's Wikipedia policy... but it makes it VERY inconvenient to revert a page when I know I made the last helpful edit.
Any comments? – Dale Arnett 15:57, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert glitch? 

message: How do I do such thing?  I revert a lot of vandalism, but sometimes, I see people who use that line in their summary.  How can I do this?  Is this even possible to do automatically, or is it manual?  Sorry, I'm still quite new to Wikipedia.  Could someone maybe put it in my talk in case I don't get back to this page?  Thanks -Tcwd (talk) 21:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Reverted Edits by User to last version by User2"