MediaWiki talk:Revertpage
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Obvious vandalism proposal
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'_noticeboard#Using_rollback for current discussion. ∞Who?¿? 02:54, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Additional comment ability
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)
[edit] New Version
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)
- How about "Reverted edits by $2 (User, Talk) to last version by $1" ? --Cool CatTalk|@ 15:36, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Block link
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) updated RobertG ♬ talk 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 Cole • t • c 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)
[edit] Format of username
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)
